Is There Really Any Such Thing As “Pure” Wolf

For purposes of education and nothing intended as political, although in discussing wolves the task of remaining non political becomes nearly impossible, it has often been asked whether wolves reintroduced into the Northern Rockies or Desert Southwest are in fact the same animal that roamed those areas in its day. Perhaps the truth is we don’t know. One possible danger could be the creation of an imbalance to that particular ecosystem, while at the same time some people believe the wolf to be an integral and necessary part of the ecosystem. But what part?

If you will recall, Teddy Roosevelt often documented in his writings about wolves and coyotes. He relates his experiences with the Native American Indians how they cross bred dogs in order to get a useful beast for work and hunting. Roosevelt also described in detail his sightings of wolves in his travels, making account of the variations in size and behavior from one region to another.

In numerous discussions, some claim the wolves we see in the wild, including those introduced into the United States were “pure” wolves. Others question whether there is such a thing. In our haste to populate regions of this country with wolves, we have pushed to create distinct species and subspecies of the wolf. Back in March I told you about environmentalists in the Northeast region of our country that wanted to recognize, document and declare wolf-dog hybrids as a separate species and move toward their federal protection.

Through researching and studying this creature so frequently recorded in history, much of which is deemed as lore, I’ve had access to varying records of historic accounts of wolves, albeit many times anecdotal evidence.

Recently I received through a group emailing a series of historic notes or excerpts taken from records of many years. These accounts speak of the frequent and common inbreeding of wild wolves with domesticated dogs. I thought that in combination with links to previous historic accounts, this would shed some light on the possibilities that there even exists a “pure” wolf, or the same ones that roamed our regions years ago. It might help us all understand better the kind of animal we are dealing with.

~~~~~~~~~~

Late 1700’s, Western Hudson Bay – “the Dog… resembles the wolf, but in size is greatly inferior… They run and bite in silence, never barking but sometimes howl egregiously… It is usual for our [Newfoundland] dogs and also the native breed to copulate with wolves, and the offspring retain the moroseness of the latter.”

Williams, G. ed., intro by R. Glover. 1969:33. Andrew Graham’s Observations on Hudson’s Bay, 1767-91. The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, Vol. XXVII, London.

————–

1801, Park R. Post, North Dakota – “We had a Bitch [in heat]… I turned [the dogs] out and drove them all to the plains when a band of Wolves being near hand, and getting the scent of the bitch approached them, and a furious battle ensued, in which one of our dogs was torn to pieces, and left dead on the spot. This is frequently the case at this season of the year, when the Wolves are copulating and our dogs get among them they are often torn to pieces. The female Wolves it would seem prefers our dogs to their own species, and we now see them daily coming near the Fort and endeavour to entice the dogs out onto the plains with them. This often happens, when if the dogs do ever return again, they are in a most miserable condition, lean and covered with sores. Some of my men have amused themselves by watching their motions and when they have observed them in the act of copulating have rushed upon them with an Axe or Club, when the dogs apprehending no danger would remain quiet, and the Wolf being prevented from running off was instantly dispatched.”

Gough, B.M., ed. 1988:106. The Journal of Alexander Henry the Younger 1799-1814, Vol. 1:Red River and the Journey to the Missouri, The Champlain Society, Toronto.

—————-

1861, St. Cloud, Minnesota – “I saw a large brown and red dog at the hotel, so wolfish in appearance that I enquired his pedigree. I was told that he was half wolf and raised as a train dog for the sledge… and that such dogs were raised and kept at Georgetown for this express purpose. In the rutting season the she dog is taken into the woods, tied and left. She is found there when the heat is upon her by the wolf… and the result is a cross breed… The wolf dog I saw… [described]’ p 121

Morgan, L.H., 1999:121. The Indian Journals, 1859-62. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published in 1959, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI

————–

1851, Fort Union, North Dakota – “Indian dogs differ very slightly from wolves in appearance, howl like them, do not bark, and not infrequently mate with them.”

Kurz, R.F. 2005:172. On The Upper Missouri: The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852. Edited and Abridged by Carla Kelly. Introduction by Scott Eckberg. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

————-

1859, Fort Edmonton, Alberta – “They are mostly of the ordinary Indian kind, large and long-legged and wolfish, with sharp muzzles, pricked ears, and thick, straight, wiry hair [of many colours]… Most of them are very wolfish in appearance, many being half or partly, or all but entirely, wolves in blood. One dark grey dog… was said to be almost a pure wolf…”

Southesk, Earl of. 1969 [1875]:152-53. A Diary and Narrative of Travel, Sport, and Adventure, During a Journey Through the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Territories, in 1859 and 1860. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas; 1969 by Charles E. Tuttle Co. Publishers, Rutland, Vermont & Tokyo, Japan.

————

1845, southern Saskatchewan – “an immense number of dogs… follow them from the [Metis] settlements for the purpose of feeding on the offal and remains of the slain buffaloes. These dogs are very like wolves, both in appearance and disposition, and, no doubt, a cross breed between the wolf and the dog. A great many of them acknowledge no particular master, and are sometimes dangerous in times of scarcity. I have myself known them to attack the horses and eat them.”

“At night we were annoyed by the incessant howling and fighting of innumerable dogs and wolves that had followed us to the hunt, seemingly well aware of the feast that was preparing for them…”

Kane, P. 1925:53, 61. Wanderings of an Artist Among the Indians of North America. The Radisson Society of Canada Ltd., Toronto.

———-

Assiniboine word for dog = “Shunka”; and wolf = Shuñkto-ka-cah,” which means “Literally, the other kind of dog.”

Denig, E.T. 2000 [1930]:189. The Assiniboine. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Reprint from Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1928-1929

Tom Remington

“….and Nothing But An American”

Once passed around the Internet as an excerpt from a speech by Theodore Roosevelt, in actuality this if from passages taken from a letter he wrote to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919, three days before he died.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Tom Remington

Northeast Environmentalists Want To Protect Interbred Canids (Dogs)

Where will the absolute insanity stop when it comes to efforts by extremists to end hunting, fishing and trapping, close off lands to human use, strip us of our rights and destroy our god given right in the pursuit of happiness?

It has gotten so bad that a group, made up of representatives from Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York, have petitioned the Department of Interior in order to place protections under the Endangered Species Act for any interbred species of dogs, coyotes, wolves or any combination of the above, claiming these all to be unique species.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Endangered Species Act, we hereby petition the U.S. Department of Interior and the Service to regulate the commerce or taking, and treat as endangered species in the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts, coyotes (Canis latrans), coyote/gray wolf hybrids (Canis latrans x Canis lupus), eastern wolves (Canis lycaon), eastern wolf/gray wolf hybrids (Canis lycaon x Canis lupus), coyote/eastern wolf hybrids (Canis latrans x Canis lycaon), and coyote/eastern wolf/gray wolf hybrids (Canis latrans x Canis lycaon x Canis lupus) because of their close resemblance to the federally endangered and protected gray wolf.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the U.S. Endangered Species Act, we also hereby petition the U.S. Department of Interior and the Service: (1) to establish a Northeastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment consisting of the States of New York, Vermont New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts; and, (2) to develop and implement a Northeastern Gray Wolf Recovery Plan.

