RMEF 2010 Elk Hunting Forecast

MISSOULA, Mont.–Elk and elk hunting opportunities are abundant in much of North America, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is offering a sneak peek at upcoming seasons in its annual roundup of hunt forecasts for 28 states and provinces, now posted at www.rmef.org.

“Generally speaking, elk populations are in great shape and hunters have much to look forward to across the West, as well as in several Midwestern and Eastern states,” said David Allen, president and CEO of the Elk Foundation. “A mild winter, much needed spring and summer moisture and our habitat conservation successes all factor into our optimism for the upcoming hunting season.”

This summer, RMEF passed the 5.8 million acre mark for habitat conserved or enhanced for elk and other wildlife.

Allen added, however, that wolves continue to be a growing concern in regions where the predators share habitat with elk and other big game herds. In some areas, elk calf survival rates are now insufficient to sustain herds for the future. The urgent need to control wolf populations is a localized wildlife management crisis now compounded by a recent court decision to return wolves to full federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. RMEF has asked Congress to intervene and grant management authority to the states.

Here’s a condensed look at elk data from state and provincial wildlife conservation agencies. To see these forecasts in their entirety, with links to respective elk regulations or other Web pages, visit www.rmef.org. For even more coverage, see the Sept./Oct. 2010 edition of the RMEF member magazine, Bugle. To join, call 800-CALL ELK.

Alaska
· Elk Population: Kodiak Archipelago (GMU 8), 650; Etolin (GMU 3), not available
· Bull/Cow Ratios: Not available
· Nonresidents: $85 hunting license plus $300 elk tag, and must hire a guide
· Hunter Success: GMU 8, 17 percent; GMU 3, 5 percent
While bulls in the lower 48 average 700 pounds, bulls in GMU 3′s South Etolin Wilderness in southeast Alaska can get up to 1,300. However, recent success rates hover at just 5 percent with an annual average of six bulls killed for the entire unit. Zarembo Island northwest of Etolin has remained closed to hunting since 2006 because of low elk numbers. For GMU 8 in southern Alaska, odds are considerably better at 17 percent. Area biologist Larry van Deale says some recent trophies would have made the record books had the hunters cared to enter them.

Alberta
· Elk Population: 33,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $255, must hire a guide
· Hunter Success: Not available
This province offers opportunities for fine elk hunting as herds expand east and south onto the prairies and parklands. As herds grow, managers establish more hunting opportunities–last year alone saw three new areas open to elk hunting. Some of the biggest bulls are in these new units. The northern-most units have hunts well into January, and landowners typically welcome responsible cow hunters with open arms. The best (and only) shot for a nonresident is to go through an outfitter, as they are allotted roughly 10 percent of draw tags.

Arizona
· Elk Population: 25,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 34/100
· Nonresidents: $121 hunting license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $595 elk permit
· Hunter Success: 30 percent
Even though the state claims 25,000 elk, its mesas and arroyos could be hiding upwards of 40,000, says Brian Wakeling, Arizona’s game branch chief. They conduct elk counts in August and September, and the thick tree cover makes it tough to get accurate counts with aerial surveys. Overlooked elk means better odds for hunters. Plus, with abundant moisture this winter and little winterkill, elk herds are flourishing. Last year saw little daylight rut activity with bulls bugling only by moonlight, which held bowhunter success to around 25 percent. Logic says those big bulls that survived merely got bigger for this season. Also note the agency’s goal to get bull/cow ratios down to 25/100 to create more hunter opportunity. Translation: more bull tags.

Arkansas
· Elk Population: 500
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
· Nonresidents: varies for private landowner tags and three auction tags
· Hunter Success: 42 percent
When Arkansas held its first elk-hunting season in 1998, hunter success was close to 100 percent. Now the elk are far wilier. Out-of-state hunters have a couple options: either buy an auction tag or contact a landowner for access. For the latter, hunters must receive written permission from the landowner to hunt their private property, and can only hunt there. Available tags remain the same as last year: 29 public-land tags (8 bull, 16 antlerless, 2 either-sex youth tags, plus 3 either-sex auction tags).

British Columbia
· Elk Population: 50,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
· Nonresidents: $189 hunting license plus $262.50 for elk permit. Must hire a guide.
· Hunter Success: Not available
This province boasts a thriving population of Rocky Mountain elk and some of the biggest Roosevelt’s bulls in the world, says Stephen MacIver, wildlife regulations officer. However, a hunter must first hurdle the odds of drawing a limited-entry tag. The odds are roughly 35:1. However, guides are allotted a percentage of the tags. Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast in the far west have strong populations of Roosevelt’s. For Rocky Mountain elk, your best bet would be the Kootenay region in the southeast, which boasts the province’s highest success rates. Another good option is the agricultural zones in the Peace River region.

California
· Elk Population: 1,500 Rocky Mountains, 6,000 Roosevelt’s, 3,900 tules
· Bull/Cow Ratios: 20/100 to 90/100
· Nonresidents: $145 hunting license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $1,173 elk permit
· Hunter Success: 75 percent
Conditions are ripe for a world’s record tule, says Joe Hobbs, California Fish and Game elk coordinator. On the East Park Reservoir Unit, good spring rains this year and a low harvest of old bulls last year have left the environment in top shape for antler growth. The bad news? Your odds of drawing a bull tag there are 1 in 350. On the Grizzly Island unit, odds are 1 in 1,000. Auction tags are a possibility, too, but if odds and auctions aren’t your thing, private landowners receive a limited number of tags, and some are available for sale. The Marble Mountains unit in the northwest has 35 bull tags, 10 antlerless and 5 late-season muzzleloader/archery either-sex tags.

Colorado
· Elk Population: 286,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 30/100
· Nonresidents: cow $354, any elk $544
· Hunter Success: 23 percent
Colorado is the land of plenty for elk and elk hunters but it isn’t currently known for producing behemoth bulls. That could be a different story this hunting season. The past two falls have been cursed with warm weather. In the northwest where many of the bigger bulls roam, elk migration didn’t even begin until after regular rifle seasons were over. Couple that with abundant spring and summer moisture producing high quality forage and the setup is perfect for more trophy bulls. The state’s more-than 200,000 elk hunters also will find that cow tags have gone up $100, the Division of Wildlife has recommended cutting 1,500 cow/either-sex rifle tags across the state, and over-the-counter archery licenses for units 54, 55 and 551 have been nixed. On the other hand, places where herds remain above objective, such as the Gunnison Basin, will see more rifle tags available.

Idaho
· Elk Population: 101,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 25/100
· Nonresidents: license $155, tag $417
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Since 2007, Idaho’s elk population has fallen by 24,000. And for the second year in a row, out-of-state tag revenues in the state have mirrored that trend. Hunters list wolves, the economy and nonresident tag prices as factors. This isn’t ideal for state wildlife coffers, but it could be ideal if you’re looking for elk hunting all to yourself. Wolves have hit elk populations hard in the classic elk country of the Lolo, Sawtooth and Selway areas, and the state has capped tags. Bull/cow and cow/calf ratios are in tough shape, and the statewide population could fall below 100,000 for the first time in decades. But the declines are by no means across the board. Elk populations are at or above objectives in 22 of 29 elk hunt zones. And a mild winter boosted cow and calf elk survival rates across most of the state. The Beaverhead, Lemhi, Island Park, Teton, Snake River, Palisades and Tex Creek zones all have healthy herds and offer the kind of elk hunting Idaho is famous for.

Kansas
· Elk Population: 250-275
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
· Nonresidents: Private landowner permits and one Commissioner’s Permit, usually sold at auction
· Hunter Success: 75 percent either sex, 50 anterless
Kansas now has unlimited over-the-counter either-sex elk tags. In certain counties across the state, namely those not adjacent to Fort Riley or Cimarron National Grasslands, any resident can purchase one, hook up with a landowner and hunt elk. Landowners in Hamilton County in western Kansas voiced concern over crop depredation, and biologists responded with the liberal permits. If you care to play the odds, enter the drawing for a once-in-a-lifetime tag. More than half the state’s elk reside on and around 100,000-acre Fort Riley, which allows hunting: 12 either-sex (up 4 from last year) and 15 antlerless permits.

Kentucky
· Elk Population: 10,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-40/100
· Nonresidents: $10 to apply, $365 for permit, $130 for hunting license
· Hunter Success: 80 percent
This year, the Bluegrass State’s wapiti hunt was so in-demand that applicants from all 50 states applied, plus the District of Columbia. That’s a great vote of confidence for the East’s biggest herd, but it means the odds of drawing got even longer for nonresidents: 1:200. For Kentuckians, you’re competing against 29,000 other hunters for 720 tags–far better odds at 1:42. Permit numbers in the state have been on a rollercoaster. Last year, permits rocketed up 50 percent to 1,000 tags. Hunters had 60 percent success on cows and 91 percent on bulls. So, managers reined in the number of permits this year back to 800 in hopes of beefing up the population.

Manitoba
· Elk Population: 6,500
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-45/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Elk are the “most desired species to hunt” among province residents, says Ken Rebizant, provincial big game manager. Traditional strongholds such as the Porcupine, Interlake and Duck Mountain regions are going to have elk, and big ones, but they’re tough draws, as the province has no over-the-counter tags. But, since bovine tuberculosis has impacted the Riding Mountain herd, provoking managers to reduce herd numbers, interest in that area has waned. That may be all a resident needs to finally draw an elk tag.

Michigan
· Elk Population: 780
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 70 percent
For years, the state has tried to get its elk numbers down to around 800 and now it seems managers have succeeded. The tendency for elk to wreak havoc on some ag operations in the northern lower peninsula had managers working hard to reduce the herd. Now that they’ve hit their mark, Michigan will offer 230 tags, 150 less than last year. This year, the state will offer 75 any-elk tags with 155 antlerless.

