Wolf Introduction Is A Criminal Enterprise Based On Scientific Fraud

Home > Wolf Introduction Is A Criminal Enterprise Based On Scientific Fraud

http://explorethebitterroot.com/the-wolf-pulled-over-our-eyes Bitterrootbob

Tom, my comment was added prematurely. Sorry, can you delete? I was saying, I have written an article concerning the wolf introduction (notice I didn’t say re-introduction). The Bitterroot Elk Herd is in trouble. Thanks for covering this issue so thoroughly!

You can read some more on the issue here: http://explorethebitterroot.com/the-wolf-pulled-over-our-eyes

I hope I don’t see the day when Montana residents have to draw for elk tags or when elk go on the endangered species list.

Great website you have here. Keep up the good work!

Tom Remington

Bitterrootbob – Nice article. No matter how much historic fact is presented that clearly shows the wolves introduced and the wolves that were native are not the same, the wolfies insist they are.

Robert

Tom, historic fact? I have not seen one shred of evidence that proves that these wolves were not native to Idaho. Just because some hunters who clearly do not like wolves claim these wolves are non native doesn\\t make it the real truth. I guess you don\\t care about what wolf biologists have to say. Are you going to claim that these wolves are so big when infact they aren\\t? Do you realize the average weight for the wolves in Idaho are around 100 lbs? Much less than the weights wolf haters claim they are. Wolves don\\t care about borders and to make a claim that these wolves are not native to Idaho is pure and utter nonsense. Where do you think the supposed native idaho wolves came from before they were in Idaho? %D%A%D%AThere are those who say we brought the wrong wolves into Idaho in 1995 and 1996, that they’re bigger wolves than the ones that were here.%D%AI have to support the science again, and specialists in morphology and genetics on wolves indicate that the wolf that was brought down from Canada is the same wolf that lived here previously. And I did some research into books on early wolves that were captured in the Northern Rockies, even as far south as Colorado during the days that wolves were being hunted down in the 1930s; and the body weights were very much the same.%D%A%D%ASo I feel that this wolf that was brought from Canada is the same species and genetics as the wolves that lived here once upon a time. I think people have to remember that the northern Rockies — we call it the northern Rockies in Idaho and Montana, but actually we’re a southern extension of the northern Rockies out of Canada — and all of those wolves in Canada have the potential and the ability to disperse. I believe what happened over the last 50-60 years is that individual wolves have come from Canada following the Rocky Mountain chain and ended up periodically in places like Montana and Idaho.-Carter Niemeyer%D%A%D%AI suspect you will delete this post as you don\\t want the facts out there, just things you want to believe.
Tom Remington

Robert – Why is it that you come here and make accusations about my blog and what I do by claiming I will delete this comment because I don’t what your facts posted? It makes you look like a fool. I don’t delete people’s comments because I don’t like them. OK ? It’s probably because many of the other sites you frequent do that because they don’t want to hear the “facts” some of us have to offer.

You can’t make a claim to “Historic Fact” without offering some means of backing up your statement. If you go back and research and study the entire process before wolf introduction, there was a lot of discussion about which wolves to bring in. Not everyone was in agreement about the different sub species and in the end, the USFWS got their way and brought in Canadian gray wolves, even though evidence was provided that these were not the same species of wolf.

Historic documents and accounts from days when wolves were a part of the landscape previous, including accounts written by Teddy Roosevelt, indicate that all within the Idaho, Wyoming and Montana regions, there were clearly three different sub species of wolves. These have been described at great detail in historic documents.

The Smithsonian has studies that support the great wolf expert David Mech’s contention that North America contain over 20 different sub-species of wolves and the Smithsonian study also supports the fact that the Canadian Wolf is not the same wolf that inhabited the Yellowstone area. As a matter of fact, their study shows that Northern Idaho and portions of Northwest Montana did have the same Canadian gray wolf and that there were natural boundaries that kept the three distinct sub species of wolves separated. This notion is also supported by accounts written by Teddy Roosevelt when he explored this region. As a matter of fact, Teddy wrote about how he and others in his party did not want to travel into some of these regions of Northeast Washington, Northern Idaho, Northwestern Montana and into Canada, because of their own encounters with much bigger and more vicious killer wolves that inhabited the forested north lands.

But what the hell difference does this all make. It’s water under the bridge and is only a distract to the fact that wolves are not being properly managed. In areas where the wolf has been allowed to grow unchecked, they have destroyed elk, moose and deer herds. This is quite unfortunate and has become extremely costly in more ways than one. These same wolves are now having negative impacts on citizens and their property.