Part of this groups reasoning is that with open hunting and trapping seasons on eastern coyote, because some of these coyotes my have interbred with an Eastern gray wolf, it should be protected in order to protect the gray wolf.

We seem only now willing to admit that wolves and domestic dogs have been interbreeding for centuries. Recently it was determined that what made wolves black was the result of interbreeding with dogs. We’ve even found in historic writings, like those of Teddy Roosevelt’s, that Indians and trappers/hunters used to do a lot of interbreeding with wolves and their hunting dogs to develop a dog that could stand up to wolves.

Neither the gray wolf nor the eastern coyote is threatened or in any danger of extinction. To think that we now should consider protecting mongrel dogs in the wild is absolutely ridiculous. When the USFWS gets done reviewing this petition, it should be immediately tossed in the garbage can.

Tom Remington

The Battle To Correct Media Bias And Bad Information

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

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

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

Wyoming refused to adopt any limits on wolf killing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

To Catch A Wolf – Part IV

Links to Part I, Part II, Part III, Part V.

Before we venture into some of the Scandinavian countries to examine how they dealt with wolves and wolf problems, let’s visit for a moment right here in the United States. It is believed that several subspecies of wolves inhabited much of the U.S. at one point in time.

Teddy Roosevelt went to great pains in some of his writings of the late 1800s in describing the different kinds of wolves he encountered all across the nation. He related colors, sizes, characteristics and habitats of any of these predators he came in contact with. One thing Roosevelt tells us is that even though he believed that man’s efforts to get rid of wolves certainly had a significant affect, he was convinced there was something more than man’s effort at hunting, trapping, poisons, etc. that wiped out wolf populations.

What is different about Americans dealing with wolves and many of the other European and Asian countries we have looked at, was the fact that Americans were readily armed with guns and could not only protect themselves from large predators but they actively hunted and trapped the animal as it was part of the heritage.

In areas of France and Russia, most guns were banned and only wealthy and governmental connected people could posses a gun. In cases where the peasant population could own a gun seldom could they afford to buy one or the ammunition to put in it.

As settlers in America moved into the forests and prairies of the west, they encountered wolves. Not unlike those in Russia, France, Italy, India and any other country that had wolves, it didn’t take long for people to grow to dislike the wolf, especially when it began killing off livestock and threatening the children and other settlers.

Having the weapons to do so, these settlers, turned hunters and trappers, began to kill off the wolves in many parts of the country.

In parts I, II and III of “To Catch a Wolf”, we’ve looked at some of the different methods employed by the government, wealthy hunters and peasant trappers to kill wolves. We’ve established that the wolf was clearly despised by the people and often times their lives were controlled by the fear of getting attacked by wolves or having their livestock destroyed. People risked their lives with wolves in order to avoid starvation.

Here in America, we don’t have the long and storied history of wolves like our friends across the ocean. Our experiences were somewhat different and short lived in comparison. Our access to the tools used to kill wolves, in comparison, seems so much easier but the creativity of devising ways to mass kill wolves wasn’t lacking.

In 1854, Hurst and Blackett published Thomas Chandler Haliburton’s book, “The Americans at Home: Or, Byeways, Backwoods, and Prairies”. In that book is a chapter titled, “Wolf-Hunting on the Turkisag“. This is one account of a seemingly bizarre, daring, if not ignorant, rough and tumble wolf hunt, one that takes place under the full of the moon and putting every participant in danger of their lives.

I tried and failed to find out where the Turkisag was. Assuming it was a mapped out place or location, I searched and found nothing. I began then to look more closely at the word itself and with knowledge that this book was written in the mid-1800s, I wondered if the Turkisag was a created word of local origin.

Turk or turki relates to either the country of Turkey or the bird animal turkey. Sag used as a description could mean a depression, a valley, maybe even a hollow or some such. It is only a guess on my part but I thought maybe Turkisag came literally from the turkey sag. I might be completely wrong and would welcome any explanations.

Regardless of what or where Turkisag was, the author Haliburton, gives us a bit of a description of the area.

It was broad moonlight when we arrived at the place selected as the scene of operations. The Turkisag possesses a different aspect from the Blue Ridge. The latter is of a noble and magnificent description, but the scenery of the former is of a different order: there was an air of desolation hovering about it that produced feelings of awe, and you gazed around you as if in expectation of beholding something instinct with horror. Dark and gloomy caves or holes met your sight on every side; but where a level spot presented itself, it was thickly covered with trees, short, and of monstrous bulk, so that they nearly shut out the light of the moon in various places.

The stage is set for the hunt. There are around 50 men all armed with guns and ammunition and lots of it. Haliburton tells us that many times hunters/shooters can’t leave their posts for several days. This is after all the time of year when “wolves are the most ravenous, mustered in great numbers“.

This kind of wolf hunt is referred to as a “skirl“, being defined as a shrill and piercing sound. That name and description alone would be enough to send shivers up and down the spine.

One party locates a place where they will build a scaffolding, where shooters can lie in wait for the wolves. Read Haliburton’s depiction of the place and the construction.

The spot where we purposed to erect our scaffolding was in the dreariest place we could select, and, as it proved, where wolves were the most numerous. First, we all set to work with our axes, and cleared a space of about fifty feet in extent, by cutting down the smaller trees, leaving, of course, the larger ones standing. At the extreme west of this clear space, two scaffolds were erected after this wise: branches of trees were driven into the earth, six or eight inches apart, rising above the ground about eight feet; then a great quantity of brushwood was wove around them from the bottom to the top, presenting a strong basket or net-work; across the top were laid large branches, affording a tolerably firm flooring; and around the works props were placed, giving sufficient strength to the whole capable of bearing the weight of the party; a rude ladder was also made to enable us to ascend, but more particularly for the runner, whose share of the dangers of wolf- shooting was not inconsiderable. These scaffolds were built nearly on the edge of a precipice of about sixty feet in height; on the north-east, and about one hundred feet from us, arose a peak, stretching far above our heads, overhanging a gap in the mountain about twelve feet wide. The opposite point was somewhat lower than that on which we stood, making a considerable descent, leading round to the place where we were encamped. Before us appeared an interminable forest, with here and there a cave, the uncertain moonlight only adding to its repulsive appearance.

Did you pick up on the term “runner”? Frighteningly so, it is exactly as you might imagine. Two men are “selected”. God knows what process that is actually used to pick who will be the runners aside from the fact that they should be young, fit and able to run fast.

