S. Dakota, Colorado File “Firearms Freedom Act” Bills

The movement continues nationwide as state after state gets on the bandwagon seeking 10th Amendment separation of state and federal government. Seemingly fed up with the strong arms and broadening Federal Government controls, states are hoping a law, the same or similar to Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, will set the ball rolling to regain some of the states’ sovereignty.

For those not familiar, the nation’s first Firearms Freedom Act, appeared in Montana, sponsored by the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The Act essentially declares that any guns or gun parts manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government. Montana passed that Act and it was signed by Gov. Schweitzer. The state is seeking declaratory judgment from the courts.

South Dakota and Colorado are the two latest states to file bills that are clones or near replicas of Montana’s bill. State Senator Larry Rhoden has introduced the South Dakota Firearms Freedom Act as SB 89. In Colorado, Senator Dave Schultheis has just introduced the Colorado Firearms Freedom Act as SB 10-092.

This now makes Firearms Freedom Acts passed in Montana and Tennessee, and introduced in these 21 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

It’s likely that FFAs will be introduced soon in West Virginia, New Mexico, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and possibly elsewhere.

Tom Remington

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

S. Dakota Offering Reward For Information On Moose Poaching

PIERRE, S.D. – The Turn In Poacher’s program, a cooperative effort between Wildlife Protection Inc. and South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department, is offering a $1,000 reward for the identification and arrest of the person or people responsible for the death of a moose near Deerfield Reservoir about Oct. 1.

Additionally, the TIPs Board of Directors has agreed to accept and administer any additional donations from member of the general public who would like to add to the reward. According to TIPs Board President Bob Schuurmans, individuals and organizations have already contacted TIPs and offered several hundred dollars in donations to supplement anything the TIPs board would authorize.

Those wishing to contribute to the reward may do so by earmarking the donation as “Moose TIPs Reward” and sending it to the Turn In Poachers office at 412 W. Missouri, Pierre, SD, 57501. If you would like more information about making a donation, please call Charlie Wharton at 605-773-5906.

Anyone with information on the bull moose case is urged to call a local state Game, Fish, and Parks conservation officer, a local law enforcement agency, or the TIPs line at 1-888-OVERBAG (1-888-683-7224). Tips may also be submitted online through the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Web site: https://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/TIPS/AnonRepo.htm

Those providing information through TIPs may remain anonymous.
According to Conservation Officer Blair Waite, elk hunters found the moose dead from gunshot wounds on Friday, Oct. 2 in southwestern Lawrence County. While moose are not native to South Dakota, the animal had recently become a welcome visitor to the Black Hills.

The Turn In Poachers Hotline was started in an effort to reduce the number of wildlife crimes in the state. The TIPs program, which began in 1984 after two elk were poached in the Black Hills, serves as a single contact point for anyone with information about hunting and fishing violations in the state.

The program not only offers rewards for information on those cases, it also provides an opportunity for tipsters to remain anonymous. Hundreds of arrests are made and thousands of dollars are rewarded each year through use of the network. According to Schuurmans, this could be the most important call you ever make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

More Confusion On Feds “Distinct Population Segment” Creations

The Western Institute for Study of the Environment (WISE) has a story this morning covering information they found on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Register that officially places the gray wolf back on the Endangered Species Act list. This includes the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oregon and Washington. Areas of Idaho south of I-90, southern Montana and all of Wyoming remain part of a “Nonessential Experimental Population”. Minnesota’s wolves remain listed as “threatened”.

According to the article, the USFWS was forced into doing this because of three court rulings. Those rulings, along with returning the wolf to federal protection, also force the USFWS to eliminate any Distinct Population Segments they created within the states listed, in order to delist the wolves. It was the ruling of Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. federal court that said the USFWS did not have the authority to create these DPSs.

Where does that leave us in dealing with endangered species then? Certainly if the courts ruled that the USFWS can’t create smaller DPSs, then it would only seem logical that they don’t have the authority to create any DPSs, expand or modify existing DPSs. Friedman’s ruling also would have to bring into question as to whether any existing Distinct Population Segments are legal.