Jim Beers is a good man. If you are interested in learning from the past in order that we not repeat the same mistakes in the future, you might consider listening to what he has to say.
Tom Remington

And Robert – You do understand that what Jim Beers is going to talk about isn’t just about whether the wolves that were introduced were the “correct” species of wolf? There is an entire plethora of illegal events that took place through this entire debacle and are still being implemented illegal. As I said, this could be educational and isn’t something you should be afraid of or think it’s all about “wolf haters”.
Tom Remington

Robert – You’re the one discussing and disputing wolf size, not me. If you want to discuss wolf size then you should discuss it with someone who is an expert in taxonomy studies. Size of wolf is mostly if not entirely dependent upon how much they eat not their genetics (another discussion).

And you are completely wrong about the issue of wolves already being here before the introduction. It is clearly documented the wolves that where in Idaho before introduction AND it was clearly documented that wolves from Canada had entered portions of Northwestern Montana and Northern Idaho.

You keep arguing about the wolves that were introduced and the ones that used to be here and sizes and such and I’m not sure why. I have read it all. All the arguments etc. from all sides of this issue and any of us can pick and choose which we want to believe. Again I ask what difference it makes. It’s all a distraction.

The concern all of us should have about introduction and the wolf being the same isn’t about the size of the danged wolf. It’s about how it reacts and interacts with an existing ecosystem. This is why invasive species are look down on so much.

You choose to believe a group of “experts” who say it’s the same wolf. There are just as many scientists who can effectively argue they are not. In time we hope that science will move on, stop the arguing and determine for sure what the truth is and how much it matters before we going dumping more wolves on somebody else and screwing everything up.

Support science all you want, but don’t be like everybody else and support only the science that fits your personal narrative.
Tom Remington

You can find all the scientists names who will refute your claims right here on this blog. Have a go at it……that is if that’s your intent. I doubt that it is by just reading your comments. You obviously have preconceived notions that anyone who opposes your “science” you cling so heavily to are only wolf hater/pro wolf crowds. Do you not believe there are scientist who disagree with your notions or are only real scientists those who protect wolves at any cost.

From my perspective, this conversation is over. I’ve given far too much time now to a very close minded person.
Greg Farber

” In fact, there are 32 different subspecies of canis lupus (Grey wolf). Some biologists – include L. David Mech – believe there are actually too many sub specific designations currently being used. I.e. they are assigning subspecies designations based insignificant sample sizes. The differentiating factors are size, weight, color, cranial measurement and geographic location. However these can vary significantly within a subspecies itself. And wolves can have massive ranges which will allow the subspecies to interbreed. Many biologists have taken to classifying wolves as either belonging to the species gray wolf (canis lupus) or the red wolf (canis rufus).”

” The court response was that it agreed with both previous courts and that the FWS was reasonable in believing that the subspecies irremotus (canis lupus irremotus) was effectively extinct and that since the species effectively no longer existed that it would be impossible to use it for reintroduction. Therefore ” Canadian” wolves (Canis lupus occidentalis) were acceptable.”

Also, it is estimated the only difference between the two subspecies is wieght of 5 to 15 lbs, height of about 2 inches, and length of about 6 inches.

Right off this ” pro wolf ” blog..
http://howlcolorado.org/2010/04/05/howlcolorado-response-to-mark-french-press-release/
http://www.howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

Interesting that you chose to take quotes off of our Web site. We are as you idenfitied wolf advocates. However we also do a lot of research before we make certain statements. Mark French’s comments were of particular concern as there were several factual inaccuracies which we sought to correct.

However, that all aside, there is some continued confusion over the “canadian” wolves used.

irremotus was the wolf which existed as a subspecies in Montana – the state in which French is running. He claimed it was nubilus (or the great plains wolf).

More recent science suggests that the subspecies in North America are actually closer to 5 subspecies. You can probably think of which wolves those would be. Arctic wolves have clearly adjusted quite agressively to their environment and therefore have morphological variations which justify subspecies designation.

The eastern wolf (lycaon) is likely a hybrid with coyotes and may well deserve a main species designation along with lupus and rufus.

The Mexican gray wolf is definitely a gray wolf. But they are quite distinct as a subspecies.

occidentalis is what can only be called the generic grey wolf.

There is also a continued desire to make nubilus a separate species. Interestingly nubilus also wanders into Canada, which one assumes makes it also a Canadian wolf.