Their task is to head out into the forest to find the wolves. Then the runner has to get the wolves to chase him. Utilizing only the available moonlight and a few dimly lit torches, the runner must use his blazing speed to stay just ahead of the wolves while hopefully successfully negotiating the landscape in the darkness of night. One mistake and it’s toast.

The runner then must enter the scaffolding area in time to climb the ladder to safety and before the wolves catch him or the bullets hit him from when guns begin blasting at the wolves.

The author at one point writes that the runners take some kind of drug with them. Little is said about it so we can only guess as to whether it was something they thought would enhance their speed or awareness or maybe it was to quell the fear. Maybe it was even used for something else.

Then, taking from his pouch a drug, a piece of which they placed in their moccasins, and holding the remainder between their fingers,

Picture if you can how a shooter must be feeling. It is dark and you are stationed on a platform above an area set for ambush. You know that two men are being used as decoys and they are depending on you to kill the wolves before they get killed. Here’s how it began to unfold.

Presently a faint howl was heard, that caused the blood to rush to my heart. Nothing but actual experience can enable any one to form a correct estimate of the intense anxiety that a person labours under on such occasions. Again, another howl, more loud, then another—another, from every direction of the wood ; then simultaneously, a burst, as if from myriads, resounded through the wild, echoing from mount to mount, followed up by cries still more awful and terrific.

“Be ready!” said an old hunter beside me, in a tone that betrayed the excitement he felt, ” for we shall have work to do presently; ” and at that instant a wolf emerged from the wood into the open space, the torches revealing him plainly to our view. A dozen rifle balls in an instant pierced him. Another followed, glancing first at the torches, and then at us, as if uncertain what course to take.

” Be chary of your ammunition,” said the same hunter, “for we may need all we’ve got;” and he raised his rifle, as the wolf was turning back, and instantly brought him to the ground.

The terror and the stress is building. The air is filled with blood-curdling howls, shooters are unloading on one wolf and you are reminded not to waste your ammunition. With that all dancing in your mind, along with the fact two human beings are out there streaking through the forest and running in fear for their lives, you hope you won’t miss.

The first runner appears.

We could not discover the least sign of their proximity, and the awful howls now came thick upon our startled senses, borne upon the breeze that whistled past us. Suddenly we heard footsteps, and could detect the quick breathings of a person, followed close by the rush of multitudes of those ravenous beasts, and presently the form of Ralph was seen, darting like a winged bird towards the goal. Close upon his track are seen the wolves—they press upon him, their eyes gloating at the prospect of his becoming their victim—lie looks not behind—he gains the open space—already they clutch at his legs—he eludes their fangs, and with a spring reaches the ladder—the next moment he falls breathless upon the scaffold—he is Safe !

As the guns crack and the dead wolves begin to pile up, Haliburton’s description of what is taking place sheds some light on what the runners used the drugs they took with them for.

The gleam of the torches threw a fitful light on their protruding tongues and glaring eyeballs, as they ran to and fro, rendered frantic by the unnatural appearance of the flames, and the exciting nature of the drug used by the runners, so that they fell easy victims to our murderous fire, which, however, in no way appeared to check their onward rush.

Did the runners use some kind of bait or food laced with this drug to first feed the wolves? Obviously it appears as though the drug was used to alter their behavior.

But what of the second runner?

Appearing from the dark, through the midst of the chaos and frantic behaviors of both men and beast, the second runner appears, surrounded by wolves on both sides and from behind. He cannot make the ladder to safety.

Hunters open fire on the wolves and the runner is yelled at and told to try to jump the ravine ahead, knowing the odds of him making it were slim but doing nothing would result in being eaten alive by ravaging wolves.

The shooters continue to kill massive numbers of wolves until they run out of ammunition. The runner is left to his own desire and willpower to live. He opts for the ravine, jumps and doesn’t make it.

What possesses men that they would be driven to such extremes in order to kill wolves? Was this only about the hunt or was this something that had to be done to protect the people and their property?

Wherever the Turkisag was, make no mistake there seemed to be an endless population of wolves that night. How many got killed we know not but several and it cost one young man his life.

For several reasons, wolves in the United States where nearly wiped out. Efforts to get them back have led to great controversy and there is no end in sight to the bickering. Our knowledge and reality in dealing of wolves is so limited that some fear that the wolf populations here are growing at a disturbingly fast rate. With endless lawsuits blocking efforts to remove the wolf from federal protection, we may someday be forced into finding ways to mass kill wolves. Proper management can prevent that from happening.

My efforts here in bringing you these historic documents of how people have dealt with wolf problems worldwide, isn’t to advocate for the construction of wolf ambush slaughtering sites but only to educate people that protecting the wolf isn’t the same as protecting a non-predator. History shows us the devastation wolves can cause. We should have no desire for any of that.

If ever the day arrives that we can properly manage wolves, it will be a learning process to determine what tools will be required to control wolf populations. Sending one licensed hunter into the woods with one rifle believing this will be a viable tool to control populations is foolhardy and born of ignorance. Initially there might be some success but it won’t take long before the wolf figures this out. This is why Teddy Roosevelt said that the only way to hunt wolves was with a pack of well-trained hunting dogs.

Tom Remington

To Catch A Wolf – Part III

Links to Part I and Part II and Part IV and Part V.

We have learned greatly from the previous writings that wolves were not only a real problem for people in many parts of the world but also the animal was despised and feared, mostly for justifiable reasons. We’ve discovered that often it was only the wealthy barons owning the resources to take up the hunt for the wolf, while the peasants were left to their own devices, sometimes their lives ending in death from wolf attacks against them.

They say necessity is the mother of invention and often out of the desperate act of survival the peasants created some ingenious contraptions to capture and kill wolves.

In Part II, we spent most of our time taking a look at how France dealt with wolves, from an outing with a local baron and teaming up with peasants to lure wolves into a makeshift but very effective palisade, to the design of a self-attending wolf trap.

Before we leave France and travel further north, I would like to also share from “Saint Pauls Magazine” as edited by Anthony Trollope (1868); specifically one chapter called “Wolves and Wolf-Hunting in France“.

Trollope’s accounting of how locals dealt with wolves very closely follows those I shared with you in Part II, however the author seems to show a bit of disgust, perhaps at times pity on the despised wolf, while offering up some humor as well. What is clear is that the wolf is no one’s friend, despised and abused.

In this account and several others I have read, it is often mentioned that the dogs that hunt the wolf will not touch a dead wolf after they have killed it. During the chase, as part of the hunt, the dogs will fight and bite and hold, doing whatever is necessary in order to take down and dispatch the wolf. Once the feat is accomplished the dogs will not touch a dead wolf.

Trollope describes for us certain aspects of the wolf.