I’m am having difficulty accessing the Final Rule on this at the registry. All I have for information on this right now is what I found at my friends over at WISE. I’ll report more on this and provide a copy of the Final Rule once I’m able to get my hands on it.

Tom Remington

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

Wolves In Great Lakes To Go Back Under Protection Of ESA

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

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

I’ll have more on this ruling tomorrow.

Tom Remington

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

Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t miss out on this opportunity!

Tom Remington

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

South Dakota Hunters Have A New Voice In Politics

Below is information and a press release about a newly formed organization in South Dakota, South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy, aimed at fighting to protect the hunting heritage of South Dakotans. As I looked over the site, I found this.

SDHRA was founded by a group of outdoor enthusiasts who strongly believe that hunting is a sacred, inalienable right; a basic tenet of our existence that teaches the intelligence, beauty and power of nature, while engendering respect for all life, responsibility to society, social authority, and spiritual power. In concert with that belief, SDHRA is actively engaged in legislative, administrative, and limited legal advocacy to protect and enhance the rights of South Dakota residents to lawfully hunt on publicly and privately owned land within the state…..

From the information I have been able to gather from their website and the press release below, it appears that we have a winner. This group actually seems interested in protecting hunting for everyone and not geared to some select special interest other than hunting.

They’ll certainly have my support if they hold true to their pledge.

Here’s the press release:

South Dakota Hunters Have a New Voice in Politics

The South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy (SDHRA) is a newly formed nonprofit group committed to enhancing the stature of the state’s resident hunters. The organization, based in the State’s capitol, was created to proactively monitor proposed legislation and administrative rule changes that impact hunting and explore ways to make the sport more available to casual resident hunters.

According to Board Chairman, Lennard Hopper, “The organization is really the culmination of years of discussion about the need stand up for the rights of the ‘average’ South Dakota hunter. A lot of casual hunters are being squeezed by commercial ‘pay to hunt’ operations; public land is often miss-posted by adjacent property owners attempting to retain game populations for “paying” customers. The irony is that the game they’re trying to contain is managed with public tax dollars by the Department of Game, Fish and Parks for the benefit of all residents of the state.” Hopper states that the organization is “not opposed to game farms and
‘canned’ hunts, they’re great for the State’s economy. Its just that we want to make sure that all public hunting areas are both accessible and clearly posted and that administrative rules do not place the interests of nonresidents ahead of resident hunters.”

Another issue Hopper sees is that South Dakota law has functionally disenfranchised parents from effectively sharing the tradition of hunting with their children. According to Hopper, age restrictions, established in the name of safety, circumvent the knowledge that parents naturally have regarding when a young son or daughter is ready to get started hunting. “We’ve been supporting a bill right now in the legislature to get youth out sooner, as well as some ideas to include youth that may otherwise be overlooked.” The organization is presently assembling a plan to provide hunting opportunities to boys and girls in single parent and non-hunting families, who have an interest in hunting.

The organization is funded entirely by donation. Additional information is available at the organization’s website at http://www.sdhunting.org.

February 26, 2008

Pierre, South Dakota

Issued by: South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy

125 Norbeck Dr.

Pierre, SD 57501

Tom Remington

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

Spinning Animal Disease For Political Gain

It is a real shame that we as a society have come to the point where we perceive lying as a good thing, something that we use as a tool to see a result. In other words, the end justifies the means.

Dr. Gail Saltz says we begin learning to lie at about age 4 or 5. We discover that lying gives us power in the selection of our words. Adults lie for various reasons but an interesting point that Saltz makes is the expectations of our society and who we might expect to lie and who we hold to a higher standard.

We expect, for example, less honesty from politicians than from scientists. We have a vision of purity about those who are doing research, while we imagine that politicians will at least shade the truth about themselves in order to get elected.

I think Saltz, if given the time, would also add to that politicians’ list the need to lie in order promote political agendas and achieve personal gain.