The theory is that wolves that live in the northern rocky mountains are occidentalis or similar subspecies which adjusted to their environment becoming smaller. Thus irremotus.

The point of the article you quoted was to challenge French’s criticism of the reintroduction based on the wolves used being a larger, more agressive breed. He was wrong. He used the wrong subspecies, and the 188 animals killed in the hunt in Idaho this year showed an average weight of below 100lbs with only one animal reaching a significant size (135lbs). There are also going to be larger/smaller animals within a certain range based on their nutrition, overall health and genetic strength.

French also contends that the reintroduction was performed illegally. The court case you referenced in a quote undermined this as they determined that the Federal government acted in accordance with the commerce clause of constitution and as part of an overall management strategy.

HOWLColorado is not anti hunting (would be a tad hypocritical don’t you think), but we do seek responsible hunting practices to maintain a reasonable environment within which humans and predators can coexist. The environment itself also needs to be addressed as it is our belief that a major contributor to elk and other populations struggling is due to the natural range of these animals disappearing and becoming unable to sustain them.
Barry

“it is our belief that a major contributor to elk and other populations struggling is due to the natural range of these animals disappearing and becoming unable to sustain them.”

Your “belief”?

You have to be kidding me right? Well, here are the FACTS, our environments in Idaho haven’t changed in any dramatic way since 1995, nor has it disappeared. The only new player in the game in a mismanaged and illegally introduced wolf. Any other conclusion is nothing more than grasping at straws to push a failed agenda. 85% loss in two major elk herds, right in the epicenter of the drop zone. Dropping elk herd numbers directly relevant to the spread of the wolves. Yes lets play the global warming card now…….

Brother….what next?
http://howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

“With his job positioning him at the forefront of wolf management in the state, Rachael said one of the most frequent myths he heard was that the wolves released in Idaho in 1995 and 1996 were the wrong species for the area.

“That’s just pure silliness,” he said to the 14 people seated in a backcountry yurt just south of Prairie Creek.

Another fallacy Rachael said he has heard over the course of the season is that wolves are solely responsible for the decline in the state’s elk population.

While the predators have surely had a hand in thinning herds, Rachael said, many people have ignored a number of other significant factors, including the state’s history of wildfire suppression. Fewer wildfires have resulted in denser forests, inhibiting the ability of elk and deer to find food.”

- Jon Rachael, big game manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Sorry, we rely on science and scientists. May not agree with the philosophy which Idaho and Montana are using to approach wolf management, but they tend to stick to the facts on their research and allow us to disagree on a philosophical split between approaches – not the science itself.

The Lolo Elk numbers dropped well over 50% in unit 10 between 1989-1997. There were only 3 wolves in 1994 for the entire state of Idaho. There were 71 wolves by the end of 1997. Outside of a spike in 1994, the elk population for unit 10 has been dropping consistently for years, including many years prior to wolf reintroduction, and subsequent establishment. There is no doubt that the wolves have a minor impact on unit 10, but the precipitous drop in the population is not related to wolves, its related to something else. Blaming wolves is a clear attempt to ignore the real issue. Unit 12 has fared no better.- over a roughly 10 year period, starting in 1986 (8 years before wolf reintroduction) the elk population dropped from a peak of 5,000 to half of that.

Do let me know if you were talking about two OTHER “major elk herds.”

No need to grasp for straws when you can simply state the details and people can determine the truth from them.

As Rachael says, the range for these animals is shrinking. It’s either too much forest so they have nowhere to graze, or where they can graze is slowly disappearing for a dozen other reasons.
Greg Farber

You rely on cherry picked scientific theories.. Agenda driven science with controlled outcomes.. Those are humans using modeling methods to create their outcomes, were you there helping them ? Humans are known to be greedy, manipulated, controlled, biased, and especially humans working for government agencies, humans are not infallible and their is no such thing as infallible science.. You Howling for Colorado rely on scientific theories based on evolutionary theories.. You are just another scientific theorist..
Greg Farber

I do hope Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, certainly get a taste of this mouthful of wolf destructiveness we in Idaho have enjoyed.. Then you’ll have more opposition to deal with when those residents of those places finally see the truth.
Greg Farber

Wolf weights, size, species, etc. etc. will not matter at all, even if the damned wolf belongs here it won’t matter at all, because fraud is a crime, and if Beers proves fraud, and i believe he will, this entire debacle will then have been based on a fraud, using fraud or deception to do right is not right and never will be.. Being honest and working for government do not go hand in hand in this nation any longer… Government credibility is shot… it’s over.
grizzly bear