“Ah! the unclean beast.” ” Peuh, the son of a polecat, how he stinks ! ” This last compliment alludes to the wolf’s offensive odour, which, as Buffon remarks, is truly disgusting, and which issues with overpowering strength from any place he may have occupied for several successive days.

We see that people are yelling their abuses toward the wolf as they “beat” through the forest in an attempt to chase the wolf from his cover. Trollope tells us the wolf “stinks”, has an “offensive odor”, is “truly disgusting” and whose smell “issues with overpowering strength”.

Later on, we are given a glimpse at how the hunting dogs react after the wolf is dead.

The conduct of the dogs is peculiar; the small ones howl strangely, hiding their tails and trembling with convulsion. The large ones appear transported with a kind of rabid ecstasy, their jaws grind and chop, their eyes become wild and bloodshot, and their hair bristles on all their limbs. When once, however, the dogs have fairly killed the wolf, they refuse to touch his dead body.

What is interesting about this aversion to a dead wolf by the hunting dogs, doesn’t seem to be the same in the reverse. Often I have read that wolves like the taste of dogs and in this book, the author claims that wolves will pass up an easy chance at a sheep in order to sink his chops into a dog.

Imagine if you can, which I realize may be difficult to do, after reading what you have, what wolf meat must be like. I would suppose that growing up in a time and place where encounters with wolves consumed a fair amount of your time, it wouldn’t take long to build up a dislike for the animal. The wolf caused death and destruction and clearly was hated to no end. The descriptions of the wolf being “the son of a polecat”, “stinks”, having an “offensive odor” and the “rankest carrion in creation”, among others I’ve shared above, leave us little hope that wolf meat would be good to eat. Combine that with the actions and reactions of the dogs who refused to touch the wolf after it was dead. All of this and the built-up resentment, fear and hatred over the years, real or imagined, how could anybody bring themselves to eat wolf meat. (rational thinking)

Even Trollope alludes to the fact that most of this aversion to wolf meat was, “less fact than imagination”. Yet through all of this, we find that people still, well at least some anyway, were able to retain a good sense of humor.

The flesh of the wolf may be taken certainly to be about the rankest carrion in creation, not even excepting that of the common vulture and the turkey-buzzard. Yet all this in reality is less, fact than imagination. M. Charles Gauthey, a well-known sportsman in the Cote-d’Or, relates that the landlord of a country inn, himself a sportsman, and wishing to play the brethren a confraternal trick—or as it is called in French, leur jouer un tour de chasseur,—had a piece of wolf’s flesh cut into small square morsels, and stewed up with veal and mutton cut into pieces of a different shape. The landlord helped the ragout himself, and being careful to serve each guest with one of the square morsels, was enabled to inform them after dinner that they had all been eating wolf. Two of the guests were thereupon seized with horror, and one to such a degree that he was compelled to retire from the table with precipitation. The others took the joke in good part, and one an all declared they had detected nothing in the dish to excite suspicion in the least degree.

Once again, in this quest to discover the true character of the wolf, I want to make it clear I am not advocating that we Americans need to learn how to massacre wolves. We do however need to learn about them because the depth of that knowledge runs shallow. In future times as the wolf continues to expand and grow, it is most certain that we will have to deal more and more with similar wolf confrontations as those in Russia, India, France, Italy, Scandinavia, Alaska and Canada have come to know.

It is unclear whether the imported Canadian gray wolf or any other wolf for that matter, will ever be removed from federal protection. States such as Idaho have preliminary rules that will govern a wolf hunt (found in Part I) should the time present itself. Unfortunately the rules strip the hunter of most tools needed to successfully hunt and kill a wolf. He essentially is allowed to go into the woods with only his rifle.

If you have been reading Parts I and II, you have learned through several accounts that it is impossible to hunt the wolf by any means other than with “powerful and well-appointed” hounds, as Teddy Roosevelt attested. It is believed that initially there will be some success but as the wolf adapts and learns that humans want to kill him, his avoidance skills will out last that of a lone hunter.

Hunting is and has been a readily accepted tool for population control in wildlife management. When the time comes that we need to control wolf populations (which is now), hunters will need the proper tools to accomplish that task. We have learned that no management of the wolf over the years in other countries, often where guns are outlawed and only the wealthy can hunt, wolf populations were always a problem. We can’t let that happen here in America.

Gaining further knowledge from these historical accounts of wolves, wolf hunting and the tactics used against them, can help to further our understanding of this creature. With better knowledge we are better equipped to properly manage this beast.

Tom Remington

To Catch A Wolf – Part II

If you missed part one of “To Catch a Wolf” you can find that at this link. This link for Part III and Part IV and Part V.

As I mentioned in Part I of “To Catch a Wolf”, wolves are not easy game to hunt. As I surmised also, had Russia been interested enough or financially capable to employ a steady dose of decent wolf management, perhaps some of the tactics used by wolf hunters wouldn’t have become necessary. I’m referring to tactics that resulted in mass killings of wolves.

Needless to say, some day into the future, I’m sure that one way or another, the United States is going to be faced with a dilemma on what to do about too many wolves. Initial plans are being made in some states (I mentioned Idaho in Part I) as to what rules will govern the wolf hunts if they are ever removed from protection. As in Idaho’s case, the rules essentially ban every means of hunting except for a man and his rifle. Historic documents tell us that this will not work. Initial wolf hunts may see some results but once the crafty canine discovers he is being hunted, one man and one rifle will not be any challenge to the wolf.

Previously, we discovered that in Russia, the wealthy (barons) people undertook wolf hunts utilizing pigs in canvas bags as decoys. We also read in great detail how the barons teamed up with the peasants, who had crafted a great palisade (elaborate trap) in order to kill several wolves at one time.

Let’s move our journey westward into France. In 1814 the state granted the Louvetiers permission to hunt wolves. Louvetiers were public officers appointed as superintendents in the “wolf districts”. Their job was to “encourage” the destruction of the wolf.

Roderic O’Connor writes in “An Introduction to the Field Sports of France” that the most difficulty realized by wolf hunters was finding a way to get them out in the open so they could be killed.

I should remind readers that in writings about wolves and wolf dogs of Teddy Roosevelt’s he says the only way to hunt wolves is with the use of hunting dogs.

The wolf is one of the animals which can only be hunted successfully with dogs. Most dogs however do not take at all kindly to the pursuit. A wolf is a terrible fighter. He will decimate a pack of hounds by rabid snaps with his giant jaws while suffering little damage himself; nor are the ordinary big dogs, supposed to be fighting dogs, able to tackle him without special training.

O’Connor says that the only way to get wolves out of the thickets is with a “powerful and well-appointed pack of hounds”. As a matter of fact, it is suggested that no fewer than 100 – 120 hunting hounds are necessary. Still the challenge is daunting.