Minnesota
· Elk Population: 170
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 79 percent
This year, Minnesota will issue 11 once-in-a-lifetime tags for two separate seasons. Last year, 2,072 applicants put their name in for 30 permits. The state gives landowners 20 percent of the available tags. Last year, managers were able to work out a five-year management plan that calls for 30-38 elk in the Grygla herd, 20-30 animals in the Kittson Central herd and a currently undetermined number in the Caribou-Vita herd. Discussions are being held between the state DNR and Manitoba Conservation regarding population goals for the Caribou-Vita herd, which freely travels across the border.

Montana
· Elk Population: 150,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 5-25/100
· Nonresidents: $593
· Hunter Success: 22 percent
There are plenty of elk in many pockets of Big Sky country. In fact, Montana continues to boast the second highest elk population of any state by a margin of 30,000 animals. But some populations have plummeted in the past five years. The northern Yellowstone herd is down to 6,000 animals from 19,000 in 1996. Areas north of Yellowstone National Park have seen permits cut and over-the-counter tags change to a draw. Populations in the West Fork of the Bitterroot River and the lower Clark Fork River are 60 percent below objective with just 7 calves per 100 cows. All antlerless tags have been cut and bulls will be hard to come by. Elk populations are well below objectives throughout much of Region 1 in the northwest. Hunters will find elk widely dispersed and wary throughout their traditional ranges in the western third of the state where wolves howl. But the farther one goes east of the Continental Divide, the more elk appear. Most of the eastern portion of the state is 20 percent above population objectives.

Nebraska
· Elk Population: 2,400
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 80 percent bulls, 58 percent cows
The state’s elk herd is still growing consistently around 15-20 percent every year. As numbers grow, opportunities to hunt grow with them, but only if you’re a resident. This year, the state will issue 272 tags, up 40 from last year, with 98 bull and 174 cow permits. To promote strong landowner relations, one-third of those permits are available to private landowners in a drawing and are non-transferable.

Nevada
· Elk Population: 12,300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
· Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $1,200 tag
· Hunter Success: 44 percent
In the past two years, the state’s elk population has grown nearly 30 percent. Opportunities for hunters to chase them have followed suit. A few hundred tags more than last year will be issued this season for a total of 3,350. Ten percent of those tags go to nonresidents who are looking at pretty decent 1:44 odds to draw a bull tag. The quality of bulls in the harvest remains high with more than 67 percent of bulls reported being six points or better. The state’s Elk Management on Private Lands Program distributed 66 tags to property owners to do with as they wish. Estimated revenue generated from those tags topped nearly $500,000 for the landowners.

New Mexico
· Elk Population: 75,000-95,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 42/100
· Nonresidents: $27 nonrefundable fee to enter drawing, plus $562 standard bull tag or $787 quality bull tag
· Hunter Success: 30 percent
Out-of-staters looking to hunt here will find no over-the-counter tags. Those who didn’t draw may be able to contact a landowner for one of their tags (be ready to write a hefty check). The state has no bonus or preference point system. Residents get the bulk of the tags, 78 percent. The state’s units are broken into “quality” and “opportunity” hunts. The former will get you a better chance at bigger bulls, but odds are steep. The Gila area holds around 20,000 elk.

North Dakota
· Elk Population: 2,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: One auction tag available
· Hunter Success: 42 percent
Big news this year is the hunt inside Theodore Roosevelt National Park. With 950 elk, the park is looking to control elk populations, possibly killing 275 elk for the next five years to get the population at 100-400. For the rest of the state’s elk, things are pretty much status quo. Managers issued 561 tags–with 245 any-sex and 315 antlerless tags, the same as last year. Almost all hunting is now in the western Badlands.

Oklahoma
· Elk Population: 2,300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $306
· Hunter Success: Not available
The Sooner State’s elk population is holding steady and the number of permits to hunt public land still hovers around 330. Odds of pulling one of those tags are dismal, less than 1 percent. But, if you do draw, there are some truly fine Okie bulls. Nonresidents looking to hunt here might do best to purchase a tag and then find a landowner who wants elk out of his winter wheat. For cow hunts, seasons are extended well into December and January.

Oregon
· Elk Population: 120,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 15/100
· Nonresidents: license $140, tag $500
· Hunter Success: 13 percent
Due to budget constraints, biologists aren’t exactly sure how many elk they have as aerial surveys have been limited. But they think populations are stable. And, this year, managers plan to issue nearly 1,000 more permits than last season. Rocky Mountain elk dominate the east side of the Cascades while Roosevelt’s reign to the west. Most hunting in the steep and dark west is open to all comers with over-the-counter tags, while eastern Oregon is draw-only for rifle hunters. Bowhunters can hunt most of the east side with a general tag. Those eastern elk have some new neighbors, as a couple wolf packs have dispersed into the state from Idaho.

Pennsylvania
· Elk Population: 700
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 28/100
· Nonresidents: $250 for elk tag, $101 for general license
· Hunter Success: 94 percent bull, 73 percent cow
To be blunt, this state has been growing some absolute toads. In 2006, a hunter killed a 425-2/8 non-typical, while just last year a hunter killed a 423-6/8 non-typical. Both bulls were around 6 years old. Records remain to be shattered if a bull can tack on a few extra years. Managers are currently revising the state’s elk management plan to determine how many elk that habitat and society will support. In the meantime, 51 tags will again be issued this season, with 18 bull and 33 cow.

Saskatchewan
· Elk Population: 15,000-16,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Landowner tolerance for elk dictates seasons in this province. In the south where there is a lot of private farmland and the only predator carries a rifle, you’ll find ample antlerless quotas meant to get elk off the crops and into freezers. If you want a bull, this just might be your year. With so much open ag land, bulls are easy to spot. To help them gain a little antler weight, managers only allow them to be hunted every third year, which has produced some 400-inch monsters. Moose Mountain Provincial Park in the southeast corner is home to 1,400 elk and has seen numbers gaining strength in the past decade. This is a draw-only unit, open to either-sex hunting, and also has outstanding bulls.
For challenging over-the-counter hunts, the north-central and western regions offer forests and meadow fringes that hide elk along with plenty of their four-legged predators.

South Dakota
· Elk Population: 5,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 75/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 50 percent
The state’s largest herd in the Black Hills National Forest numbered as many as 5,000 animals back in 2003. Aggressive management knocked that number down to the current 3,000. But public attitudes have shifted and there is once again a cry for more elk and more hunting opportunity. To reach a goal of 4,000 in the Hills, managers have had to cut rifle tags again this year to 1,065–a drop of 300 from last year. Still, residents’ odds of hunting a bull in the Black Hills are a solid 1:10. If you pull a tag, make the most of it, as you have to wait nine years to apply again.

Tennessee
· Elk Population: 400
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $10 fee to enter drawing, $300 if drawn
· Hunter Success: 100 percent
“We want to grow this elk herd and add more hunters,” says Steve Bennett, elk restoration project coordinator. The herd seems to be cooperating. Last year, five lucky hunters participated in the state’s first sanctioned elk hunt, taking five elk, four on the first day. State wildlife managers hope to see the herd reach 2,000 animals within the next two decades.

Utah
· Elk Population: 68,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 15-80/100
· Nonresidents: $65 hunting license, plus $388 general tag, $795 limited-entry tag or $1,500 premium limited-entry tag
· Hunter Success: 17 percent
Statewide, hunters kill bulls that average around 6½ years, and Utah has seen good moisture this past winter and spring, keeping the hills green and lush. Translation: healthy brutes with big headgear. The most popular units include San Juan and Fillmore Pahvant but odds of drawing a limited-entry tag are tough. For residents, it’s 1:16. Nonresidents, 1:44. There are over-the-counter options, especially for archery hunters who are willing to hike into wilderness.

Washington
· Elk Population: 55,000-60,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 12-20/100 in most units
· Nonresidents: $432
· Hunter Success: 8 percent
Washington has more hunters per elk than any other state. Managers help control densities by making hunters choose either westside Roosevelt’s or eastside Rocky Mountain elk. Both hunters and elk are split about 50/50. Generally, herd numbers are stable this season but the Yakima herd has seen a drop in calf recruitment, thus special permits for both branch-antlered bulls and cows have been cut 30-40 percent. While it may take some time for the Yakima herd to rebound, the state has plenty of other hot spots like the classic elk country of the Blue Mountains. This area in the southeast corner has seen an increase in bull permits the last few years. The southwest also offers over-the-counter permits, especially on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest around Mt. St. Helens where managers are trying to knock down herd numbers. Wolves have established at least two confirmed packs on the eastside.

Wyoming
· Elk Population 120,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
· Nonresidents: $577 for permit, $288 for cow-calf permit, $1,057 for special permit
· Hunter Success: 43 percent
Certain places in Wyoming have seen significant impacts from wolves and other carnivores. Much of the Cody herd, near Yellowstone, is seeing poor calf-recruitment made worse by predation. Once a general hunting area, it is now a limited-entry draw. Areas around Jackson Hole and the Gros Ventre and Teton Wilderness Areas will see tightened seasons and antler-point restrictions to try and boost bull/cow and cow/calf ratios. Outside the northwest corner, the state’s elk populations are up 15,000 from last year and many units are far above objectives. The statewide objective is 80,000 elk. That’s 40,000 less than where the herd stands now. The state expects to have lots of leftover antlerless licenses. Aggressive seasons have been set in many places including the Snowy Range, Laramie Peak and Sierra Madre. Last year, the state shifted to a first-come/first-served online licensing system. Out-of-staters can now search for leftover licenses without having to wait in line (in Wyoming) for reduced and full-price tags. For those more interested in hunting bulls, the state allots 16 percent of its limited quota and general licenses to nonresidents.

Yukon Territory
· Elk Population: 250-300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 29 percent
This province, which boasts 70,000 moose and only 35,000 people, last year held its first official elk hunt in 25 years. Twenty-six hunters took an elk home for the freezer. While much of the Yukon’s northern boreal forest can’t support elk, the Takhini Valley to the
south along the Alaska highway, and Braeburn to the north along the Klondike Highway, are elk strongholds. A total of 63 permits will be distributed by lottery for Takhini. Up in Braeburn, six permits are available.