Greg Farber, do you remember that roundtable discussion a while back on here about the canadian gray wolf into yellowstone? Here is what Geist said, GEIST: It may be worth mentioning that the wolves were actually well on the way from coming all on their own from Canada into the western states. There were wolves killed already south of Yellowstone and that was well before the re-introduction ever took place into Yellowstone. So they were coming on their own and the re-introduction just simply speeded things up. Even Geist knows these wolves were not illegally introduced. Wolves are not viewed as illegal aliens just because they cross the border. As you should know., wolves cannot read. Notice how Guist calls it a reintroduction and not an introduction like all of the others in the panel discussion? Clearly he knows something that the rest in the discussion do not. Whether you want to accept the truth or not, wolves were already on their way and this claim that they are illegal immigrants is just a bunch of hogwash.
http://howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

“You Howling for Colorado rely on scientific theories based on evolutionary theories.. You are just another scientific theorist..”

You have a contempt for any form of science which doesn’t not explicitly support your viewpoint of the world. You also believe that man has dominion over all animal life, apparantly without the additional requirement of being responsible stewards and guardians.

An inability to respect and acknowledge the viewpoints of others means that continued debate will be pointless. You can’t ignore facts because they don’t match your theological or conspiratorial viewpoint of the world. Or I should say, you can, but to build a house of cards on such an unstable base will lead to constant disappointment. Cool heads will prevail as the rhetoric of the argument is cast aside.

As I finish this final, and probably futile comment as I am sure you will dismiss it, I can say that we agree on one thing.

“I do hope Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, certainly get a taste of this mouthful of wolf destructiveness we in Idaho have enjoyed..”

While you have sensationalized the sentiment with such embellishments as “wolf destructiveness,” And ignored the fact that Utah legislature is at this point just as anti-wolf, it not more so, than you. In addition, Oregon and Washington are already very much dealing with the presence of wolves.

And Nevada seems a rather unique inclusion as wolves in that state are going to be the direct result of a completely different wolf reintroduction program.

But on the Colorado part. We agree, I very much hope the High Lonesome Ranch pack is indeed a wolf pack which has escaped Idaho or Wyoming and has come home to a state they have been gone far too long from. We have FAR too many elk in this state. The ranchers and hunters won’t like it, but perhaps Colorado legislators will do a far better job giving ranchers the tools necessary to avoid wolf predation instead of simply reimbursing them for the loss. And responsible setting of hunting limits to account for the extra stresses of a natural predator population.
Tom Remington

Grizzly Bear – I think you went a bit too far and put words into Dr. Geist’s mouth he didn’t say. I’m also going to say that I also don’t know whether he would actually say that or not. Let me explain.

The only ones I am aware of who regularly dispute that wolves were already present in Montana, Idaho, etc. (probably Wyoming, Washington, Oregon) are the wolf advocates.

So historically let’s back up briefly. According to several historical documents, within the area of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming there have been described at least three different “kinds” of wolves. Partially in support of that, the Smithsonian did studies that supported the “natural” boundaries that existed between these 3 “kinds” or “sub species” of wolves.

The ecosystems (for lack of a better term) that existed during that time changed when the wolves, all of them, were pretty much wiped out. This could have for all intent and purposes, destroyed those “natural” barriers, opening the gates for either of three or more species to “naturally” fill that void.

Argument can certainly be made that the wolves that migrated back down from Canada, migrated back into the areas that was part of their original range. With no other competing keystone predator beyond what was perhaps their historic range, they migrated further.

Part of the problem that existed from the very beginning about the introduction was that the ESA prohibits the introduction of a species or sub species that is not native or not part of its historic range. That could never be proven and thus the argument rages on. Without proof one can argue that the Feds had no business guessing and it was a violation of the ESA. If it all happened naturally, then so be it. Many who knew the wolves were already moving in, just wanted to let if happen.

In truth this is a distraction. The odds that someone is going to prove the introduction was deliberately illegal, resulting in the extirpation once again of wolves, are slim. Therefore the issue becomes management and an end to the debate over whether wolves are killing ungulates or not, how many there should be and where they should be.

That debate will never end and will never be resolved. It is too powerful of a weapon for the environmentalists.