In wolf hunting, they enter the forest as quietly as possible, and thus endeavour to get near the wolf before he starts, which is a matter of considerable difficulty , as he is always on the alert, and has so quick a perception of their approach that he generally steals off before they come up with him. If the forest is large and sufficiently dense to afford him protection, he can seldom be forced to quit it: he then twists and doubles through all its intricacies with which he is thoroughly acquainted, and exerts all his subtlety to baffle his enemies. The hunters have no remedy but to press on the hounds, and thus endeavour to overpower him and compel him to bolt, or to hunt him down in the forest: but if he is found in a less extensive forest, or one which does not afford him sufficient scope to play off his cunning dodges, he saves them all trouble on that score, at once decides on starting for some distant forest, perhaps some 15 or 20 miles off, where he knows he will find ample protection, and dashes away like lightning ; they then come in for a splendid run,

We learn that having 100-120 “powerful and well-appointed” hounds is rare and so other methods are employed. For instance, the hunters may gather as many hounds as they can get and head into the forest to find the wolves much in the same manner as is described above. The hunters set themselves up in ambush.

They are obliged to observe the strictest silence, and to conceal themselves with the utmost caution, for the wolf, who is peculiarly quick sighted, proceeds with great circumspection, and carefully examines every object before him.

If hunting dogs are not available and the louvetiers need to rid the community of the wolves, they commandeers as many “chasseurs” (chasers) as possible and head for the woods.

When it is ascertained that a wolf is lurking in a particular locality, the louvetier of the district assembles as many chasseurs as possible, and, assuming the command of the party , proceeds to the cover, stations his chasseurs in the best positions he can select, and then enters the wood with a few beaters.

As soon as the wolf perceives them advancing, he endeavours to steal off unobserved , finds all the passes guarded, and meets with a warm reception from his concealed enemies. They generally aim at his shoulder, but if there is any bungling, and he returns into the wood, it is quite hopeless to think of forcing him out a second time. It would be easier to hunt a rabbit out of an acre of furze, (which is no easy matter, I can assure you), than to compel him to break cover again : he must then be dealt with in some other manner , and the difficulty of getting at him, is considerably increased.

As you can now well see, when wolves became a problem in certain communities, depending upon the urgency of the situation, depended somewhat on what methods were used to kill the wolf or wolves. When too many wolves became a real problem, serious tactics where used. This one is called the wolf battue.

The most effectual method of destroying these detestable animals, when a neighbourhood is infested with them, is the general wolf battue: it is called traque in many parts of the country, from the word traqueur; the synonyme-of our word beater. This wolf battue- is conducted by the louvetier of the district, and is a very formidable and curious proceeding. He assembles several hundred persons armed with guns , staves , pitchforks, swords and all manner of destructive weapons; and, after disposing a long train of shooters and placing them so that nothing can escape without coming under their fire; he then forms his traqueurs into lines, placing them sufficiently near to each other to preclude the possibility of any wolves passing between them. When they are thus arranged, he gives the signal, and they immediately commence striking the trees and bushes with their sticks and pitchforks, firing oil guns and pistols, blowing horns , beating drums, and making all manner of hideous noises, advancing at the same time in a slow and regular manner, so that nothing can get through their line, and thus driving all before them. The wolves thus frightened by the din of war, lay aside their repugnance to the open country, and break cover in all directions. The slaughter then commences, and they are shot while endeavouring to make their escape.

Not always are communities so overrun with wolves but make no mistake about it, wolves are always present and looking for a quick and easy meal – goat or sheep, poultry, pet or most anything that will stave of hunger.

It was often left up to the individual farmer to devise ways to capture and/or kill problem wolves on his own. To watch a flock of sheep or protect the barn all night required a lot of man power and time, seriously putting a cramp on anyone’s lifestyle.

The following ingenious description of an unattended live trap, I found quite fascinating.

When wolves are not sufficiently numerous to demand such tumultuous proceedings; or when the forests are too extensive for the adoption of the battue system , various contrivances are set on foot to entrap them. Of these, the tour a loup which is considered very destructive, is worthy of notice: it is constructed as follows: some convenient spot is selected in the vicinity of a farm house, or in some locality where they are in the habit of committing nocturnal depredations: a circle is described, of from 8 to 10 feet in diameter; good strong stakes of, at least, 10 feet in length, are then procured; they are pointed at one end and driven firmly into the ground in the circumference of the circle, at a distance of 5 inches apart from each other, leaving one open space of 18 inches only for an entrance.

A second circle is then described with the same centre, so that its circumference may lie within 16 inches of the outer circle. Similar stakes are then firmly driven down in the circumference of the inner circle, at a like distance from each other, and without leaving any aperture for an entrance: the circular path lying between the two rows of stakes is well trodden down to represent a beaten path: the door, which should be made of good strong timber, is then hung on easy iron hinges, and so contrived that when shut from the inside , it will remain fast, by means of a latch falling into its proper place. A goose, or a sheep, is then placed in the central space, from whence it cannot escape, and the door, (which opens inwards), is left open, and stops up the passage on one side.

The wolf, attracted by the animal within, approaches with his usual caution : and, at length, seeing the door open, and the beaten path before him, enters. Once in, he cannot turn in the narrow path, and goes round until he comes behind the door which he pushes on and closes upon himself.

Not only do we learn of the cleverness of the farmer or whoever it was that designed this trap, we also see things that give us hints as to the intelligence of the wolf being trapped. They had to actually make the ground between the two circles look like a well worn path otherwise the wolf might become too suspicious and not enter.

The author also offers up an interesting observation, one of which I have never heard before this reading.

When wolves once taste human flesh they become perfectly ferocious and will ever afterwards attack a man when they meet him alone. They pass by the flock and fly at the shepherd.

I have read about quite a few wolf attacks on humans in several parts of the world and this is the first reference I can recall exclaiming that wolves like the taste of human flesh.

As I pointed out at the conclusion of Part I, I am not advocating for people in America to take up their staves and pitchforks and become part of a wolf drive that will force wolves into an ambush with the intent of killing every wolf possible. The point I’m making is that it has always been a very difficult task for wolves and human to live together in peace and harmony.

Historic documents from Russia, Italy, India, France, Scandinavia, America and Canada should tell us that a steady dose of good wolf management, which includes strict controls on populations will go a long way in avoiding what people had to go through years ago in order to protect their communities and personal property.

The wolf is an intelligent and highly adaptable creature. When the time comes to hunt them, I’m afraid we will learn that setting a man with only his rifle afoot to catch a wolf will make for a tedious effort with little result.

Read “To Catch a Wolf – Part I”
Read “To Catch a Wolf” Part III
Read “To Catch a Wolf – Part IV“.
Read “To Catch a Wolf – Part V”

Tom Remington

To Catch A Wolf – Part I

Link to Part II
Link to Part III
Link to Part IV
Link to Part V

To be frank, there exists today very few people who have first hand knowledge on how to hunt a wolf. Wolf hunting many years ago became quite popular for a myriad of reasons, from the thrill of the adrenaline pumping danger to a matter of survival.