Judge Donald Molloy: The Politician

Were Federal Judge Donald Molloy of Montana a politician seeking public office, he would probably fit the mold most of us have become so used to despising. Intelligent Americans scoff at politicians who never answer questions directly, spin the truth and say things that sound good and yet have no substance. Shallow thinkers that Americans can be, enables those who speak with forked tongues, to practice their trickery and become good at it.

There are three sides to the wolf war debates taking place in the Idaho, Montana and Wyoming regions. This also now includes parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. On one side you have the wolf lovers, determined, well financed, able to control the media, government agencies and can often provide their own “scientists” to refute or support any known agendas or claims.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who oppose the full protection of wolves. As within any group the level of opposition varies. The opposition is poorly funded, not well organized but getting better, has no control within the media but are attempting to make strides within the “new media” (Internet). Perhaps one of the best things going for this group are the scientists who can provide information to refute the standard scientific talking points, some of which are outdated and/or just plain false. The difficulty facing the opposition is getting the ruling class within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Media and the Courts to heed these scientists’ information.

And yes, let’s not forget the mentioned third party. This group is perhaps the largest in terms of numbers, with tons of potential but are very ineffective. These are the people who don’t care or are not willing to expend effort to help.

It has become clear that the Endangered Species Act has become nothing more than a political tool used by environmentalists to achieve results within their agendas. It is no secret that judges within the courts vary considerably in their rulings based more on personal preferences than facts or even making consideration of what is right.

There have been many rulings by several judges over the years about wolves. It is my opinion that in all of these cases a judge could have ruled in the complete opposite of their own decisions and used the same spin to justify their decisions.

Most recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned then candidate Elena Kagan as Barack Obama’s nominee for a Supreme Court Justice. For whatever the ineffectual questioning by members of the committee is worth, some voiced concern that Ms. Kagan would make rulings based on her personal beliefs and political agendas rather that a straight up interpretation of the law. To some this is referred to as being an “activist” judge.

Judges have become artists at deception, real politicians, learning the art of spinning words to make it sound as though they are caring, intelligent and following the rule of law in making their decisions.

This became extremely clear in Judge Donald Molloy’s recent ruling in Defenders of Wildlife v. Ken Salazar, in which he returned gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains region to federal protection.

Many a pundit has beaten the subject to death as to whether or not Judge Molloy ruled accordingly, whether he followed science, whether he considered the destruction of other game animals as a result of too many wolves, whether he even gave thought to how wolves are affecting American citizens and how Molloy seemed to contradict himself within his own ruling. This debate will rage on for an eternity and will never end.

What I noticed most in Molloy’s ruling was what appeared to be his need to make an attempt to explain why he ruled the way he did; not for legal reasons but because, he being a member of the ruling class, knows better than anyone else and therefore because of the complicity of this case “steeped in stentorian agitprop”, as Molloy stated in his ruling, we must all cast down our opinions and our stentorian (loud) agitprop (propaganda) and follow him. He even goes so far as to call the differences between groups “Talmudic”, meaning hairsplitting.

Molloy’s Introduction to his ruling, consuming three and a half pages, appears to be the work of a skilled politician, adept at injecting all the fitting rhetorical talking points, sounding smart and avoiding answering the directed question .

First he pretends to understand what Congress had in mind when it voted the Endangered Species Act into law. Those of us clinging to the past might chose to think Congress actually knew and somewhat understood what the ESA was. I have little faith anymore that 1973 was much different than it is today and that few, if any, lawmakers bothered to read the Act before voting.

Molloy tries to convince us how the ESA was intended to not make enemies of groups and individuals, but is meant to save species. While attempting to convince us that the ESA contains all the necessary elements to rightly save species, if we only had his level of intelligence and blessed wisdom to see the light, and that if we simply apply what’s written in the ESA, there would be no problem with joining hands in a rousing rendition of “We are the World”.

While it all sounds good to a member of the “third” class of citizen, that is one who could care less, Molloy takes it upon himself to explain why he is all-knowing and his own stentorian agitpropist. He states that even though the ESA does not define specifically when a species is recovered, he claims it is so when that species no longer is in need of the ESA for protection. Well, duh! We all know that the ESA says that in consideration of protecting a species any one of five conditions must be met. The Act also says that in order to delist that same species, the condition that put it on the list must have been rectified. But that’s the extent to which it is defined. Molloy wants us to believe that it is within his authority to determine if that condition has been met.

Some may argue that Molloy is correct in his interpretation of the Act. If that interpretation was based on “the best available science” only, then the task becomes much simpler in fighting to convince the powers that be, i.e. the ruling class, whose science to follow.

Molloy tosses a monkey wrench into his political ramblings by saying that despite all of the information he just told us about how the ESA contains all that is necessary to rule the world of the wild, making such rulings isn’t as simple as that.

While the statute is bare, the implementing regulations define “recovered” to mean “no longer in need of the Act’s protection.” It is the Act’s definitions of “endangered” and “threatened” that provide the applicable standards for determining whether a species is recovered. Goble, Recovery at 72. Despite this reality, it is not necessarily the case that threatened or endangered status can be determined solely on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Beyond the question of risk is the issue of the acceptability of risk. Id at 73. The decision that a risk is acceptable regarding a specific species is, in tum, an ethical and policy judgment. That means, in many respects, the complications are political.

Then Molloy attempts to convince us that even though he just can’t rule based on scientific evidence alone and that the “complications are political”, he must rule within the context of the law, while implementing his judgment upon us subjects for what is deemed ethical and of good policy. All hail!

So there you have it. We have here a judge who, despite the Ninth Circuit judges majority declaration recently that judges need to base their ESA rulings on science and President Obama claiming his desire to return science to it “rightful” place, Molloy possesses the uncanny ability to make his rulings, no matter how politically complicated, while disregarding the stentorian agitprop and the Talmudic differences among enemies, he can rule within the context of the law; that is the Endangered Species Act. And his does this while casting his wisdom to the wind in knowing what is ethical and what is not. God bless the man!

And we are hoping against all hope that science will win out and this debate will return to one of a scientific nature, moving away from political.

Not!!

Tom Remington

Environmentalists Sue To Stop Wolf Killings In Oregon

Nothing new here really as the same environmental groups line up to line their pockets in another lawsuit filed against Oregon to stop killing wolves that are killing livestock. It’s the same repeated nonsense all aimed at playing on the emotions of people in order to draw attention to the groups whose ultimate goal is to seek money from those they can con.

There is one thing that I will point out that was written in a press release sent out by Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Hells Canyon Preservation Council and Oregon Wild. The reason I draw your attention to this is due to the shear ignorance of these people.

In May and early June, six cattle deaths were confirmed as wolf depredations. For comparison, in 2005 — the year the wolf plan was created — domestic dogs killed 700 sheep and cows in Oregon, according to the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

I would presume that these environmental mental midgets think the rest of the world is a stupid as they are but that’s not always the case. First of all, is it somehow different that domestic dogs kill sheep or other livestock instead of wolves? A dog is a dog is a dog. Wolves are wild dogs, many wolf hybrids. Livestock owners should be able to protect their property whether it is being destroyed by domestic dogs, wolves or any other predator. Kill the damned dogs.

Secondly, this claim about domestic dogs killing more things than wolves just doesn’t hold up to any intelligent scrutiny. As a conservative estimate, there are perhaps 15,000 to 30,000 wolves in all of the lower 48 states. This estimate may be high but I don’t want to be accused of low-balling. Compare that with the number of domestic dogs in the same areas – perhaps as many as several million. If there are thousands times the number of domestic dogs as wild dogs, it might stand to reason there would be a few more kills by dogs.

And again, not to be confused by some that I might favor the killing of wolves over domestic dogs, you’re wrong. Just like there are far too many wolves in some areas of the country, there are far too many dogs in all parts of the country. And just as importantly, a landowner/livestock owner should have the right to protect his property.

It is important to take a little bit of time and point out the deception that these groups attempt to foist on the general public in order to play on their emotions. If these groups exercise their First Amendment right to talk stupid, like comparing domestic dogs’ actions with wolves, one can assume much, if not all, of the rest of their stuff is as well based in truth.

Nothing new here. Time to move along.

Tom Remington

Movie Trailer: Wolving Of America With Jim Beers

Dear Reader:

The following Link is a short Draft Trailer for a videotape of a talk I recently gave in Post Falls Idaho, just East of Spokane, Washington. The subject of the talk is wolves. Like other recent talks I have given in the Northwest, the subject is WOLVES from their Illegal Introduction and the theft of $60+M by USFWS managers from state fish and wildlife agency funds (and the cowardice of state fish and wildlife agencies to even ask for its’ replacement) to the current exposure of the cover-up of wolves as deadly disease vectors and the mounting recognition of the destruction of livestock ranching, dogs, big game herds, and rural communities is the latest and perhaps greatest debacle to date wrought by the ESA, federal bureaucrats, federal politicians, and the environmental/animal rights cabal that is ruining not only rural America but the American Constitutional Republic that was the United States of America.

The following trailer currently on “youtube” is a prelude to one of the videotapes of one of these recent talks being prepared for distribution to the American public. I am sharing this Draft trailer to pique your interest in hopes that you will purchase one or all of these videotapes to provide these groups with funding to support their activities to defend your and their rights and freedoms. I have spoken in the last month on different topics from Illegal Federal Wolf Introduction Activities in Bozeman, Montana and Wolves as Vectors of Disease before the Oregon State Legislature Agriculture Committee to Suggested Solutions to the Wolf Problems on 6 July in Hamilton, Montana. Some of you may even enjoy seeing the ugly mug that writes all the “radical” stuff that so infuriates those environmentalists, animal rightists, and state and federal bureaucrats that so justly deserve our contempt for what they are doing.