I think it’s disingenuous to say that Geist knew it was the same wolf and that it wasn’t introduced illegally. His comment was simply that wolves had moved into the area on their own.
Greg Farber

Howling,

There is no debate because you can’t debate what you are ignorant of, the shot at the conspiratorial view proves it. The advocates in Idaho such as Priest Maughan profess that the ranching community dominate the Idaho legislative body, the I.D.F.G. caters to the the rancher, and the governor.. that my friend is a conspiracy and a theory.. Show the paper trail and money trail or shut up..

As far as U.N. subversion of our constitutional rule of law, national sovereignty via Agenda 21 goes, that is a fact. Many congressional globes and U.N. Documents prove the fact, as well as a presidential executive order.. Like the wolf this subversion of our sovereignty has been done deceptively.. We did not vote to install sustainable development political policy into our business and government model.. Conspiracy is business as usual.. The Rhetoric is yours and yours alone..

Certainly if you fail to have full undisclosed knowledge of your governing political process since 1993 when Clinton secretly changed that process the fault is yours not mine..
grizzly bear

TR, Geist as you know said in that panel discussion that wolves were already coming into the western states on their own and the reintroduction was to simply speed things up, so how on earth is this considered illegally introducing wolves when they would have been coming over here on their own anyways? it makes absolutely no sense to me and I really have no idea how Jim Beers is going to prove they were illegally introduced. Whether you like wolves or not, to think that they were illegally introduced when they were already coming over here on their own is in my opinion absurd. If people didn\\t help speed up the process, would people still be making the claim that the wolves were illegally introduced?
Greg Farber

So according to your philosophy stealing millions of dollars out of a fund intended for other purposes and redirecting those funds for the wolf program, with absolutely no congressional permission or oversight should just be passed off as a good deed in this case.. You guys also believe in evolution, ok, so why then do you feel man should give evolution a little push, since according to different parties the wolves from the north were moving back down.. And why is it assumed none survived the early 20th century and just made it as well.. Interference to speed the process = management.. Your management is ok, ours is bad..
Greg Farber

Howling,

Many of my so-called propaganda findings are via Congressional Globes, Annals, and Records of Congress, over a two hundred year collection in my studies. Throughout America the Constitutional and Declaration of Independence beliefs are being destroyed in my opinion via Maurice and Hanna Strong’s design of the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 3-14 June 1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. George H.W. Bush is the known infamous signatory of this deal, he signed onto this deal at that time, and later Bill Clinton, in my opinion committed the most insidious executive orders which was EO 12986, which was issued on January 9, 1996, implementing this agenda, which today has many other identifying titles used such as, Sustainable Development, Growth Management, Comprehensive planning, Abundance Ecology, Smart Growth, Shortage Ecology, which ties directly into the ESA. This information has been being installed into our nations body politic since Clinton ordered it, it does not end there either, they installed it into the compulsory curriculum of our educational system, as high as the University Level.. The several nice names were invented so as not alarm the American people, because those politicians bringing this about did not wish for any opposition to it. I OPPOSE IT. It has been my understanding We the People of these United States are to vote on things of this magnitude. We did not do so.. this is subversion of the America peoples Rights, unethical, UnConstitutional, and Anti Declaration of Independence. Kinda like stealing money.. No exactly like stealing money..
http://howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

There is no debate because you have hijacked the discussion regarding wolves and turned it towards your own personal cause, which seems to relate to an anti-evolution, anti-science philosophy combined with a very strong libertarian agenda. Good luck with your personal crusade.
Greg Farber

Good luck with your continued support of deceptive government policies, including the agency know as Fish and Wildlife, which very likely stole the funds for the project known as wolf introduction.. What a way to heal nature, by fraud.
http://howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

Tom,

While I think you initial statement is itself disingenuous, you did highlight something very important. The unending debate.

Wolves have been made into a wedge issue. Bears and mountain lions aren’t. Because people have irrational fears of wolves based on years of misinformation and fear mongering.

Mr. Farbar (who seems not to know the history of the USFWS – knowing that would reveal that wolves were wiped out in quite an insidious manner which actually supports his incredibly negative viewpoint of government. I am sure he wouldn’t care though, since it was wolves they were killing) seems quite gifted at turning any cause to suit his needs. Wedge issues are good for that.

I am sure he has many opinions on abortion and gay marriage as well.

The courts resolved the arguments you referred to. But as we all know, there are many people who simply DON’T believe that George W. Bush won the 2000 election. Therefore, resolution in court is just ammunition to continue the debate even with no hope of changing the outcome.

My question is: how do you engage reasonable hunters who are not only aware of the importance of predators but welcomes their presence? how do you make THEM the spokespeople for hunters instead of those who incite constant and angry debate?

