I have posted the information with links and a player for your convenience for the February 28, 2008 broadcast of Open Air With Tom Remington. This link will have all the links for your reference that I referred to during the show.

Tom Remington

You gotta go see this!

Tom Remington

How many elk are there in the Northern Rockies area in and around Yellowstone National Park where wolves now control the landscape? How many were freely roaming the forests and the plains in their peak? How many are there now?

I’m not so naive that I don’t understand at least to some degree about counting wildlife. There are two things I know for sure; wild game are difficult to count and is mostly done based on gathering data rather than counting one by one, and when asked, fish and game officials are supposed to give out “official” numbers – I would suppose those put together from the last round of calculations even if their anecdotal evidence reveals something different.

What is oftentimes overlooked or just not brought up in discussions involving game populations is a break down of numbers. An example of this might be if officials state there are 100,000 elk in Idaho (this is a random figure). They may also claim that compared to previous years’ the population of elk is holding steady, etc. What would happen though if it was broken down by wildlife management areas? Would we see something different? Would we see a pattern that would show that in areas of large concentrations of predators, those numbers are substantially reduced and where there are fewer predators, elk and deer numbers continue to grow?

Of late, I am hearing from several people that the elk and deer in Idaho have or are disappearing faster than officials can count them. Is this true? Who does the counting? When is the counting done? If the elk are disappearing and vanishing that quickly, then we have to ask why?

I have stated in the past that I have a healthy respect for wildlife biologists and most fish and game departments. That respect dwindles in a hurry once these individuals and organizations become corrupt, mostly due to politics and hidden agendas. With that said, I also have a larger respect for the person that is in the field every day – the one who witnesses on a regular basis changes to the landscape, can compare those changes to evidence from years gone by, etc. These are the hunters, the trappers, the fishermen, the guides, the outfitters, the ones on the front lines nearly everyday. Any intelligently run fish and game department would be relying on these people’s eyes and ears for important information as to what is going on out there.

So, where have all the elk gone? Are they someplace where nobody can find them or do they just not exist anymore? Is the official elk count in Idaho only “official” because they haven’t official data that can render a change is official status? Are those claiming the elk are gone exaggerating their stories to embellish the truth? Are the wolves to blame? Are the bears to blame? Is it drought conditions or deep snow pack and extreme weather conditions? Is it a combination of all these factors or none of these? Some are claiming it is time to place the mule deer and elk on the threatened or endangered list because it is near extinction in some areas.

The other day I posted a brief comment from Robert Fanning of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. In Pray, Montana, which is just outside the northern fringes of Yellowstone where Fanning lives, the elk that usually winter there just aren’t there, according to Mr. Fanning. He writes, “There used to be 19,700 elk in the Mt FWP (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks) winter range next to my home, now we are down to 400. No bulls. No calves.”

That’s a whole lot of meat on hooves that have gone somewhere!

I also received a copy of a letter that was written by an outfitter in Idaho, Shane McAfee. You can find a complete copy of his letter at the Western Institute for the Study of the Environment’s website.

McAfee says his business is suffering badly because there are no elk and deer left for his clients so they no long want to come to Idaho to hunt.

In 1996 our Unit 28 opening week saw ten hunters harvest nine bull elk (1-7×7, 6-6×6’s and 2- 5×5’s). All mature bulls, all happy hunters! Eleven years later, after the wolves multiplied here, this season (2007) we harvested only one spike bull and four deer out of twenty total hunters. On my first three hunts last year I went 15 days horseback guiding and never saw an elk! Almost all of the hunters never wanted to see Idaho again; and yes, they were very upset!

McAfee blames it on the wolves that are exploding in population and are being allowed to grow unchecked.

After I posted the short article mentioned above about Bob Fanning’s claims that nearly 20,000 elk have been reduced to 400, readers began leaving comments. I got a comment from Greg Farber who lives in Idaho. Here is part of what Greg said.