NOTE: I do not profit at all from this and I am not running for any office so “PPPFFFFTTT” to those “eminent” politicians McCain and Feingold and their nefarious Act.

Watch it and if you think it worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim

What Should Be Perceived As Obvious Bias In The Wolf Hearings

Admittedly it is difficult to know exactly what transpired in the Russell Smith Courthouse in Missoula, Montana when U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy heard testimony from both sides in order to render a ruling as to the fate of gray wolves in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah.

Last September, Judge Molloy refused to allow for an emergency injunction to place the gray wolf back under Federal protection in order to stop the wolf hunts planned for Idaho and Montana. During this hearing, Molloy indicated that he was inclined to think that excluding Wyoming from the delisting process was a political move and in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

I suppose one could look at it that way but just as easily could look at it in the opposite way. To me, this shows bias from a judge who has already made up his mind and is looking for the defense in this case to prove to him that his theory is wrong. I’m not a lawyer or a judge but this isn’t exactly how I see the judicial system is supposed to work.

After yesterday’s hearing in Missoula, the Associated Press reported that Molloy expressed confusion in that he couldn’t see how legally the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could section out the state of Wyoming from the delisting process.

But Molloy told Eitel [Justice Department attorney Mike Eitel] he was having trouble accepting that the Endangered Species Act allows wolves in Wyoming to be separated from the rest of its distinct population segment.

“I understand the practical argument, I understand the political argument. Those two things are very, very clear. But what I don’t understand is the legal argument. That’s not very clear,” the judge said.

Perhaps the legal argument could come more easily for Molloy if he asked himself the question of how the USFWS has the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment in the first place. If Molloy insists that USFWS has no authority to separate Wyoming out of the mix, then he must also accept that USFWS has no authority to create any Distinct Population Segment for any reason, at any time.

If the Endangered Species Act allows by law, which it would seem Molloy believes it does, to list a species as endangered, then according to Molloy’s own thinking process, this can only be done to include all of the 48 contiguous states. As an example, if the Federal Government decides Atlantic salmon are an endangered species, according to Molloy, there is not legal authority to separate the state of Maine from all the rest of the states for protection. The stupidity in this logic is that either a species is endangered everywhere or nowhere. The same applies to Wyoming.

Molloy and others may perceive the move to exclude Wyoming from delisting the gray wolf as political or practical but can’t that be said for every case of endangered or threatened species? Are we now supposed to disregard what is taking place on the ground in favor of political persuasions?

As was the case in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment, Judge Paul Friedman made much the same ridiculous reasoning. He ordered the gray wolf there returned to Federal protection ordering the USFWS to return with a case when they could prove they had authority to create a Distinct Population Segment for the purpose of delisting the wolf in some areas and not in others. To my knowledge the Feds have not provided that evidence to Friedman’s court and yet efforts are underway once again to delist the wolves.

It appears to me that it is just as much the judges bringing politics into the fray of court hearings from their own preconceived ideas as anyone. After the USFWS failed in their cases with Judge Molloy and failed with their case with Judge Friedman, the USFWS went back to the Federal Register and essentially turned the clock back to where gray wolves were listed as a endangered species in all 48 states, with the exception of Minnesota, whose wolves were listed as “threatened”. They did however retain the three Distinct Population Segments, i.e. the Northern Rocky Mountains, Western Great Lakes and the Southwest (maps provided at the above link). For whatever the reasons the Feds and the Courts seem to be comfortable with that as a starting point but according to both Molloy and Friedman, one has to question whether the Feds have legal authority in the ESA to have been able to create those DPSs at all.

Molloy can and probably will rule that Wyoming can’t be separated from the delisting process, only because he can and wants to. It is his contention that the only reason Wyoming was excluded was because of political reasons. From that perspective is it then feasible for a judge to reinterpret the Endangered Species Act because politics are involved and it’s politics that he doesn’t like or sit an agenda?

The ESA is a garbage Act now that has overstayed its welcome. The intent behind the Act was left behind many years ago and is now nothing more than a weapon to use and abuse by environmental groups. As a result we see ridiculous rulings from the courts that fail to take into consideration wildlife and the very species the Act was intended to save. Who is playing the politics?

Should Molloy opt to return gray wolves to Federal protection will not be because of his legal obligation to do so but because to me it appears he fails to carry his own thinking to logical conclusions. Such a statement also would further clarify the ineffectiveness of the ESA by allowing for the destruction of one species, or the rights and safety of the people, in order to save another species. This is NOT what the ESA was intended to accomplish.

Molloy needs to allow the delisting of the wolf to continue and let Wyoming work out its problems with the USFWS. Neither action is a threat of any kind to a species that was never threatened to begin with and would be the first step forward in proper wildlife management. Citing Wyoming’s exclusion is nothing more than excuse dujour.

Tom Remington

As Wolf Wars Build, Don’t Stand In The Way

Tomorrow, beginning at around 9 a.m. Missoula, Montana time, Judge Donald Molloy will begin hearing testimony in a case that will determine many things but initially whether or not the imported Canadian gray wolf will be returned to Federal protection or remain under the management of the states within the Northern Rocky Mountains, Experimental Non-Essential, Distinct Population Segment, excluding Wyoming.

The Wolf Wars began some time ago but as I’ve written the army is being assembled and readying for war. A protest is planned for the courthouse in Missoula tomorrow morning and I’ve learned that carpooling is coming from as far away as locations in Idaho.

If you plan to stand up against the army fighting to get control of the wolves and restore game herds, you best be on your best game. These people are well educated in their fight, sharp as tacks and see no distinction in the political stripes you might wear. If you support wolf protection, you are the enemy in this battle regardless of anything else.

A potent weapon of choice by the army of truth seekers is communication. In a rash of recent emails discussing strategy, Montana Senator Bruce Tutvedt, a republican representing District 3, offered some comments.

I would like to comment from the perspective of a citizen and now senator who has been in the trenches of this wolf battle for 15 years.

Tutvedt went on sharing some history and what he perceived as some difficulties that might lie ahead in the wolf wars. But then the Senator began pointing fingers and offering support in places few within the anti-wolf coalition could agree.

The pro hunting and livestock groups are correct to give Judge Malloy[sic], Senators Baucus and Tester, Governor Schweitzer and his appointees all the credit for the mess we are in on the wolf reintroduction. The Montana FWP [Fish, Wildlife and Parks] permanent staff has been, in my opinion, very professional in trying to put reasonable practices in place to manage the wolf.

Tutvedt finishes by offering his solutions to the wolf problems:

The folks back east in the Democrat party will take notice if we replace their democrat senators and governor as soon as possible. The ballot box can have a huge impact.
Support the hunting and trapping of wolves. Support a greater take of wolves and other large predators that are impacting our big game herds.
Avoid curtailing the delisting process. The Montana wolf management plan will work if Montana FWP is allowed to use it liberally. While not perfect, it allowed Montana to have a hunting season that killed 73 wolves last fall. Those are 73 wolves that will not be reproducing, and it could be up to 216 wolves killed this year. Something is better than nothing.

This kind of talk doesn’t necessarily sit well with those that have been mired in this battle for years. Many on the side of stricter wolf control feel they have compromised and received nothing in return but more lies and broken promises.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, fired back immediately foisting blame on the Montana Legislature and on Sen. Tutvedt for voting against anti-wolf bills.

In the 2009 session, MSSA had a serious anti-wolf bill presented and carried by Senator Joe Balyeat, SB 183. You voted against SB 183 twice. You may have even spoken against it on the floor of the Senate, and perhaps being responsible for recruiting other opponents to kill the bill.

So, we not only have a problem with the wolf advocates, we also have problems with our supposed friends who don’t support, even oppose, state-driven wolf solutions when those are directly presented.

Robert T. Fanning, Jr., Chairman and Founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, and one who has been in the trenches for many years in this war of wolves, didn’t let Tutvedt’s comments go unanswered either. In a response, Fanning pointed out the years that Drs. Geist, Kritzke, Moyer, along with USFWS retired Jim Beers and wolf researcher Will Graves, have spoken out warning officials that wolves carry serious disease and was never addressed or was simply disregarded during the drafting of the Environmental Impact study. Fanning states that recently Tutvedt scoffed at any notion of the seriousness of disease.

You stated for the record: “I believe that there are some who wish it … to be the silver bullet to remove the wolf,” said state Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell. “And it isn’t going to work.”

Fanning further chastises:

Do you actually think that these esteemed scientists are scheming and conniving to “remove the wolf ” or that instead, the real issue is that of the public health and safety and healthful environment guaranteed by Article 2 Section 3 of Montana’s Constitution and your collective voices and oaths to uphold it? Do you actually believe that fatalities in Alberta, Canada is “overhype” or that a young Idaho trapper currently crippled with the disease feels government had an enormous role in his health crisis when the political class looks at the wolf protection rackets as a way to raise “several million dollars in out of state campaign contributions”? Has wolf protection rackets payola and pay to play oozed down to the Legislative branch campaigns too?

Lynn Stuter, a Washington resident, writer and activists shows where many on the wolf control side stand. She disagrees with Sen. Tutvedt’s claim that something is better than nothing and takes him to task as to why.

With all due respect, Sir, I beg to differ with your contention that “something is better than nothing”. Our ungulate herds, across the NRM DPS, are being decimated and pushed into a predation pit by wolves. Whether the wolf count is 60 or 600 makes little difference when young-of-the-year retention in the ungulate herds is zero or only a few. We can rationalize and say, “well, 500 wolves is better than 1500″ but if the ungulates are in a predation pit, whether there are 500 or 1500 wolves makes little difference, the ungulates are still in a predation pit and there they will remain to extinction or until the wolf numbers are brought down to a point that young-of-the-year retention in ungulates returns to numbers sufficient to ensure the growth of the herds.

The reason I refer to what is about to befall the Northern Rockies Region as Wolf Wars, is because of the obvious frustration of those who believe there are way too many wolves and far too little control. Gone are the days of attempting to sit down and negotiated and compromise – the some is better than nothing mentality. The environmentalists have only themselves to blame in this war. Their demands persisted, never once willing for compromise or for understanding, only demanding and expecting the other side to give in.