How do you encourage government to spend money setting up wolf deterrence programs to preemptively avoid wolf predations on livestock instead of continuously reimbursing owners for loss – that’s just simply going to fail over time?

Those are the debates *I* want to take on. Those are the ones which will lead to some kind of resolution.

It is interesting about the whole migration south thing with occidentalis. What’s more interesting is that after 15 years the “larger” occidentalis which was the population used to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone, are now averaging less than 100lbs. Which makes it quite a bit smaller than the Canadian source populations.

It should be noted that irremotus (perhaps a subspecies, probably not) was reclassified as a member of the subspecies nubilus (Great Plains wolf). nubilus has a significant range, including… yep, you guessed it. Canada. See how silly this whole debate ends up getting?
Tom Remington

I don’t have time to answer all your questions and if you really wanted my answers, you could probably find them all right here on this blog. I will however say one thing about a comment you made.

“Wolves have been made into a wedge issue. Bears and mountain lions aren’t. Because people have irrational fears of wolves based on years of misinformation and fear mongering. ”

Completely a false statement. The overwhelming majority of people have no fear of wolves at all due to years of misinformation. Had they been given the truth and facts in 1990s there wouldn’t have been much support for them.

But it comes down to studying history and not ready Farley Mowatt’s book about wolves and mice.
Tom Remington

Oh, and the only thing wolves have in common with bears and lions is they are all predators. The similarities end there.
Tom Remington

And you should contact Dr. Geist and talk with him about wolf size and taxonomy.
http://howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

I will stick with Dr L. David Mech and the experts I consult with regarding wolf DNA and genetics. I am sure Dr. Geist is fine, but the weight and size statistics come from the weighing of 188 wolves killed in the last 6 months in Idaho. Care to guess the source?
Greg Farber

Communism 101, did anyone in America vote on this ideology below ? Is your economic status seriously changed ? You can thank my off topic comments for showing the cause for those changes, and howl for Colorado supports this Biological Diversity taking place in America today thus the soft and disingenuous personal attacks against my person defending her position, This sustainable development issue has every thing to do with the hi-jacking of the ESA and the wolf-spotted owl- smolt-etc.etc. They don’t want you to know it. (Nabeki ?) Spun is as spun does..

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
- UN Agenda 21

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme and Biological Diversity
ar

I think I’ll take this little message here and make it into two big signs:

“Wolf Introduction Is A Criminal Enterprise Based On Scientific Fraud”

… one for each side of my truck and parade it thru Anchortown these next two weeks. Too many communists cuddly with the canine – they’re like a desease.
Greg Farber

Wear and old Marine brain bucket and Kevlar vest if you do.
ar

Nasty Wolves everywhere.
Greg Farber

I know, lets base more science on this idiotic evolution, shall we…

How Charles Darwin’s family paid the price of inbreeding

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270760/How-Charles-Darwins-family-paid-price-inbreeding.html?ITO=1490&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailymail%2Fnews+%28News+|+Mail+Online%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
T-bone

Howl Colorado, I’m up for answer ,question.

But first let me answer a question with a question.

How do you engage reasonable people, non hunters, who are not aware of the importance of what hunters do to support all wildlife (before it was vogue) not just the ones they hunt.
How do you make them the spokeperson for nonhunters instead of those who incite constant anger and debate.

Does the question sound familiar.

I’m very familiar with debate,
any chance of keeping it civil?
T-bone

HC need a mulligan please note changes, what a day.

I”m up for question and answer

with the debate

Hitting 2 off the tee.
http://howlcolorado.org HOWLColorado

T-bone it’s hard to debate something which is not the crux of the discussion.

As mentioned, HOWLColorado isn’t anti-hunter. Wolves are hunters. Human or animal, if food is the goal, then all species deserve equal opportunity.

The difference is that while predators such as wolves, bears, or cougars are responding to obvious forces without the ability to comprehend a “big picture” situation, humans are very capable of viewing that larger image.

It is the job of human hunters to sacrifice a portion of their take to make room for natural predators. An example of this is that wolves in Michigan might take about 50,000 deer. Humans take about 200,000. Cars might kill 10s of thousands. If the population of the deer remains steady, then there is no real issue here.

If the population declines then it is the human hunter which has the intelligence, wider view and wisdom to scale back their own hunting to reduce the pressure on the deer population.

The problem spawns from the fact that some believe the way to balance the population of said deer is to destroy all but the human causes of death and predation. Note I say “some.” because most hunters whom I speak with don’t actually view things this way.