Animal disease is a great tool to manipulate public opinion. The reason is simple really. People don’t like disease and often it is feared and if presented to the masses of people in a particular way could incite riots. Obviously there are times when people need to be made very much aware of the dangers concerning disease and animals, especially if it is animals we eat. We want to know about beef recalls and things like mad cow disease, etc..

One disease that many people don’t know about that occurs in wild animals such as deer, elk and moose is chronic wasting disease. The truth is very few people know anything about it. Those who do are more than likely hunters and ranchers, along with wildlife biologists and a few politicians who might see an opportunity to use the disease for political gain.

Using disease to instill fear in people in order to achieve agendas of politics and/or personal goals is a lousy thing to do. Unfortunately, politics is a dirty profession and as Dr. Saltz says, we as a society expect nothing better from the likes of such politicians. I suppose this is why they do it a lot and are good at it.

Three states that I am aware of are in the midst of debates about the relationship with disease and the domestic cervid industry – cervid in these cases meaning deer and elk. Those three states are Idaho, North Dakota and Oregon. There may be more. Certain groups or individuals want to shut down these industries for various reasons but all of them like to throw out the fears of disease tactic.

Chronic wasting disease is only one of them and I’d like to give you an example of how this is done by a politician. Sen. David Langhorst of Idaho has been on a campaign for some time to rid the state of Idaho of the domestic elk industry. Over the past couple of years he has resorted to varying degrees of assorted reasons why there shouldn’t be domestic elk in Idaho. He’s tried taking off large chunks in efforts to end it all immediately to settling more for the incremental approach, much the same way as the groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have done.

Mr. Langhorst has taken up blogging, I suppose for much the same reasons that I do, to provide a platform where people can come and read about issues and discuss them. Lanhort’s blog can be found on the Idaho Statesman’s website.

A few days ago, he posted a blog called, “Elk for Sale” and has garnered some debate and comments from an array of readers.

The post was a great fiction piece in which he attempts to scare readers into painting a picture of what it is like in Idaho on these elk ranches he so despises. But it is later on down in the comment sections when he begins presenting more, what he calls, facts. He even titles it, “Elk Farm Diseases: True or False?”

I don’t have time right now to go through everyone of his claims of facts so, I will address only his presentation of facts about chronic wasting disease in an attempt to inform readers of the truth about the disease.

The first documented case of CWD was in a confined deer pen in Ft. Collins, CO. (true; there is speculation that the facility had previously held sheep infected with scrapie, a CWD-like disease)

Some of those deer were let loose, for whatever reason. (true)

The first known area of widespread CWD in wild deer and elk was in the area around Ft. Collins. (true)

CWD continues to spread outward from that area, infecting the Wyoming/Colorado/Nebraska deer and elk herds. (true; this is why some claim that wild elk are more likely to bring disease to Idaho.)

In the 1990s, Colorado game farms shipped elk infected with CWD to other states, where CWD was consequently found in game farms. (true)

As of 2007, all states where CWD had been found in wild animals also had game farms (true)

As of 2007, there were three states where CWD was documented in game farm animals and NOT yet found in wild game (MN, OK, KY) (true)

If I may be bold enough to clarify some of Mr. Langhorst’s claims of fact.

In 1967 a wasting syndrome was first recognized in mule deer in a research laboratory near Ft. Collins, Colorado. It wasn’t until 1978 that scientists (Dr. Beth Williams) actually recognized this syndrome as a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE).

As it is written in most every scientific writing about the origins of CWD, it is not documented nor confirmed where CWD comes from. Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance states that, “modeling suggests the disease may have been present in free-ranging populations of mule deer for more than 40 years.” They further go on to explain that CWD is just as likely to be a spontaneous event that could have happened in the wild or in captivity.

It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk.

Dr. Trent Bollinger describes the origins of CWD in this fashion.

Where or how CWD originated is not known. One explanation is that CWD is actually sheep scrapie occurring in cervids. It could also have originated from a prion disease in another species which has not yet been discovered. Alternatively, the disease may have developed independently in cervids with spontaneous converison PrP C to the resistant form and then subsequent spread to other individuals.