Well, the “other side” gave in, compromised and for the most part have done nothing (speaking of the general population) hoping things would turn out alright. Now that people are seeing the results and being witness to the very things they were warned about and yet those warnings were disregarded, the fight has begun.

These groups are uniting and coming armed to the battle with more than rhetoric and fast talk. They have facts and a rapidly growing base of support, not only from the general citizenry but the scientific community. If all goes well, the Wolf Wars will turn the environmentalists on their heads and restore some sense of intelligence and logic to game and wildlife management.

If you think you are going to try to pull the wool over the eyes of this group, you’re in for a rude awakening. Hang on! It’s about to get bumpy.

Tom Remington

Jim Beers’ Testimony Before Oregon State Legislative Committee

Testimony Prepared for the Oregon State Legislature, House Agriculture Committee Regarding Wolves And Particularly Those Diseases And Infections That They Carry And Spread That Humans Are Susceptible To.

By James M. Beers, Retired Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Thank you for allowing me to testify before this Committee today. My name is James Beers and I retired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Wildlife Biologist in 1999 after 32 years as a Wetlands Biologist, Special
Agent, Congressional Fellow, Animal Damage Control Program Coordinator, Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System, Administrative Officer for the Endangered Species Program, and Wildlife Biologist
responsible for the Excise Taxes collected on arms and ammunition and that, by law, may only be used by state fish and wildlife agencies for Wildlife Restoration. I was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and for 25 years in Washington, DC. I once worked for the Utah Fish & Game and I have a BS in Wildlife Resources from Utah State University and an MA in Public Administration from the University of Northern Colorado.

Since my retirement in 1999 after testifying twice before the US House of Representatives, Natural Resources Committee about the theft by US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrators of $45M to $60M (as reported in a General Accounting Office (GAO) Audit Report to the US House Resources Committee) from the excise taxes on arms and ammunition earmarked by law for state fish and wildlife programs I have written and spoken extensively about wildlife management and conservation across the nation. The Introduction,
Protection, and Impacts of Federal Wolf Programs are perhaps the most controversial and wide-ranging such issues today. As a result, requests for my assistance, writing informative articles, suggesting what those being affected can do, and speaking requests over the past decade have caused me to spend a great deal of my time confronting this very intractable issue.

The wolves that are entering Oregon as we speak and that Oregonians have watched causing havoc in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for the past 15 years were released in Yellowstone Park in 1995. The capture, transportation, and release of those original wolves was paid for with excise tax dollars that were taken from Wildlife Restoration funds that were collected for and could only be used by state fish and wildlife agencies for authorized state wildlife restoration projects. The reason for this theft or diversion by US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrators as reported by GAO was that Congress had not agreed to fund the release with Appropriated funding so their illicit diversion was perpetrated secretly. Just last week I spoke about his matter at great length in Bozeman, Montana. There are other associated and legally questionable aspects of this wolf release and their subsequent spread that I covered in that presentation:

1. The illegal supplementing of the federal Budget with the (diverted?/stolen?) excise tax dollars.
2. The wolf introduction after Congress had not authorized funding the introduction.
3. The apparent failure by those importing the wolves into the US to complete the required paperwork (Form 3-177).
4. The total failure of federal documents to address or describe the impacts that wolves are having on human disease transmission, big game herds, hunting license revenue, domestic animal owners from ranchers to dog owners, rural economies, rural “tranquility”, costs to state governments, and human safety.
5. The role of Non-Government Organizations playing significant roles in the wolf program from verifying damages and assisting in operations to receiving federal funds while actively participating in federal elections lobbying and candidate opposition.
6. The unequal treatment of those being harmed by wolves by the federal wolf program overseers.
7. The failure of the USFWS to routinely audit state fish and wildlife programs for compliance every 5 years as required by the law authorizing the excise tax collection.
8. The very questionable firing of contract auditors hired to resume the required audits that found more than $100M in discrepancies in state programs halfway through the first cycle before being fired for “being behind schedule” and the disappearance of any follow-up or reporting of the discrepancies.
8. The current situation where in the US Department of the Interior Inspector General, that is responsible for USFWS oversight, is actually paid to conduct perfunctory state fish and wildlife audits BY USFWS.
9. The $2M-$3M being given , since the theft of the $45M to $60 M, to the 50 States’ Washington Lobby Organization BEFORE the excise taxes are apportioned to the state agencies based on the formula in the Act. While ostensibly for “multi-state” projects (nowhere mentioned in the Act) the lobby group, like those mentioned above under #5, has increased staffing and continued to engage in lobbying federal officials and institutions.
10. The scandalous fact that not one state ever asked for the stolen excise tax money to be replaced.

The mounting losses of big game herds, big game hunting opportunity, and state revenue from hunting license sales as a result of the rapidly expanding wolf packs are staggering:

The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, reputedly the largest such herd in the world is on the verge of total collapse and extinction. After years as high as 30K and a long-term average of 19K, today the outfitters believe there are as few as only 2K while state employees claim 4-6K. Of those left, winter counts of calves show fewer that 4 or 5 per 100 cows and the vast majority of cows and bulls are 7 years old or older. Not only are there so few; those left are non-breeders and the future for license sales, rural communities, and hunting is not only grim, it is lost if drastic action is not taken.

A somewhat similar herd in Idaho, the Lolo herd, is likewise on the verge of disappearance. Permit applications that were historically well over those available now go begging at this late date. The latest report I have is only about 3K applicants for more than 11K permits. The hunters have begun to realize that the state is selling more than they should. While selling too many permits for the elk available when elk are abundant results in reduced herds, selling too many when the herd is disappearing simply wrings a few more dollars from hunters that will be disappointed anyway.

Wolf kill permits, while apparently numerous, are based on totally ineffective quotas. Wolves are increasing at more than 30%/year and they are not amenable to any accurate surveying. Everyone agrees that there
are too many at this time but state fish and wildlife agency estimates are increasingly dismissed as extreme undercounts by those being affected. Even though quota increases from100 to 400 sound good to those wishing to manage the wolf numbers, if as is likely Montana has 4K wolves and they want to maintain say 1K – you would have to try and kill about 70% per year for several years and then about 40 % per year to reach and maintain 1K wolves. Add to that ineffective survey numbers and you see the problem.

Another issue is killing the required numbers over time. Wolves are very smart and very adaptive. Hunting (even for the current 2-3% of formerly un-hunted, i.e. “dumb” wolves) is insufficient. Wolves learn quickly to
be more secretive and since they do not come to calls or bait, shooting them becomes more and more opportunistic and luck-driven. Between the prohibitions on traps and poisons and aerial hunting and the patchwork of public and much private lands that prohibit it, hunting is a very ineffective control tool.

While we could go on about livestock losses, human attacks to be expected, dog losses, and the general strife and stress that wolves are bringing to rural American communities and their economies, I will conclude with a snapshot of human disease issues that like so many others went unmentioned when wolves were being introduced to the Lower 48 states.

Wolves are very wide-ranging animals. They are not only fearless, they frequent human habitations with impunity and often concentrate on pastures or homesteads or big game wintering areas so that when they pick up an infection or disease, they will likely go to similar surroundings where similar animals or humans can be infected. It is not that they carry all these diseases, it is that when they do get a really bad one like anthrax or rabies or foot-and-mouth or chronic wasting disease – stopping the spread is almost impossible as when dogs and other wildlife carriers that don’t roam far and wide (nor travel in packs like bats sleeping together are very able to spread disease among themselves) are killed when there is a rabies or Mad Cow (BSE) outbreak. Consider the havoc, often documented in early America of rabid wolves that go for miles biting everything they encounter. Indian villages, trappers, homesteaders, and even forts with soldiers all have records of the terror and death rabid wolves were capable of imposing.

The following list of diseases carried by wolves, while not totally comprehensive, represents over 30 infections that have been credited to wolves. Those that can infect humans are followed by an (H), those that affect other animals are followed by an (OA).

1. Rabies (H) (OA)
2. Brucellosis (H) (OA) Hydatid Disease:
3. Echinococcus granulosis (H) (OA)
4. Echinococcus multilocularis (H) (OA)
5. Anthrax (H) (OA)
6. Encephalitis (H) (OA)
7. Great Lakes Fish Tapeworm (H) (OA)
8. Smallpox (H) (OA)
9. Mad Cow (BSE) (OA) (H)
10. Chronic Wasting Disease (OA) From Ticks Carried by wolves:
11. Anemia (H)
12. Dermatosis (H)
13. Tick paralysis (H)
14. Babesiosis (H)
15. Anaplasmosis (H)
16. Erlichia (H)
17. E. Coast Fever (H)
18. Relapsing Fever (H)
19. Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever (H)
20. Lyme Disease (H) From Fleas:
21. Plague (H)
22. Bubonic Plague (H)
23. Pneumonic Plague (H)
24. Flea-Borne Typhus (H)
25. Distemper (OA)
26. Neospora caninum (OA)
27. 2 Types of Mange (H) (OA)
28. GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep) (OA)
29. Foot-and -Mouth (OA)

Of the 29 diseases and infections listed, 24 affect humans and many of these are deadly. Whether it is a child ingesting tapeworm eggs from a ranch house floor rug or a jogging soccer Mom encountering wolves as a
schoolteacher did recently in Alaska that resulted in a horrible death, the fact that these human health hazards have been given short-shrift by wildlife agencies and their veterinarians is nothing short of scandalous.

How do you control wolves as vectors of these diseases when there is an outbreak? Who pays for control? What methods are permissible? Who is responsible? These sorts of questions need to be answered before you (the State Government) can determine where wolves are to be tolerated; in what numbers; and how these things are to be achieved ad infinitum. I am a strong believer that State Governments are the proper place for such decisions if the first and foremost purpose of government – “domestic Tranquility” and “the general Welfare” of the all the citizenry are to achieved and maintained.