Today in America we talk of when the day comes, if ever, that the wolf we be taken off the list of protected species and man will once again be able to hunt this animal. We, including myself, often speak of the “Disneyesque” perception people today have of the wolf. I think the same can be said, at least to some degree, about how sportsmen are going to “hunt” the wolf when the time comes.

As a game management tool, specifically a population control measure, hunting has been a socially acceptable and scientifically viable means of accomplishing that task, however, I’m not so sure that we understand the difficulties we will be presented with in hunting this intelligent and highly adaptable beast.

I have been spending a considerable amount of time lately reading many accounts of methods used to hunt and kill wolves. Some of those I have already shared with you and other I’ve not. In a multi-part series I would like to take a little time and share with you some of the ingenious methods and sometimes comical tactics (you have to have a sense of humor) employed by hunters and trappers over the years.

In a book written by Will N. Graves, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, the author shares with readers an entire chapter on successful and not so successful methods used in Russia for centuries to hunt and or capture wolves. In an article I wrote last month, I told of those methods and how they might compare to the rules the state of Idaho has laid out for wolf hunting as being effective.

In short, Idaho will prohibit using any method to trap a wolf. There are restrictions on weapons that will be allowed, no electronic calls, no baiting and no use of hounds. In other words, it is man against beast.

Teddy Roosevelt wrote quite extensively about his experiences with wolves in the U.S. during the late 1800s. He tells of the difficulties in being able to hunt the wolf. He also sheds light on the fact that the Indians and the old hunters bred dogs, often with wolves, in order to create a mean wolf fighting/hunting machine.

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.

I have written more about Teddy Roosevelt’s experiences with wolves. You can follow this link to read. However, if you would like to read Roosevelt’s accounts in “Wolves and Wolf-Hounds“, this link will take you there. I will warn you though that some of his accounts of hunts with these dogs might be a bit gruesome, however factual.

In Russia, as well as many other places in Europe, I am discovering, for centuries they have had to learn to deal with wolves. The peasants, or common folk, couldn’t hunt for wolves because either guns were prohibited or they couldn’t afford a gun or the ammunition to use in it. Centuries of wolf encounters gave the Russians ample time to devise ways of controlling the animal.

I would like to point out however that even though I am going to share accounts of some of these methods, Russia for the most part did a lousy job of controlling wolves. In places there were too many causing the ungodly loss of life and property as historic documents now available from that country are more readily available, point out.

“Sketches of Russian Life Before and During the Emancipation of the Serfs” By Henry Morley, gives us a couple accounts of how Russians dealt with wolves. Take note that in these writings, the “barons” end up utilizing the crafty ingenuity of the peasants in order to bag their “trophies”.

The first method utilizes a pig as a decoy. What I have discovered is that this was common across much of Europe as well, as I will relate in later articles. In this case, the hunters took a pig and transported it in a “strong canvas sack” on a horse drawn sleigh.

Upon reaching their hunting destination, the pig, kept in the canvas bag, was made to squeal hoping to attract the attention of wolves. Hunters would wait at a distance to shoot the wolves when they came out after the pig. (I assume that using the “strong canvas sack” not only prohibited the pig from running away, it also protected the pig from the hungry wolves. The wolves approached the bag with a squealing pig in it but didn’t know quite what to make of it.)

Two wolves emerged from the forest and after having both been killed by the hunters, the remainder of the entire pack – about 15 wolves – came out of the woods. Dragging the two dead wolves behind the sleigh and retrieving the pig and canvas bag, the hunters took off down the road luring the wolves behind.

Much as one might suspect how the aerial shooting of wolves today is done, the horses, driver and hunters coordinated their efforts and managed kill a few more of the pack.

As you can see in this case there were few restrictions placed on the hunters.

But the ingenuity gets quite interesting. Being the idea of the sleigh driver, it is decided to send the hunters ahead to a filthy retreat of many crusty trappers, where a palisade has been built to trap wolves. The palisade is a construction of poles, staves and whatever of quite large size. If wolves, or any other animal for that matter, can be lured or tricked into entering the palisade, it is then trapped. The method is almost laughable.

In a short time all was quiet and every necessary preparation made. Then came the howling of wolves and the screaming as of a pig (the driver of the sleigh, Mattvic, now riding the horse and being chased by wolves, is howling like a pig), the gallop of a horse over the hard crisp snow, the rush of many small feet. The outer door in the palisade was dashed open, and Mattvic, followed in half a minute by the whole pack, rushed in. The half-minute was just sufficient to enable Mattvic to vanish through the outer door into the trap. Then, as the last pressure on the door was removed, it closed with a loud sharp sound, and some five-and-twenty wolves were snared in a space not larger than twelve feet by twenty. We did not at first close the inner gateway, but, levelling our pieces at the mass of wolves now huddling themselves up in a corner, poured in two volleys in rapid succession, then closed the gate, and reloaded for another charge. The change from the air of ferocious savage daring which the wolves had displayed in pursuit of a single horseman, to abject terror when they found themselves caught in the narrow trap, was instantaneous. They were like sheep in a pen, crushing up in a corner, riding on the top of one another, lying down on their bellies, crouching and shivering with fear. It is not necessary to describe the scene of mere slaughter. Two staves were chopped out of the gateway, that -we might fire through. The drop-panels were opened, and two or three were admitted at a time to the next division; there dogs were let in on them through the adjoining trap, or they were killed by men with great hars of wood or axes; and at length, when only six or seven remained, three of the men went in amongst them, and with perfect safety despatched them. They say that a worm will turn on the heel that treads on it, but wolves caught in a trap like this, from which there is no escape, have less courage than a worm. They crouch, shiver, and die, as I saw, without one effort at self-defence or one snap of retaliation.

I am not suggesting in this article or any of the others that will follow, that I am advocating for this kind of wolf slaughter in Idaho or any other state that may in the future hunt wolves. But please don’t miss the point that I’m trying to make.

We don’t know how to hunt wolves. Even the experiences Americans have had in dealing with wolves dates back several decades now and it seems the only talk of these wolves involves only the fact that the wolf was driven to near extinction for several reasons, the biggest finger being pointed at man. We have been taught that the wolf is “misunderstood” and needs protecting.

With wolves growing at a rate of as high as 30% a year in some places and no indications that wolves will be removed from protection anytime soon, should that day come, we may need at our disposal more methods of hunting wolves other than one man and one rifle, lest we be forced into mass killings.

Using Russia as an example, there appeared to never be any consistency in wolf population control measures. Efforts would go out to reduce wolves in some areas and then left alone only to allow the regrowth of wolves to overgrown numbers again. When culling was needed, maybe that is what triggered the creation of ways to mass kill wolves. Better management might have prohibited this kind of action.

In future parts, I will examine other methods used in the U.S., France and Scandinavia.