I also have this information myself in my Master wolf file Ive been building. Not only that the Largest Elk herd of the North West from the Selway is GONE guys. 26,000 elk in 1996 and four head have been seen at the Winter Ranges along the Clear Water In Idaho. As well the Middle Fork of the Boise River used to have 10,000+ elk Wintering along this River from Atlanta to Lucky Peak, Ive driven this road three times this Winter and I have glassed 160 head. The South Fork of the Boise River should have 8,000 head along that drainage and Ive seen 57 elk in there. The Payette River between Grandjean and Lowman Idaho where I grew up and still spend time at should have 4500 head of elk in those wintering spots, I located 54 cows, no bulls, no calves. I found 300 elk in the King Hill Area South of Bennett Mountain, there should be 5000 head there.

I emailed Greg because I found this information staggering. I wanted to communicate with him outside of a public forum so that I could ask him if he thought there were explanations to the disappearance of all these elk other than wolves, bears and mountain lions.

Tom-I don’t honestly know where the elk are, all I can tell you is for 35 years I have gone to these places with my uncle and myself to watch the elk and to gather horns which were shed at those sites. I have not located any elk sheds, I used to fill the truck bed with elk-deer sheds. Now I just try to find elk. I live in unit 48, which was a fantastic trophy bull unit, And I used to watch those monster bulls in winter here, they are not here. I would not take this tag for free, there is nothing to hunt. The voice of the people such as myself is not heard or listened too. IFG, and FWS, are covering up this ….I dont know what too call it…a crime I guess. I’m a packer Tom, with horses and mules, I will be out there in the saddle as soon as the snow is off for three months, Im not going to work, Im going to stay on the ground and do what I can for truth. The question in my mind is there is no place else these elk can be, there is no other alternative winter range in these places, if they are not there at the ranges, their under the snow and predation has gotten them as well. In all my years we were told too not chase or bother elk in winter due to heavy snows killing them, especially exhausting them by making them run in it, yet the wolf can do it? The bottom line here is elk in deep snow and hungry wolves is a recipe for disaster, this is what we have in Idaho. I guess if these public servants continue too lie, then perhaps we need to physically remove them and replace them with people whom have integrity and want too be fair. I just do not know what we can do too right this thing. The authority’s are being controlled by the wrong people, and it is not us. I tell everyone too stop buying tags, there is no sense in taking a gun out there and killing a cow elk, if you can find it. I thought since 1999 my skills as a hunter were fading, Ive taken 23 elk in the same darn place consistently, my last one was 1999. Same thing on mule deer, I hunted those big boys in the back country and have four 30”+toads on the wall and these guys are 200 classs bucks. I can not find any in the usual winter spots to gather their sheds and comfort myself basically that those big bucks are ok. There not ok. I wish I could describe too you the feeling I have inside me when I see what I see, and know in my heart what has happened and yet the agencies come out and lie to us about herd counts. Maybe the feeling right now is helplessness.

Greg.

Below is a video of a flight over the back country of Idaho in search of wintering elk. The flight was done by the Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Idaho. They hired whom they thought was the most experienced pilot who could locate all the wintering ranges for the elk. See for yourself what they found.

Tom Remington

Official ceremonies will be today in Bethel, Maine to introduce the world to the World’s Tallest Snow Woman. Now this fine lady of the frozen tundra has a name – Olympia, named in honor of Maine’s senior U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe. We will also be given all the particulars but I have it on pretty reliable sources, he, he, that she is 122′ and 1 inch tall.

Here’s what she looked like at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, February 29, 2008 (Leap year/day) Gee, I wonder if she will ask Angus, King of the Mountain to marry her? That’s an acceptable practice on Leap Year you know.

I don’t know how much longer the web cam will remain operational but you can check it out here.

Tom Remington

By T. R. Mader, Research Director
Abundant Wildlife Society of North America

I’m convinced, based on several years of wolf research, hunters will bear the brunt of wolf recovery/protection regardless of location.

There is no language written in any wolf recovery plan to protect the hunter’s privilege to hunt. Wolves are well known to cause wild game population declines which are so drastic hunting is either eliminated or severely curtailed. And there is no provision for recovery of wild game populations for the purposes of hunting. It simply will not be allowed.

Example: A few years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agreed the state should take over the responsibility of wolf management. The DNR felt wolves were impacting their deer populations and wanted to open a short trapping season on the wolf.

The environmentalists sued and won. The USFWS could not give wolf management back to Minnesota in spite of a desire to do so.