Thank you and I am willing to answer any questions you might have.

James Beers
25 May 2010

Quote Of The Month

It’s not often we get quotes we can sink our teeth into and use for many purposes but here’s one I’m sure all sane and intelligent wildlife managers and outdoor sportsmen will run with and get a kick out of too.

The Wallowa County, Oregon Board of Commissioners met recently to draft a letter to send to the Governor of Oregon seeking a state of emergency. The emergency comes from wolves killing far too many livestock in their area. As part of this action, the Commission, Chaired by Mike Hayward, is demanding changes be made to the wolf plan, a plan supposedly designed to “manage” wolves as they expand and grow.

The quote comes as part of a statement Hayward made about the wolf plan. He said:

“The Wolf Plan was fine when there weren’t any wolves.”

Boy, if that isn’t a mouthful.

Tom Remington

Wolves: They’re Not Just for Rural Americans Anymore, Part I

Guest blog by Jim Beers

Part I – Wolf Country in 2010

It was 1974 when the wolf was “Listed” by federal bureaucrats as “Endangered” in the midst of an explosion of new federal laws and authority over everything from marine mammals to hawks, spotted owls, snail darters, and cormorants. Despite the superabundance of wolves worldwide throughout the Northern Hemisphere, their romantic status as a “symbol” of wilderness coupled with anthropomorphic “biology” from environmental and animal rights
radical organizations made any questions concerning the propriety of such a Listing both politically incorrect and an indication of someone completely out of step with the “New Age” biology sweeping the Nation.

Alaska and Canada have had robust wolf populations for centuries and damage by wolves to big game herds, livestock, dogs, and the ever-present danger of human attacks have been stressful factors of life there just as in Asia and
Europe where wolves are abundant. The following report concerns the disgraceful and un-Constitutional imposition of wolves by the federal government and a cabal of environmental, animal rights, anti-gun, and anti-rural America radicals and lawyers in the past 35 years.

The “Timber” or “Gray” wolves that were roaming northern Minnesota in limited numbers were the only wolves recognized in the Lower 48 States when the 1974 “Listing” of wolves as “Endangered” was pronounced. Immediately,
federal bureaucrats pre-empted all Constitutional State authority over wolves in Minnesota over weak protests by State government. Wolves were given complete protection and millions of dollars were spent to increase their numbers and range. Today, those wolves have spread into Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Livestock losses; loss of foals, goats, and other privately owned animals: loss of deer numbers and deer hunting license revenue; loss of hunting dogs, pets, and watchdogs; visible decreases in rural economies and land prices; and increasingly stressful rural life where wolf attacks and sightings have placed parents and grandparents in fear when kids ask to go fishing or to go to or come from rural school bus stops or to take out garbage: all of these things bedevil rural Americans where the wolves have become abundant and where they are now spreading like an infection to Lower Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa.

When government or radicals want to cite “science” about wolf “species” keep in mind the following. Wolves, like white-tailed deer and most mammals that exist from near the Equator to the Far North, are smaller in the South and larger in the North. Small-bodied animals do better in hot climates and large-bodied animals are better suited to cold climates. Prior to the Endangered Species Act, whether we called the large ones “timber” wolves or the little ones “Key” deer was a matter of biological curiosity. Key Deer from Florida can raise fawns when bred with big Saskatchewan whitetails just
as big wolves from the Yukon can breed successfully with “little” Mexican wolves (or coyotes, or dingoes, or dogs for that matter). So contain any emotion when told that “saving” this or that wolf “species” is “vital” to some obscure biological purpose. One thing is for sure; the “big” northern wolves were the ones plopped unceremoniously into Yellowstone Park 15 years ago and are now into 6 or more states.

In 1980, federal bureaucrats declared the “Red” wolf “extinct. In reality, the “Red” wolf is merely a “wolf” with an abundance of coyote and domestic dog genes. However, “Red” wolves (from “re-discovered” captive wolves) were
introduced to South Carolina in 1988 and later Tennessee where these small wolves have been killed by local people, and where they have bred with and were bred by all manner of free-roaming dogs, hunting dogs, and watchdogs.

In 1995, federal bureaucrats stole Millions of dollars from excise taxes collected on arms and ammunition for the exclusive use of state fish and wildlife agencies for hunting programs and wildlife land acquisition. The money was used illegally by federal bureaucrats to capture wolves in northern Canada and then quickly release them in Yellowstone Park. These wolves have, in just 15 years, all but eradicated the two largest elk herds in Montana (The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd) and Idaho (The Lolo Elk Herd) and the moose in Yellowstone Park. The losses of livestock to these
wolves have been in the Millions of dollars just as the loss of state hunting license revenue (in this period of states “going broke”) attributable to the thousands of wolves now existing in these 2 states is being hidden and distorted by both state and federal fish and wildlife agencies that are increasingly seen as tools of the cabal mentioned in the second paragraph. These wolves are now becoming established and spreading through Oregon and Washington where livestock, wildlife, and domestic dog losses are becoming common and desperate rural residents and rural governments search for a solution in vain. Utah is beginning to get wolves and reports of wolves in Colorado have been filed.

“Mexican” wolves were introduced into Arizona and New Mexico in 1998. While a small wolf like the “Red” wolf, these wolves have caused high livestock, elk, and deer losses and additionally have begun stalking rural school kids as they go to, wait for, and return from school buses. (Alternative food sources are comparatively rare in that stark desert country.) This has gotten so bad that some school bus stops are cages to which children are driven and picked up by fearful parents.

While hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by state and federal bureaucracies to collar, “move”, and rarely kill offending wolves; such actions where wolves are abundant are akin to removing your hand from a bucket of water and expecting a “hole” in the water to remain. Today, state agencies admit they cannot “count” or “census” wolves so the question of numbers becomes a wolf-”hater” v. wolf-”lover” matter for lawyers and judges. Big game numbers are being “adjusted” by state agencies increasingly dependent on federal agencies for funding. Just as, for instance, Montana bureaucrats claim a Yellowstone elk herd of 6K and wolf numbers of a thousand; ranchers, hunters, and rural residents know the elk herd that was at one time 30K and was averaging 19K is now less than 2K mostly old non-breeders with a paltry 4 or 5 elk calves per 100 cows in a dying herd in the midst of many thousands of wolves increasing at rates of 35-40% per year. Hundreds of dogs killed and eaten by wolves increase annually and mostly go unreported, undiscovered, and ignored by newspapers and bureaucrats in the West as well as the Great Lakes States. Small towns are dying in the West, rural land prices are decreasing as wolves make rural living and working more tenuous, and stressed rural residents in “Wolf Country” increasingly resemble stressed New Yorkers in traffic jams on the BQE.

One ranch is being “studied” in central Idaho and the costs of wolves are astounding. Losses of calves and cows plus the loss in weight of constantly stressed steers sent to market is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. The time and work “reporting to and dealing with” government bureaucracies added to the work trying to avoid losses in the herds is hundreds of thousands per year. The stress on employees and the long hours necessary are leading more and more owners and their employees to ask “how can ranching persist” and “how can I keep doing this?”

While rural Americans are increasingly suffering and growing angry with federal and state governments run amok, the cabal cited in the second paragraph continues to indoctrinate children in schools and urban residents with false propaganda. When asked “Why wolves?”, the only answer is pagan babbling about “native ecosystem” (like Hitler’s “pre-Roman plants and animals”) or “the need for ‘apex’ predators” as if there were something desirable about uncontrolled killing of animals that complement human society and animal populations that are either overabundant or extinct due to factors that could and should be controlled for societal benefits. The truth is there is no good answer to the question “Why” when wolves had already been purposefully and prudently eliminated from the most successful
and desirable human society the earth has known.

The truthful answer to “Why wolves?” is:
To eliminate hunting.
To eliminate gun owner numbers by eliminating hunting.
To destroy family traditions like annual get-togethers.
To further emasculate rural economic activity and health.
To eliminate grazing on public lands.
To eliminate ranching on private property.
To create political-cover “science” to justify more Public Land closures from Wilderness and Road Closures to “Critical” habitats and Pagan Land Closures like “Corridors”, “Wildlands”, and “Commons”.
To eliminate the management and use of renewable natural resources like timber, forage, wildlife, and fisheries.
To replace the funding of state and federal agency budgets with revenues from hunting, fishing, grazing and timber cutting with increased federal funds from the National Treasury that is so “Broke”.
To make current residents of rural communities fearful and stressed such that they will move to cities where they must give up guns, ride public transportation, and live dictated lives where powerful government authority is unchallenged.
To reduce rural land prices as people move away, businesses go broke, and new residents no longer see business or retirement or comfortable living circumstances.
To make rural land prices ever cheaper as federal and state agencies “pick-up” parcels and Non-government profiteers like The Nature Conservancy profit from taking “Easements” and reselling parcels to government bureaucrats at a healthy profit.
To grow the power and budgets of federal bureaucrats and agencies as they claim more land and species that need “protection” (i.e. lock-up).
To assure re-election of “concerned” politicians as they brag at election time and get “support” from radical organizations for “saving” this, that, and the other environmental nonsense.
To strengthen the State/Federal fish and wildlife agency alliance at the expense of state government and rural state residents.
To create the future (immeasurable and never-ending) publicly-funded goal of “Restoring The Ecosystem” for state and federal natural resource agencies.
Finally, to please the imaginings of urban American voters (often a voting majority) that controls the national government and many state governments wherein the destruction of rural voters’ rights in the emerging democracy that is replacing our Constitutional Republic has become acceptable.

Thus far, wolves have been the result of urban voters’ acceptance of propaganda and misinformation about the havoc and ruin that wolves have been wreaking on “others”. The urban voters turn a blind eye to the loss of rural America and traditions and cultures that they neither know nor will miss. Urban voters and their children are told the lie that wolves are tolerable and that a few rural eggs must be broken to make an imaginary “ecosystem” wherein they may hear a wolf howl during some future but improbable vacation. For mentioning these things I am described as everything from a “lunatic” to an “anti-predator” extremist that just wants to “kill animals”. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

But all this is about to change. Read Part II, “Wolves, A Deadly Threat Coming to Urban America”. The wolves are no longer just for nameless rural Americans.