There is no compromise between extremes. That doesn’t mean there isn’t compromise because there are plenty (the majority) who are more than willing to find a balance.

Financially speaking hunters have played a great part in establishing protections for a lot of the land and wildlife which they use for their pastime, or their sustinance. What HOWLColorado asks for from hunters, wildlife managers, advocates for wildlife and environmentalists is that wisdom is used in all decisions, and that the facts are presented in cold, emotionless terms.

90% of hunters love wildlife and the landscape in which they spend their time. And at least 2 out of 3 I have talked to don’t have a problem with wolves. While they would like a weapon at their side during a confrontation, they even express interest in watching a wolf pack hunt.

Why do I say this is not the crux of the discussion? Because the discussion revolves around talking points brought up in articles such as the one by James Swan. Hunters generally speaking get it. Advocates generally get it. Biologists generally get it. Extremists (of both sides) look for reasons to fight – moderates look for compromise.
TLM

The impacts of wolves is usually discussed from the point of view of hunter/rancher impacts. However many people do not even think about the impacts on rural families. When there are too many wolves, they move into marginal habitat – the wildland urban interface. This brings them into conflicts with human habitation. I happen to agree with the Swan article, as I have read many of the science papers that he refers to prior to this story being written. Couple that research with what we see happening in central Idaho gives credence to the studies. The myth of the “harmless wolf” – is a myth perpetuated by people that do not live with wolves. Protecting wolves that live around humans is asking for trouble. They are not afraid of us – and we have had wolves prey testing people. People need valid information – not propaganda – maybe we can prevent the next attack.
T-bone

HC So your saying no discussion. Forget articles, just share your own prospectives as a nonhunter, I’ll share mine as a hunter. Call it a litmus test,.

Define the modern day hunter, in your own terms.
Greg Farber

American’s way of life is “Unsustainable” According to the founding writers of the Biodiversity Report, I don’t mean to be rude, the truth can harsh and even brutally ugly, but I wish you good luck compromising with the intentions of the installers of this new age political system, one step at a time until it is done..They clearly mean to end mans hunting rights, gun rights, just as has been done around the globe, using this identical Earth Summit Agenda 21-The United Nations Programme of Action, I guess howling missed a few pages of the final text of agreements negotiated by governments, including our government, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.. ISBN 92-1-100509-4, Their own publication.. Bill Clinton signed the executive orders on this in 1993.. FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT..

Freedom and Liberty mean the same thing, and our way of life is unsustainable according to the Global Biodiversity Report directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which calls for urgent action to reverse the effects of unsustainable human activities on global biodiversity. I have read this report several times, it is being implemented in America in all fifty states..This should be read by every thinking American, Like I have said many times, Agenda 21 is the problem, and until we face it, and force it’s end we will continue to lose our Liberty, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. The below list shows the events this Global Biodiversity Report will eventually bring to an end..I have researched this report and the entire agenda 21 document, other wise known as Sustainable Development..The ESA is also a big tool in this Agenda..

1. Ski Runs…and or classic or ski skate trails…*
2. Grazing of livestock; Cows, goats, horses..
3. Disturbance of the Soil Surface-Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration. Mountain trails building.
4. Fensing of Pastures or paddocks.
5. Modern Farm Production.
6. Agriculture.
7. Chemical Fertilizers.
8. Herbicides.
9. Building Materials.
10. Industrial Activities.
11. Human-Made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel.
12. Paved and tarred roads, highways, rails.
13. Railroads.
14. Floor and Wall Tiles.
15. Aquaculture.
16. Technology Improvements
17. Farmlands, Range lands.
18. Pastures.
19. Fish ponds.
20. Plantations.

21. Modern Hunting, any hunting of traditional value actually.

22. Harvesting Timber.
23. Logging Activities
24. Fossil Fuels – Used for driving various machines.
25. Dams, Reservoirs, Straightening Rivers.
26. Power Line Construction.
27. Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment.
28. Inappropriate Social Structures.
29. Weakness in Legal and Institutional Systems.
30. Modern Attitudes toward nature-Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions.
31. Private Property.
32. Population Growth – Human Population Density.
33. Consumerism.
34. Fragmentation of Habitat – cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc.
35. Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines.
36 Land use that serves human needs.
37. Fisheries.
38. Golf Courses.
39. Synthetic Drugs.
40. Scuba Diving.
41. Gun ownership and shooting practices.
42. Fragmentation – Agriculture development, Forestry Urbanization ( impervious surfaces)
43. Obviously trail riding with livestock is out..to deadly for the environment..
44. Mountain Biking