The problem with wolf recovery is that most people, especially hunters, have not looked “beyond press releases and into the heart of the wolf issue.”

It must be stated clearly that the wolf is the best tool for shutting down hunting. The anti-hunters know this. Most hunters don’t. Thus, wolf recovery is not opposed by the people who will be impacted most.

In order to understand the impacts wolves have on hunting, let’s look at some biological factors of the wolf and compare some hunting facts.

The wolf is an efficient predator of wild game and domestic livestock. Due to its ability as a predator, the wolf was removed from areas of the U.S. where man settled. There is no such thing as peaceful coexistence between man and wolf – one has to give to the other since both prey/hunt the same wildlife/ungulate populations.

Did the removal of the wolf cause it to become endangered? No, there are 40,000 to 60,000 wolves on the North American continent. The animal is doing quite well. During the years of wolf control, the wolf’s territory was eliminated throughout most of the lower 48 states. That factor is the reason the wolf is on the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

A wolf requires five to ten pounds of meat per day for survival, thus the wolf requires a considerable amount of meat in one year – nearly a ton of meat per year per wolf. A wolf is capable of consuming great quantities of meat, up to one fifth of its body weight, at one time. Thus, a wolf does not have to kill each day to survive.

Wolves hunt year around – 365 days a year. Wolf predation is not limited to two weeks, one month or whatever a hunting season length may be, it is year around.

Wolves are opportunistic hunters, meaning they kill what is available and convenient. For years, hunters have been fed the line, “Wolves kill only the weak, sick and old.” Worse yet, hunters have believed it.

It is true, wolves do kill old animals, but so do hunters. Those are the big bulls or bucks prized by many who hunt. In fact, biological studies have shown wolves kill older male animals more than any other adult member of a wild game population.

Regarding sick animals, there are not many sick wild animals today. Hunters and trappers are directly responsible for healthy wild game herds today.

In the cyclic “balance of nature” of years past (no hunting by man), ungulate populations would thrive until they overgrazed their habitat and starved. This malnutrition made ungulate populations susceptible to disease. Consequently, disease was more common. Lewis and Clark wrote of such herds. (The other major factor contributing to the decline in wildlife populations was predation.)

Hunting controls this cycle so that herds are kept at proper levels for habitat, preventing malnutrition and susceptibility to disease. Hunting dollars went to habitat improvement and biological studies which, in turn, help maintain healthier herds of ungulates.

Even agriculture plays a part in the dispersal of salt and other minerals to domestic livestock. Wild animals access these nutrients as well. Thus, disease is not as rampant as when nature regulates it naturally. It is also interesting to note that where disease is a problem today, such as Yellowstone National Park, hunting is not allowed.

Trapping completes the cycle of game management by controlling the predator. The predator is to wildlife what weeds are to a garden. They must be controlled or they will take over. Additionally, predators are disease carriers. Some people are aware predators carry rabies since reports of rabid animals or some person being bitten by a rabid animal are often in the news, but few realize predators also carry other deadly diseases, i.e. raccoons carry a deadly fowl cholera. And finally, trapping benefits the predator by keeping their numbers in check. This keeps the population healthy. If predators do overpopulate, they become more susceptible to rabies, mange and other diseases.

Wolves do not eat sick animals unless forced to do so. We have found this true in many cases.

Example: A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) found a moose with brain worm. Brain worm completely destroys an animal’s instinctive and natural behavior. This moose had wandered out on a frozen lake in winter and was slowly starving to death. Wolves came by, checked the moose out and went their way. Tracks in the snow verified it. They did not kill it even though it would have been extremely easy to do so.

Wolves do kill the weak. Weak animals are not sick animals, they are simply the “less strong” of the herd. Wolves target these animals – the young and pregnant – due to their inability to escape. This is an important factor in limiting wildlife population numbers. Wolves prey directly on the recruitment and reproductive segments of ungulate populations.

While doing research in British Colombia, a wolf biologist from the British Colombia Ministry of Environment took the time to show me how wolves could impact hunting so severely. Here’s his example.