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net

“The Most Intense Management Could Not Prevent Wolf Kills”

Casey Anderson and his ranch are part of an Oregon State University and University of Idaho Wolf Research study. The intent of the study, which began in 2009 and still continues, is to monitor the interaction between cattle and wolves. 1000 of Anderson’s cattle were radio-collared as part of the study.

There are efforts by the environmentalist/wolf advocates saying that altering the behavior of wolves and/or cattle, as well as the implementation of certain ranching tactics will solve the problem of wolves and ranchers getting along. Not so fast! It seems that so far in this study, researchers have discovered that there is far more interaction between wolves and cattle than anyone suspected.

“The main purpose of this study is to find out if there is some way we can adapt management,” Anderson said. What the study has proved, thus far, is that wolves have far more contact with cows than suspected and that even the most intense management could not prevent wolf kills on the kind of land on which western ranchers work. (emphasis added)

Tom Remington

Criminal Activities By Federal Bureaucrats Pertaining To Wolf Introduction/Protection

Editor’s Note: What follows below is essentially the text of what Jim Beers addressed an audience in Bozeman, Montana on May 16, 2010 about concerning criminal activities that surrounded the introduction of gray wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Area, and perhaps others. According to the author, the criminal activities occurred in efforts leading up to and the ultimate release of wolves and the ongoing actions to protect everyone and everything involved including the wolves themselves.
The expose is long and broken into three segments. Segment one deals with Jim Beers resume and qualifications, including personal experiences with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Segment two examines the metamorphosis of our wildlife management services federally and on a state level and how this attributed to the blatant act of stealing money from Pittman/Robertson in defiance of Congress to illegally transport animals across national boundaries. And finally, part three address a compilation of no fewer than 12 actions that could be deemed illegal activities, leaving us with the question, what are we going to do about it.
A must read for anyone concerned with government corruption, including theft and deliberate misappropriation of excise tax required by law to be spent on specific fish and game programs.

Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats

And Others Involved in the Introduction,

Protection and Spread of Wolves

In the Lower 48 States.

By

Jim Beers, USFWS Retired

Given at Bozeman, MT 16 May 2010

For

Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd

Abstract: The period 1967 to 1999 saw the passage of 3 Endangered Species Acts and a tightening of federal authority over a host of plants and animals formerly under the jurisdiction of state governments. Mr. Beers’ was employed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in many capacities and locations during this period. He explains the growth of federal power, the shift in the sort of employees and agendas responsible for the federal growth, and the resulting subversion of state fish and wildlife agencies and any respect for law by increasingly powerful bureaucrats. The introduction, protection, and spread of wolves by federal decrees during this period are detailed and major violations that occurred are explained. The violations include the theft of $60+ of excise tax money by federal bureaucrats from state fish and wildlife programs to introduce wolves, Non-governmental organization entanglements with federal bureaucrats and federal funds, quid pro quo arrangements with state bureaucrats, failure to audit state fish and wildlife programs in order to maintain state compliance with illegal federal actions, failure of federal bureaucrats to describe and forecast the impacts and costs of introduced wolves, and the cover-up of millions of dollars of state misuse of federally-collected excise taxes.

The following two-hour verbal presentation is divided into three parts. This is so that the listener or reader understands three things.

First, is the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) time of employment of the author and his competency concerning this subject. This is important for you to appreciate the competency of the author to speak about federal environmental/animal rights policies, federal bureaucracies and their operation, the changing nature of federal and state fish and wildlife programs, and the impacts that these changes are continuing to have on our American society.

Second, are the political, scientific, and legal changes of the past 40 years and how their cumulative impacts have led to the corruption and disregard for both US law and the US Constitution described in the third part.

Third, is a description of law violations by both those immediately involved in the introduction, protection, and spread of wolves in the Upper Great Lake States, the Carolinas, the SW States, the Upper and Central Rocky Mountain States and the resulting and ever-widening range of associated bureaucrats’, agencies’, and associated “partners”’ activities continuing in disregard of federal laws.

Descriptions and explanations of the growing danger of wolf attacks; the purposeful lack of information about wolves as carriers of diseases that infect and kill humans, livestock, and wildlife; the annihilation of big game animals, big game hunting, and hunting revenues to state wildlife agencies; the widespread destruction of pets and working dogs; and the ruination of the tranquility of rural life where wolves exist are topics that are being addressed in detail elsewhere. This presentation is intended to describe criminal activities by federal and state bureaucrats, lobbyists, and radical organizations associated with the establishment, protection and spread of wolves in the Lower 48 states. It is my belief that understanding this aspect of the wolf issue will enable all of us to better understand and work more effectively to solve the myriad problems that government bureaucrats, activist organizations, and politicians have caused by illegal actions disguised as wolf introduction and protection.

Part I – My Background

I have a BS in Wildlife Resources from Utah State and an MA in Public Administration from the U of No. Colorado. I worked for the Utah Fish and Game while in college and spent 3 ½ years in the US Navy as a Line Officer on a ship in the western Pacific and as a Courier Officer stationed in the Aleutians at the Adak US Naval Communication Station.

I was hired by the USFWS in 1967 as a Wetlands Biologist in Devils Lake, ND. In 1969 I was transferred to the Minneapolis Police Dept, for 5 months of law enforcement recruit training and then became a US Game Management Agent stationed in the USFWS Regional Office in Minneapolis. In 1970 I was transferred to Grand Island, Nebraska as a US Game Mgt. Agent and then in 1972 I was transferred to New York City where, in two years as the only USFWS Agent stationed in NY City, I “made” two very large and publicized endangered species cases that involved both notoriety and large fines – the Vesely-Forte international fur smuggling case and the Cartier Jewelry endangered species sale case. Read more

Wolf Introduction And “Fraudulent Science”

Editor’s Note: On May 16, 2010, the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, et. al., sponsored a gathering in Bozeman, Montana in which interested people could hear retired wildlife biologist and former employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jim Beers, speak on the illegal activities involved with wolf introduction in the Greater Yellowstone Area.
Mr. Beers was asked a question about fraudulent science following that meeting. Below is the question and his response.

NOTE: If you find this a worthwhile read, please share it with others and post it if you can, so others might read it.

Q: After the following meeting I was asked about “fraudulent science”. I answered as follows:

A. Mammals get bigger as you go North and smaller as you go south to the Equator: the reason being that a large version of the same animal is generally more suited to surviving cold winters and a small version of the
same animal is generally more suited to surviving hot periods annually. Now wolves and white-tailed deer occur in North America from the Yukon to Mexico. While hunters go to far Northern Saskatchewan to shoot very large white-tails, the tiny little Key Deer (Florida white-tails that breed successfully with all other white-tail deer but just happen to live in a very hot climate AND to have evolved in very inferior food availability circumstances) is an Endangered SPECIES.

Before the ESA [Endangered Species Act], biologists would argue endlessly about whether the “Eastern” or the “Adirondack” or the “Great Lakes”, etc. whitetails were subspecies or races or populations. Post – ESA when such distinctions became extremely important to biology professors, bureaucrat commissars, environmental radicals and others hoping to profit from “Listing” and all it generated; such possible interpretations carried great importance and guided the way laws and regulations were written and the way Conventions and Treaties were drafted.

So today when we want to “reintroduce” Key deer we can’t capture some whitetails in Kansas or Vermont and plop them down on some Florida Key because they wouldn’t “belong” there (whatever that is supposed to mean). However, these same government scientists and biology “perfessers” and animal rights radicals like DOW can pine away about the need to “reintroduce” wolves into Yellowstone (et al) and go clear to the Northwest Territories and capture some wolves and then unceremoniously dump them into the Northwest. Then threaten anyone that tries to defend their lives, the lives of their families or neighbors, or their property from livestock to dogs to their public ownership and use of big game animals, and the very economic life of their rural communities with imprisonment and fines if they harm said wolves. Thus is it “unscientific” and “illegal” to move Key deer to Indiana while being perfectly “scientific” and “legal” to move Northern Canadian wolves to Wyoming. Hello, is anyone in there?

This is not “science” it is tyranny of the highest order. Such “science” is merely “play-dough” in the hands of despots and their camp followers.

Jim Beers

Brawling In A Barroom: Wolves And Human Health

by Jim Beers

It is a simple rule of life that when brawling in a barroom, there are no rules. It is with this simple rule in mind that I bring to your attention to a minor, yet potentially major, aspect of the known biology of a little recognized species of tapeworm that infects wolves and dogs.

This species of tapeworm, Echinococcus multilocularis, has just been found in wolves in Slovakia. In North America, this species of tapeworm has been found only in western and northwestern Canada and a small area of Montana. A parasitologist recently mentioned to me that it may have spread into North Dakota as I am writing this.

This species, multilocularis, is of importance to rural North Americans since it is readily spread by infected wolves to dogs and humans. Dogs (and wandering wolves) can infest yards and homes (human living spaces) with the eggs of this tapeworm. The eggs are not only persistent, they are readily picked up by humans, their clothing, and boots and brought inside where toddlers and those that do not routinely wash their hands to those that unknowingly breath in the eggs when the eggs are disturbed and airborne in the home can become infected. One other rather important point is that the cysts formed by this tapeworm in human tissues and organs are very dangerous since they can only be removed by surgery and if they are ruptured (very difficult to avoid) during surgery, they can cause death. In other words this is one of the most dangerous (to humans) tapeworms carried by and spread by wolves.

So you are probably wondering what all this has to do with “brawling in barrooms”? The answer is that the foregoing information contains a nugget of information that has great consequences if I am willing to present it like the environmental radical community presents select propaganda in a way that I find repugnant.