Tom Remington

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

Random Thoughts And Comments

Tired!!

Ah, yes! It’s that time again. So many thoughts pummeling this tired brain! Tired, yes, I’m tired. I’ve never been tired like this ever in my life. I’ve been tired from cross country skiing 30 kilometers but the recovery was sweet. No, this is a different tired. Some may say it’s because I’m pushing 57 but I don’t think so. 57 is young! I’m mentally tired. The brain is receptive to a constant bombardment of information but processing it into usable material is daunting. How do the masters do it? I’m anal, organized. For God’s sake I contemplate in what order I’ll dress myself in the mornings and trying to sort a steady diet of free flowing information is tiring. I’m learning.

Liberty!!!!!

lib·er·ty (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
4.
a. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
b. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
c. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

Is this us anymore?

Chairman Obama!

Chairman Barack Obama was in Ft. Myers, Florida yesterday peddling is Stalinist agenda on the blind people. The media is smitten as badly as the people who can only see what they are craving to see. They yearn for something no man can give them. A woman in the audience stands up to the microphone and with tears down her face, begins to tell Chairman Obama that she is homeless. The crowd stands in awe as if anticipating the great one to somehow part this woman’s waters.

The lady begs Obama, “Please, help me!”

The Chairman appears a bit uncomfortable but I’m sure realizing he has power over the fawning masses, he moves from his bully pulpit into the crowd. He approaches the woman and bends slightly to kiss her cheek, promising he will do what he can. People standing around, mostly women, are quivering, shivering in uncontrolled anxiety (or envisioning having sex with him), tears also running down their faces. I could read the lips of at least one woman repeating over and over, “I love you Barack. I love you Barack. I love you Barack.”

Teddy Roosevelt!

Yesterday I began reading Chapter Eight of Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches by Teddy Roosevelt. Chapter Eight is called, Wolves and Wolf-Hounds.

About two years ago, I penned a piece called, Me and Teddy Roosevelt Were Best Friends. We weren’t but the article dealt with those who invoke old Teddy’s name in a way to support their agendas fully believing they knew and understood who Teddy Roosevelt was.

It’s funny that our wildlife officials and politicians didn’t consult more closely with Teddy’s observations in Chapter Eight as he describes wolves he found all across the U.S. I can guess that one of the reasons is because they didn’t like what he had to say. More on this in a day or so.

Census!

Most aren’t aware or haven’t thought much about the fact that Chairman Obama used his power of the Executive Order to transfer control of the U.S. Census from the Department of Commerce to the White House. I’ve been asking among some of my friends, where’s the outrage?

Evidently people don’t understand the power of the census. As was so aptly put by one Congressman, the Census is the basis for everything that is done in Washington. Let me repeat that for you. The Census is the basis for everything that is done in Washington.

When the federal government decides to allocate money to the states, it is done from data collected via the Census. Every decision made in Washington is directly or indirectly based on Census data.

There used to be a time when the Census workers actually went to every door of every house in America, as well as visiting park benches to count the homeless, and counted heads. Chairman Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rambo Emanuel isn’t going to do it that way. He will “get a sense” of how many people live in a community. This “getting a sense” will determine political boundaries, congressional districts, population centers and in essence, Emanuel and Chairman Obama can manipulate the Census and rewrite the political structure of this country. They can ensure leftist dominance for decades to come. Think about it!

So where’s the outrage?

One Trillion!!!!

The word trillion has become quite popular of late. I remember as a kid learning about numbers. I can distinctly remember when I discovered how to count to one million. Of course I never actually did do the counting but I grasped the concept of thousands adding up to hundreds of thousands, all in numerical order, to eventually strike one million. There was a pattern. I wanted to be a mathematician. That was cool! Didn’t happen.

Eventually I learned that after millions came billions and then trillions. My brothers and I did like to sit around and pretend we knew some far fetched words to describe numbers too big to handle – I think gazillion was my favorite.

The truth is we don’t know what a trillion is. It’s kind of like the guy we just elected president. We think we know him but actually we only know his name is Barack Hussein Obama. We think we know how far it is to what was once the planet Pluto, but we don’t really.

This morning my son began instant messaging me about how much a trillion dollars was. He began putting it into perspectives that might help us understand. He said to me, “If I paid you $96,000 a day, you would be a millionaire in less than 11 days.” (Don’t ask me why he chose $96,000) At the same rate, I would become a billionaire in just over 28 years. And at $96,000 per day, I would reach one trillion dollars in roughly 28,500 years.

The U.S. Senate passed the $830 billion dollar spendulus bill. Without interest, if we began paying off that debt by $1 million dollar per day, it would take 2,274 years to do it. Too far fetched isn’t it?

The Senate was haggling over a mere $100 billion dollars in the bill. That $100 billion dollar difference is 274 years of paying $365 million a year.

This makes no sense. It is clear this government is out of control!

All Hail the Great One!!

All this fawning and panting and fantasizing over Barack Obama I find disturbing. He’s a man and that’s it. But people for centuries have believed they could find what they are looking for in a man or sometimes in a group of men, i.e. The Beatles.

For me often the best way to deal with such obsessions is to find humor.

I wish I could remember the name of the humorist/storyteller who used to entertain us with many stories about Brother Billy and one of my favorites is The Piccolo Player. In telling of the events yesterday in Ft. Myers with Chairman Obama descending upon the crowd while they waited in anticipation only reminded me of the Brother Billy story of when he went to visit the Vatican.

You see, you must understand that Brother Billy is a cripple. He gets around on crutches mostly. But Brother Billy was on tour of Europe and decided he wanted to visit the Vatican in hopes of seeing the Pope. He had been to London’s Big Ben but couldn’t go up inside the giant clock because he’s a cripple you know. He also went to Pisa, Italy to view the Leaning Tower. Again he was shut out of going up to the top. He’s a cripple you know. He passed on the Eiffel Tower because he knew he was a cripple.

As luck would have it, when Brother Billy arrived near the Vatican, crowds had begun to gather along both sides of the street. Everything was in a buzz. The excitement was at a feverish pitch. Brother Billy asked a nearby tourist, “What’s everyone doing?”

Brother Billy was told that soon the Pope would be coming down the street and that everyone was gathering in hopes of getting a peek at the Pope.

It was hard for Brother Billy, being a cripple you know, to work his way through the crowd but seemingly undaunted and driven by the prospects of maybe seeing the Pope, Brother Billy worked his way toward the curb. Somehow he wanted to be in front to see the Pope.

Brother Billy was cripple you know and was beginning to tire. He waited and waited. Soon Brother Billy considered giving it up. He couldn’t stand here on the street any longer. He was, after all, cripple you know.

But wait, Brother Billy could here the crowds cheering. Could this be the Pope, he thought?

Yes, he looked anxiously down the street, his frail body slung over his aged crutches. He is a cripple you know.