Langhorst alludes to the idea that infected sheep may have been the carriers of TSE in scrapie but once again science does not clearly support that theory. They are not even sure that the TSE can be passed back and forth.

It should be pointed out that the reason the disease was discovered in this lab was because of research. The disease wasn’t even heard of by this time. It wasn’t as though scientists were testing wild and domestic deer for a disease they hadn’t heard of yet. Where would be a likely place to first discover such a disease? As with most diseases, in a lab.

The area around Ft. Collins and in northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming became known as the “CWD endemic area”. I have no record of the deer within this one facility being released. Official records have stated that they do not know whether the disease, which by the way occurs naturally, was already present in free ranging wild populations of mule deer. Scientific models done in 2000 indicate that CWD was prevalent in the wild for at least 30 years.

While it is true that there has been some spreading of the disease “naturally” outside the “CWD endemic area”, scientists say that this is insignificant. Scientists once again speculate that they believe most of the cases of CWD showing up far from the “CWD endemic area” came from uncontrolled, unregulated shipments of diseased animals.

However, wildlife surveillance begun in earnest in 1997 by wildlife agencies led to detection of CWD outside of the historic endemic area.

Langhorst doesn’t provide any links to substantiate his claims so it is difficult to know exactly of what he is writing and when. Documented history shows that the first recorded event of CWD found in domestic elk occurred in 1997 in South Dakota. Surveillance has indicated that diseased elk were shipped from South Dakota to Saskatchewan. It was after the South Dakota event that CWD was found in farmed elk in Colorado.

People should be made aware that during this time, little was known about CWD and therefore it took some time before it was discovered that diseased animals were being shipped across the country and the impact the disease can have on wild and domestic ungulates.

Mr. Langhorst tosses out claims of which states have CWD and which states have elk ranches etc., which provides for some wild speculation but it still proves nothing from a scientific perspective. Science says that they probably will never know the origins of the disease. They have yet to fully understand the complexities of how the disease is passed from one animal to another.

It is easy to sit here and say that all states that have elk farms also have CWD, which is only an attempt to convince readers that elk farms are the origin of the disease and the cause of the spread and that simply is not true. It is quite unfair to force one’s speculation on others as facts.

If Mr. Langhorst had chosen to be completely forthcoming in his facts, he would have also explained to readers that in some of the states he claims that have documented cases of CWD in elk ranches, they don’t test any of the wild ungulates for disease and those that do are often times are sparsely done.

As with all livestock programs, when diseases are recognized, efforts are put forth to understand, diagnose and deal with it to limit or halt the spread. This was successfully done in the Saskatchewan elk industry. With continued improvements to testing and further studies to help scientists understand how the disease is spread and how to stop it, there is hope for a good clean industry.

As states, such as Idaho, that have a great track record in keeping their industry free of CWD, it shows how a livestock industry can continue to grow and flourish and there’s no need to try to scare the people into believing things that simply aren’t true.

Tom Remington

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

South Dakota Inches Toward Crossbow Use For Hunting

A new bill, HB1116, has been introduced into the South Dakota House that would permit people who are 65 and older to hunt only antlerless deer with a crossbow. Current law allows the use of a crossbow for hunting under certain handicap cases.

(4) A person who is aged sixty-five or older and holds a resident or nonresident big game license that is valid for taking antlerless deer may use a crossbow or other legal bow equipped with a draw-lock device to take antlerless deer .
A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

I’m not sure the reason for such a law to be honest. Many in South Dakota believe there are too many deer and are looking at ways to reduce the deer population. I can’t see how this bill would do much of anything to aid in that purpose. The questions I have are, why 65 and older and why only for only antlerless deer?

Does this also mean no special safety course is required? All that a 65 or older hunter needs is a big game hunting license?