I have long been outraged at the environmental religious tenet that is dressed up in “science” under the rubric of “INVASIVE SPECIES”. This bit of fantasy holds that there is something “sacred” or “right” about a “Native Ecosystem” and therefore any species of life that is not “Native” is therefore “Invasive” and subject to eradication and/or total exclusion from places that they are not “Native” to. “Native” is defined as the biological communities that were in Pre-Columbian North America, that is pre-1492 when the supposedly impure Europeans contaminated this continent. This concept is a direct copy of the Nazi-era German plans and programs aimed at re-establishing “Pre-Roman” plants and animals that were the result of equally impure Romans contaminating the Teutonic paradise. Repugnant is too light a word to describe what I feel for this biological chicanery.

In the past ten years environmental and animal rights radicals have used this “Invasive Species” argument to justify expanding federal authority, federal programs, and the federal budget. While they always use bogeymen like Brown Tree Snakes (Guam) or Killer Bees and Kudzu (southern US) to justify their wishes, time shows how they are aiming more at pheasants and brown trout to diminish hunting and fishing or specious assertions to justify stopping grazing or logging or shutting down growing portions of the public estate. This is done based in large measure on “science” that is on par with the global warming/climate control/global cooling quackery of recent times.

Yet it has worked, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and this gander now invokes the “Invasive Species” bugaboo with all the enthusiasm of a Druidic priest praying to mistletoe high in a winter oak as we all dance around a campfire.

Forget that Echinococcus multilocularis is deadly to humans. Forget that other tapeworms both dangerous and potentially deadly to humans AND carried by and spread by wolves are ubiquitous (all over the place) in North America. So far as I can determine from the literature (oooh that sounds so… scientific) and from talking to acquaintances that are familiar with the topic — Echinococcus multilocularis has NEVER been found in North America outside western Canada and a small area of Montana. Therefore, (drum roll please) Echinococcus multilocularis is an INVASIVE SPECIES in all lower 48 states with the exception of Montana (who could probably adopt a County approach to Invasive Species eradication and get in on this action.)

Now since the wolf was stocked by the federal government and is protected by the federal government AND IS THE VECTOR OR CARRIER OF THIS DEADLY INVASIVE SPECIES, AND SINCE THE WOLF HAS SPREAD INTO THE NORTHERN GREAT LAKES STATES, MONTANA, WYOMING, UTAH, IDAHO, AND NOW WASHINGTON, OREGON, COLORADO, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND IS STRAGGLING INTO THE DAKOTAS, ILLINOIS, NEBRASKA AS WELL AS OTHER STATES; what can be done? Can the states kill all of these carriers of this truly deadly Invasive Species? Can state legislatures resist or overcome federal wolf sanctimony by declaring total war on these vectors of a deadly Invasive Species? How can the federal government justify spreading this infectious agent when they are charged Constitutionally with promoting “the General Welfare” in the very Preamble of the Constitution of the United States? Where are all the acolytes of a “pure Native Ecosystem”?

Like they say, when in a barroom brawl be prepared to do whatever it takes to win or get the heck out of there pronto. I (and you too, I hope) have no intention of running away from this fight so let’s either see this “Invasive Species” nonsense put to bed or lets haul all of these government wolf-enablers in the hoosegow for endangering rural Americans with a program that places a vector of a deadly-to-human Invasive Species infections under total protection while it invades the native state ecosystems while further endangering rural Americans’ families, livelihoods, communities, and ways-of-life.

This is no joke!

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

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

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:

jimbeers7@comcast.net

Wolf Wars: A Call To Action

Editor’s Note: The following is an email I received from one of the founders of a new activist organization, Big Game Forever, whose goal it is to put an end to overblown wolf populations that are destroying game herds across America.

Wyoming is still waiting for Federal Judge Johnson to Rule if Wyoming’s wolf management plan will be accepted – that hearing was in January of 2010.

Judge Malloy has taken written arguments and will hear oral arguments in Missoula on June 16 and will then rule if ID, MT, and parts of UT, OR and WA can continue to manage wolves.

Idaho sportsmen killed 180 wolves and the government hunters killed an additional 130 wolves in Idaho this past year for a total of about 310 wolves killed in Idaho. About 100 wolves were killed in MT and WY between the sport hunting and federal control. Federal control can only take place if wolves kill livestock.

SFW has been working with the other leaders in the industry like RMEF and Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and others to be ready for action when the Judges Rule.

This is a HUGE task, with lots of heavy lifting and will require a lot of grass roots efforts and millions of dollars.

But the data is becoming more and more clear, wolves seem to be the straw that is breaking the camel’s back if you will, and elk and moose and deer populations are plummeting in areas of WY, MT and ID.

In order to maintain abundant game herds in the west, wolves are going to have to be managed at the levels agreed upon by all parties 150 in each state. Not the 500 to 1,000 in each state.

If the anti hunting groups are successful in stopping wolf management for 3-5 years, the further impacts will be devastating beyond repair in our lifetimes.

Please forward this email on to all you know who hunt and ask them to join the Big Game Forever effort. www.biggameforever.org. BGF is 100% dedicated to winning the wolf wars.

BGF is working hard to lay the groundwork, build consensus amongst sportsmen and sportsmen groups.

Each sportsmen group already has a full plate of issues to deal with. More sportsmen need to get involved to win the wolf wars. Big Game Forever has one mission: win the wolf war.

It is my assessment that in the end, the US Congress will have to step in and put in law what wolf recovery means. This will take wildlife management out of the courts – the forum of the anti hunters – and back into state wildlife management and commissions hands.

Ryan Benson is working on that effort full time.

Please take a minute and visit the website. Your feedback to make it more effective, what more you need to know would be appreciated.

www.biggameforever.org

thanks

Don Peay

Judge Molloy Sets Court Date For Wolf Delisting Lawsuit

Federal court judge, Donald Molloy, has set June 15, 2010 as the date in which he will hear arguments from both sides in the gray wolf lawsuit initiated by EarthJustice, et. al. Last year the laundry list of environmental groups sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeking an emergency injunction to stop the removal of the gray wolf from federal protection. An emergency injunction would have put a halt to wolf hunts scheduled to take place in Idaho and Montana. That injunction was not granted and the wolf hunts ensued.

It’s really anybody’s guess as to what Judge Molloy will rule. Science is not followed, precedence is cherry picked and perhaps we would not be having another lawsuit at this level had the USFWS gotten its act together and appealed the first ruling when Judge Molloy blocked the fed’s attempt at delisting.

In short, Molloy will do pretty much as he darn well pleases, as has been the case in past wolf court cases. The courts have shown American citizens that federal promises mean nothing; that actions such as this one to introduce wolves into the Northern Rocky Mountains resembles nothing remotely similar to the plans and promises laid out by the USFWS.

Here are a few reminders of the “helter-skelter” kind of court justice we have seen as it pertains to wolves:

1. In July of 2008, the United States Ninth District Court of Appeals voted unanimously that judges needed to base their wildlife decisions on science. That all sounded well-intentioned by what did it really mean?

2. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected President, he announced that he wanted to “restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act”. And that too sounded well-intentioned and only time would tell just what was on his mind. Just last November we quickly learned that President Obama meant that he would use he and his cronies’ “science” to decide matters pertaining to science, such as climate change.

3. So forget science when it comes to Molloy’s ruling. But we knew that from before. In 2008, when Molloy granted a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under federal protection, his 40-page ruling showed us that he was a willing and eager participant to play the moving-the-goal-post game. Environmentalists created some new science never discussed or considered as an integral part of wolf introduction and Molloy took the bait claiming that in order to have full “recovery” of a wolf species there had to be proof of genetic exchange – in other words interbreeding between distinct packs.

4. Let’s also not forget Judge Molloy’s ruling on grizzly bears. Judge Molloy basically and completely disregarded the science presented in court by the USFWS concerning grizzly bears and opted to use his own version of science, presumably to better fit his agenda – we can only assume.

5. While Judge Molloy and his band of merry environmentalists where doing their best at making a mockery of the Endangered Species Act and wildlife science in general, Judge Paul Friedman was attempting to redefine the Endangered Species Act himself.

In an attempt by the USFWS to delist the gray wolf in parts of the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment, Judge Paul Friedman’s ruling essentially stated that the USFWS did not have the authority under the Endangered Species Act to create a Distinct Population Segment for the purpose of delisting a species. He remanded the case back to the USFWS telling them to prove to him they have that authority.

For many of us, this ruling also told us that if the USFWS does not have authority to create a Distinct Population Segment in order to delist a species, it also doesn’t have the authority to create any DPS, including all those that were created to this point, i.e. Northern Rocky Mountains DPS, Southwest DPS and Western Great Lakes DPS.

6. It does, however, become even more complicated, not that it really matters to the judges. Because of Judge Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS turned back the hands of time and reestablished old wolf protection boundaries. (See this article and maps.)

This is only a small sampling of the complicated mess the courts have created when it comes to wolves and the Endangered Species Act.

Judge Molloy will hear arguments on June 15 and at some point in time after the hearing will decide whether wolves should be returned to ESA protection or remain as they are. We can’t rule out that the judge may order some kind of modifications to the states’ wolf management plans. We just don’t know.

Molloy, during his ruling on the emergency injunction, indicated that he might entertain the notion, as being presented by the environmentalists, that the USFWS cannot delist wolves in Idaho and Montana and not delist them in Wyoming. Referring back to Judge Friedman’s ruling, this in fact may be the case if the USFWS cannot prove to the courts that they have the authority to create boundaries of any kind in order to create Distinct Population Segments, whether for listing or delisting. If the USFWS doesn’t have their act together (I’m not holding my breath), there is a good possibility Molloy could rule in favor or relisting. If that happens, this could open up a giant can of worms as it would pertain to all future listings of threatened or endangered species of every kind.

While we can all speculate about what might happen and/or why things should be, the judge is going to do what the judge is going to do.

Tom Remington

Next Page »