21. Modern Hunting, any hunting of traditional value actually.
21. Modern Hunting, any hunting of traditional value actually.
21. Modern Hunting, any hunting of traditional value actually.
21. Modern Hunting, any hunting of traditional value actually.
T-bone

Greg. when we get a chance to sit down and have a beer, and I get a to discuss all your thoughts and prospectives, it’s going to take pitchers of beer and I am going to need a driver. You make my brain hurt, thanks . I’m buying, no debate.
Greg Farber

7,000′ up today, surrounded by miles of rolling hills and sage, willows, creeks, rock out crops, glassed for two hours, not one elk, not one deer, I was at the snow line looking south.. Walked this piece of public land many times in 35 years and I should be seeing several groups of elk, and scattered deer.. No dogs.
Chica

Ok, well thanks for letting me know whats on ya’ll’s minds but i dont understand why people want wolves to be reintroduced so bad? You dont see people walking around crying about how they want dinosaurs back, do you? And if you do, thats just weird because everything comes and goes for a reason right?
http://Takeitbackday.org Bob Fanning

I’ve read the final draft of Jim Beers speech / afidavit today.

Bureaucrats & NGO’s are in BIG trouble.
The whole thing is built on interstate felonies.

Can Jamie Rappaport Clark and Defenders Of Wildlife spell RICO ?

Looks like lots of folks are headed to prison and every wolf in the Intermountain West has a bulls eye painted on him 24/ 7 / 365
thetruthsayer

I have lived in Montana for a few years now and one thing that I can say is 100% true is that this ENTIRE wolf project is about one thing and one thing only: Creating jobs for a few people. NOT about wolf conservation. It is unreal. Create a job for a staff of five full-time biologists and ruin the hunting in the entire elk hunting in the Western Slopes of Montana. Ift hey all make 50,000 on average a year, that is 250K a year and $2,500,000 in salaries alone for 10 years. That is not counting the millions it must cost for expenses to fly them around in these helicopters etc. LOL Remember reading all those articles 10-15 years ago about about how much money Montana was investing to increase the elk populations. Millions upon millions of dollars spent to hire people to manage the elk population etc etc. Then they want to find a job for five people so they go all out to create this big smokescreen that we need the wolves here. Why? That is the real question? It was not for the wolves it was to create a job for a few people. So, now you waste all the money that went in to the elk management for 20 years to hire five people to chase wolves in helicopters around the state. I moved here from somewhere else and it is unreal the things that go on here that people have no idea about in other parts of the country. Wtih all due respect to people in Montana (Because I live here now), stop blamming people from out of state for your problems. You guys have created this entire mess by the way that you run the state. You single handledly ruined your elk population to create jobs for five people to fly around in helicopters chasing wolves to collect a paycheck. It is really laughable and real sad. Hunting is ruined in Montana for at least 20-30 years in certain areas. For many people, that is the rest of their lives. Just so someone can retire with a state paycheck. So, you ruined elk hunting for 100s of thousands of people so five people can be assured to have health insurance through the state. Sounds like real wildlife conservation to me. No, you are not fooling everyone out there Montana. It is too bad, but MONTANA is to blame for this and no one else. Some backroom decisions were made by a few people to create jobs for a few of their buddies and it just ruined some of the best hunting in the world.
Go take a look at the Montan aFish Wildlife and Parks Website and look at the Wolf Section. Weekly memos and updates etc. People are getting paid to put together that garbage. It was all part of the grand plan to create a job and then continue to build on those jobs to create oher insignificant jobs for people that could not find a job anywhere else. Take a look at some of those memos on that site that put togther weekly. It is a joke. “We went in a helicopter” “we followed some wolf tracks” blah blah blah. Great. Who paid for the helicopter? Who piad for all the vehicles for your amazing expidition to buzz around and dart a wolf? How many days did it take you to dart that wolf partnaaa? LOOOOOOOOOL It is a huge joke and no one is to blame except for MONTANA ITSELF and the people here that allow this to go on. Not the people from our of state. You guys did it to yourself so do not blame anyone else for this mess now!!!” GREAT JOB, you biologists really deserve those paychecks!! Let the truth be told for once.

Wolf Introduction Is A Criminal Enterprise Based On Scientific Fraud

Related Posts

Tom Remington

Related Sites

Archives
Categories