In this particular example he used a number of 300 females in a herd of elk. In his region, wolf predation is often 90% on the young (100% mortality rates due to predation are common in the north). If 300 females gave birth in an area of wolves, the approximate loss would be about 270 young calves killed during the summer months, leaving 30 yearlings to serve as replacements. A regular die-off rate on such a herd is about 10%. So the 30 yearlings would balance out the regular mortality rate of the female segment of the herd.

But overall there is a decline in the elk herd due to the fact that the 30 yearlings are usually sexually split in half (15 females and 15 males), thus the reproductive segment of the herd declines although the numbers appear to balance out. Without some form of wolf control, the rate of decline will increase within a few years.

There were approximately 100 males in this herd of elk. Figuring the regular mortality rate and compensating with the surviving young leaves 5 animals (males only) that could be harvested by man.

Now if this herd of elk were in an area of no wolves, there would be approximately 60 – 70% successful reproduction (calves making it to yearlings) or 200 young. Half of those surviving young would be male (100 animals). After figuring a 10% mortality rate, 90 older animals could be harvested without impact to the overall herd numbers. In fact, the herd would increase due to additional numbers of the reproductive segment (females) of the herd.

Now you have some insight of the impacts wolves can have on hunting.

In spite of the negative publicity generated by the anti-hunting, anti-trapping movements, hunting and trapping are some of the best wildlife management tools.

Hunters’ harvest can be limited through numbers of licenses issued, bag limits, length of seasons, and specification of sex of the animal harvested. Thus, only the surplus of an ungulate population is generally hunted. If the need arises that an ungulate population needs reduction, it is easily accomplished by allowing an “any sex” hunt and increasing license numbers. Additionally, hunters will pay for the opportunity to hunt which in turn pays for wildlife management.

Wolves do none of the above. They simply kill to survive and for the sake of killing. Studies have shown that ungulate populations cannot withstand hunting by man and uncontrolled predation by wolves for any length of time. One has to give to the other. In this day and age, the wolf will be the winner, the hunter the loser.

A point which should be stressed is “wolves kill for the sake of killing,” not just to survive. Many are convinced wolves kill only what they need to eat. That simply isn’t true.

Remember the moose with brain worm the wolves didn’t eat? In the same area, the same winter and only a couple of months later, the same Conservation Officer followed two wolves after a spring snow storm and found the wolves had killed 21 deer. Only two were partially eaten.

The snow gave the wolves the advantage. These deer were autopsied and many were found to be pregnant. The total number of deer killed in 2 days by these 2 wolves was 36.

Such incidents of surplus killing are common. For example, Canadian biologists came upon an area where a pack of wolves have killed 34 caribou calves in one area. Another example came from Alaska. In the Wrangell Mountains, a pack of five wolves came upon 20 Dall rams crossing a snow-covered plateau. All 20 rams were killed by the wolves. Only six were partially eaten by the wolves.

Dr. Charles E. Kay, PH.D. has lectured on the impacts of wolf recovery. To illustrate the impacts of wolves on hunting, he did a comparison of moose populations in British Colombia versus Sweden and Finland. Both areas have a comparable amount of moose habitat.

Dr. Kay stated, “During the 1980s in Sweden and Finland, the pre-calf or the wintering population of moose was approximately 400,000 animals and was increasing. While in British Colombia, it was 240,000 animals and decreasing.

“In British Colombia where they have a population of 240,000 animals and after a calving season they killed only 12,000 animals which is a 5% off take. In Sweden and Finland, on the other hand, they have 400,000 moose and guess how many they killed in the fall? They killed 240,000 moose in the fall which is a 57% off take rate.

“Now the two main differences, I don’t want to imply that there’s not vegetation difference and other things, but the two main differences is that British Colombia has somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wolves, all sorts of bears, grizzly bears and black bears which are also important predators, and mountain lions. Sweden and Finland have none of the above.”

Veteran wolf biologist, John Gunson, Alberta Ministry of Environment, summed it up when he said, “Really, there isn’t any room for harvest by man if you have a healthy wolf population.”

Hunters, please understand the impacts of wolf recovery on hunting and the role wolf recovery plays in the anti-hunters’ agenda. Natural predation, especially wolf predation, can replace your privilege to hunt.

****************************

Copyright 1991 – Permission granted copy this article in its entirety with proper credit given to the source.

T. R. Mader is Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS), a private wildlife research organization dedicated to the preservation of the Great North American Traditions of Hunting, Fishing and Trapping.

Posted by Tom Remington

The Associated Press has said that eleven groups have formally announced plans to sue the federal government to stop the removal of the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act. A list of some of those groups, of which the Associated Press seems reluctant to announce, includes the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice and Center for Biological Diversity.

They made their announcement of intent and then will formally file within 60 days. The groups’ lawyer, Doug Honnold, said he would seek an emergency injunction to stop any wolf killing that is attempted before the courts rule.

None of this comes as a surprise and it shouldn’t come as a surprise either that these groups have also begun their public relations campaign by using the press, such as they have with the AP, to publish their lies and misinformation in order to sway public opinion. These groups are led by ruthless people with no scruples and will do and say pretty much anything to accomplish their goals.

Here’s a classic example of what a representative on one of these groups said.

“A lot of the killing may not be taking place just from hunters,” said Michael Robinson with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that plans to sue. “It’s going to be very systematic killing, with aerial killing and the trapping of wolves to put radio collars on them and then, after they return to their pack, killing the entire pack.”

But, you know when you have the mainstream media on your side, that will print whatever they are told to print, without any kind of verification, I guess that gives them the upper hand now doesn’t it. Here’s what the AP wrote.

State officials have pledged to keep wolves on the landscape. But they also would allow hunters and wildlife agents to kill hundreds of wolves, in part to reduce conflicts with livestock and big game.

I guess this is a case of one will lie and the other will swear it’s true.

And if you don’t think these groups are serious and for those who think these people are only interested in a few wolves in the Yellowstone area, visit this site and you can read for yourself that Defenders of Wildlife and others are asking supporters to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support a National Wolf Recovery Plan.

Such a plan would continue protecting the wolf while allowing it to grow and spread throughout the entire U.S.. These people are sick and have to be stopped. It’s time for you to call on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and tell them we don’t need wolves living in everyone’s back yard.

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

Here’s the press release:

South Dakota Hunters Have a New Voice in Politics

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

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

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

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

February 26, 2008

Pierre, South Dakota

Issued by: South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy

125 Norbeck Dr.

Pierre, SD 57501

Tom Remington

When I pull up my swivel chair in front of my computer screen in the mornings and open up my mail box, I never know what I might find. This morning I had quite an array of photos. I picked two that I thought to be interesting and also quite different from each other to share. I don’t think either needs a caption as I believe the photo says it all.

Tom Remington

Here’s a photo of the World’s Tallest Snow Woman taken this morning at about 9:15 a.m. Plans are to have this girl dressed and ready for public scrutiny by Friday. She should have her other arm on this morning sometime.

*Update – 9:44 a.m.*

I just learned the World’s Tallest Snow Woman officially has a name – Olympia, named in honor of Maine senior U.S. Senator, Olympia Snowe.

Tom Remington

Today’s show will air at 3 p.m. on Skinny Moose Radio. If you haven’t downloaded the Skinny Moose tool bar yet, that has the Skinny Moose Radio player built right in, click here. All previous shows are archived and I’ve began a new event at the Skinny Moose Radio home page. Simply look to the right of that page and click on the “Open Air” category link. Here you will find posts about the previous shows and an embedded player so you can listen in. This is new so all the shows cannot be found they. For previous shows, go to the “download” link.

Today’s topics will include:

1. An update on Bethel, Maine’s World’s Tallest Snow Woman

2. Actions and events taking place with me and the Black Bear Blog

3. An update on District of Columbia versus Heller – the D.C. gun ban case going before the U.S. Supreme Court soon.

4. I introduce you to a brand new organization and web site that should become a valuable resource of facts and information about our natural resources. This will include information on climate change.

5. And you can’t miss this. I do my own rendition of singing the newest campaign song, “The Obamaman Can”. I promise it’s not as bad as Teddy Kennedy’s singing.

6. An the show wouldn’t be complete without more information about climate change. I’ll report on areas globally that are experiencing all time record cold and snow. All four official climate reporting organizations are saying the globally the average temperatures have dropped to the lowest levels in over 100 years – and we are still talking about global warming and carbon dioxide.

Join me at 3 today.

Tom Remington