The Pope neared and as the vehicle carrying the Pope got beside Brother Billy, the Pope ordered the vehicle to stop. The Pope dismounted from his perch and approached Brother Billy. Brother Billy was surprised, the sweat pouring from his brow as he struggled to keep himself upright. He is a cripple you know.

The Pope approached Brother Billy. He was carrying with him his holy sceptre. He reached out with the staff and touched Brother Billy’s right side and his right crutch flew out from underneath him and into the crowd. The crowd ooohed and aaahed.

Next the Pope touched Brother Billy on his left side and like the right, the crutch flew out from under Brother Billy and landed in the crowd.

From behind Brother Billy in the crowd you could hear someone yell, “Has he been healed?” Nearby a man replied, “No, he fell flat on his face. He’s a cripple you know.”

Tom Remington

Teddy Roosevelt Park Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

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

Immediate Release Valerie Naylor
701-623-4466

December 17, 2008

Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Released

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-NPS-

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

Walk In Woods And “Carry A Big Stick”

During last night’s presidential debate (for lack of a better term), Sen. John McCain fumbled and bumbled while trying to promote the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt, and ended up saying, “Talk softly and carry a big stick.” Teddy Roosevelt first used the term during a speech in Chicago, I think, and quoted an old proverb that says, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” Us rough and tough Americans have morphed that into, “Walk tall and carry a big stick!”, as in Buford T. Pusser.

A man in British Columbia, Canada went for a walk in the woods with his two black labs and was attacked by a bear in the company of two cubs. You can read all the details at Canada.com but in short, he ended up finding a stick at the scene after being attacked twice and he beat the bear to death.

Here’s an interesting bit of information that appeared at the end of the article. Officials went to the scene where the guy clubbed the bear. They ended up shooting the two bear cubs and according to the article, the conservation officers said the bear acted “unnaturally, overly aggressive”. They also said this:

The mama bear’s two cubs had to be put down in case the aggression had been passed down in their genes.

Really? Any bear experts want to weigh in on this? Is it unnatural behavior for a mother bear with two cubs to act to protect her young? I’m guessing the bear was surprised, not just by the man but his two dogs as well.

Conservation officials should do what their policies dictate they should do in cases such as this but I question some of their reasoning.

Tom Remington

Interior Secretary Says He Would Support Using Local Hunters In Teddy Roosevelt Park

Department of the Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne toured Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota and came away with a statement that he would support using local hunters as a means of thinning an overgrown elk herd.

Don’t get too excited over this statement. These have been made before and it’s not a completely honest one. Although details are never revealed in such statements, more than likely the opportunities that might be made available are not in line with what we would call a traditional opportunity to hunt elk.

It would be nice to shut down the park for a short time and allow a bona fide elk hunt to take place but realistically, I just don’t see that happening.

Tom Remington

*Note* – Some of this information came from the Associated Press who doesn’t want bloggers linking to their articles etc. without paying. Therefore, I am not providing a link.

N.D. Fish And Game Makes Suggestions For Thinning Elk In Teddy Roosevelt National Park

As the debate continues over the best ways to thin out a ballooned elk population in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the state Fish and Game Department is making some suggestions.

Game and Fish director Terry Steinwand says the National Park Service should allow volunteer hunters a chance to go after the elk. He says they`ll need to have taken a hunter safety course and get special training for the elk hunt. They`ll need a hunting license. The licenses would be distributed by a lottery system, and the hunting season would run from November to February.

Now it’s beginning to make some sense. Let’s hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Parks Service begin to see things in this light as well.

Tom Remington

Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands

Thanks to J.R. Absher, the Newshound at Outdoor Life, who sent me an email containing a press release that was given to him after he met with Congressman Duncan Hunter, R-CA. You can read the entire press release by clicking this link (a pdf file).

Congressman Duncan Hunter has introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives the “Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act”. The act is an attempt to reduce the price paid by hunters who visit National Forest lands or government lands in other states to hunt.

The release recounts some history of the efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, who in 1909 signed into the law the formation of over 42-million acres of forests to be open to the public and a guarantee that Americans would always have land to hunt on, something this country seems to have forgotten.

Hunter also relates to readers some of the costs encountered by hunters traveling to other states to hunt on federal land.

“Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on federal land.

“For example, the out-of-state license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $766 for elk.

Of course, these fees are outrageous. Mr. Hunter takes the time to explain why he thinks the prices are so unfair and what is happening as a result of these road-blocking fees.

“What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property.

“Certainly, individual states have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

“What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-state fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

Hunter cuts right to the heart of the problem and makes his readers believe that he fully understands what Teddy Roosevelt had in mind the day he scratched his pen over the legislation creating the public lands. But then he thoroughly disappoints me.

“The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt’s “Great Estate” of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of states’ wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-state hunters share in this minimal expense.

“My bill, therefore, says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land.

As is usually the case, I will be chastised by hunters who say that any relief is good for all hunters and that I shouldn’t be critical when efforts are being made to reduce the costs of hunting fees, etc. Well, I agree that anything helps and I am thankful but why does Congressmen Hunter stop short of actually restoring to Americans what was rightfully given to them in 1909 by President Theodore Roosevelt?

He explains that by limiting the charge to $200 it “strikes a balance” between the ridiculous fees states charge out-of-state hunters to hunt on lands the state doesn’t own and the free use of the land Teddy Roosevelt intended. He says that each state is entitled to charge a minimal fee to offset expenses.

The first interest is the state’s legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the state of New
Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

Mr. Duncan uses the analogy that these exorbitant hunting fees is the same as locking a gate to a road that gives access to thousands of acres of land. His proposal doesn’t remove the gate it only gives out the combination to the lock to a limited number of hunters. I’m sorry but not all hunters can afford a limited $200 fee to hunt on land they own through the government.

Wasn’t Teddy Roosevelt’s intent in creating mass amounts of public lands was to insure that we as free Americans would always have unrestricted access to lands for recreation? Hunter even eludes somewhat to the fact that the original 42-million acres was more land “than
all the royal estates of Europe combined”.

How many times have we listened to hunters and outdoorsmen speak of how the United States is slowly getting to the point that only the king will be able to hunt?

While I applaud Mr. Hunter for making an attempt to open the gates back up to all Americans and welcome any reduction in price that this bill might bring, I don’t believe that $200 a head to hunt on federal lands is a reasonable fee. That father and his two boys will have to cough up $600 to go hunting on land they already own a piece of through taxation.

I would have liked Mr. Hunter to go a bit further and reduce that amount down to a fee that could be easily determined by assessing the costs born by each state for their share of administering the federal lands in their state.

The good news is, we have a politician who at least sees that our federal lands are being slowly taken away from us and that some of us would like them back.

Tom Remington

Next Page »