Tom Remington

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

One More Animal Rights Organization Shows Its True Colors

Sinapu, an animal rights group centered out of Colorado, wants South Dakota to end its practice of controlling problem predators such as coyotes using aircraft. The state has temporarily grounded its program following a crash of one of the fixed-wing aircraft it uses for hunts. This crash occurred this past July.

Wendy Keefover-Ring of Sinapu wants ranchers to “get serious” about non-lethal means of dealing with predators like coyote.

“Instead, we would like to see South Dakota livestock growers get serious about using non-lethal controls such as bringing livestock into pens or sheds at night, and especially during the times when the livestock are lambing or calving,’’ Keefover-Ring said.

One has to wonder if Keefover-Ring has ever stepped foot onto a ranch in the west? Livestock graze in open rangeland. You don’t just go out and round up your head of cattle and bring them to the barn and tuck them in at night. Nor do you do this at calving and lambing time.

She also recommends guard dogs and electronic “scaring devices”. Boooo!

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Agent Prieksat Will Not Be Reassigned

On May 30th I told you about the Governor of South Dakota, Mike Rounds, announcement he would terminate any agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service involving law enforcement because of alleged bullying and harassment accusations against Bob Prieksat, a USFWS agent.

USFWS is announcing today that Prieksat will not be terminated or reassigned, a requisite of the Governor’s office in order to continue a working relationship. However, according to a report from the Rapid City Journal, Prieksat has volunteered to spend less time in the field and more time in the office directing other agents.

The Governor’s office has not responded to this latest announcements.

Tom Remington

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

South Dakota Cancelling Law Enforcement Agreement With USFWS

South Dakota has evidently had enough of the actions of one U.S. Fish and Wildlife federal agent, Bob Prieksat. They say Prieksat used bullying tactics against hunters and landowners. The state gave USFWS 60 days to either reassign Prieksat or fire him and USFWS did nothing.

Now South Dakota has said they will terminate law enforcement agreements they have had with USFWS in 30 days if nothing is done. It appears USFWS is not going to do anything.

Governor’s Chief of Staff Rob Skjonsberg says, “I think what they are telling us is that this issue is something we shouldn’t be concerned with and if that’s their response to us I think it’s incumbant upon us to stand up for ourselves and say this kind of behavior is not acceptable and this kind of behavior is not something we want reflected on our Game, Fish and Parks Department.”

So, what does this mean? It means that state officials can’t enforce certain federal laws and vice versa. What that really means is unclear but I think should this termination of agreements end, situations will arise that will require delicate handling, however USFWS is planning to conduct business as usual.

Mowad (Gary Mowad, Prieksat’s supervisor) says, “My agents will continue to do work as they have always done work, the only change that I see coming down the pike if it does occur is we would have to cancel some covert investigations we’ve got going.”

Communications with Prieksat and his office will end and the state says that any negative effects to wildlife will be USFWS fault.

Tom Remington

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

Should All National Parks Be Considered For Hunting Seasons?

One of the first U.S. National Parks to discuss the possibility of using licensed hunters to thin and better manage elk populations was the Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Not long after that, debate has begun about how best to reduce elk numbers in Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota. Now, officials for the Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota are discussing the possibilities of using licensed hunters to reduce the nearly 700 elk there down to better manageable numbers.

Isn’t it time we begin asking the question of whether or not it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of this country and for the betterment of the wildlife, to consider using a tried and proven wildlife management method of hunting for our National Parks?

Tom Remington

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

South Dakota Mountain Lion Report

The South Dakota Game Fish and Parks released its 2006 mountain lion report summary. You can view it here in PDF format.

There were 56 known lion deaths in South Dakota last years. 16 of those deaths were the result of harvesting by hunters. 16 were killed by GFP officials as nuisance animals. 9 were killed in vehicular accidents. 4 were caught in snares and the rest were a conglomeration of a number of things.

Tom Remington

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

Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!!

Supposedly, these photos were taken by someone in South Dakota. The cat was watching the children playing on the floor just inside the patio door.

If you have further “accurate” information on the origin of these photos, let us all know.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »