I’m pulling a comment that was left on one of my posts from a person showing a bit of frustration about how “learning to live with wolves” is a real life-changing experience, and featuring here as a front page blog post. Please, before you wolf lovers and the clueless masses of heartless beings go passing judgment on this person, remember only one thing…..if you are capable of that. This person has lived for many years in Idaho, as do many thousands more, who had no option when it came to living with wolves. Had this person moved to Idaho wolf country recently, knowing the situation, it would be a bit harder to muster up complete sympathy. Perhaps, for just one minute, we all can let our defenses down long enough to picture how your life might change.

I thank this person for agreeing to let me feature their comments. The comment is in response to another reader’s comment and I have XXXX out the name.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

“No XXX, the dogs are prisoners in the house, and are marched out on a leash to crap along the “bio fence” which is outside of the fladry fence – which is outside of the 6.5 tall pole and wire fence that surrounds the yard. The back 2 sides of the hamstrung mare’s pen are fenced solid with steel roofing – to a 6 foot height and down into the ground to prevent digging. She has solar lights that come on at night. The neighbor that abuts that corner thinks it looks like a junk yard fence. I don’t blame him, but that horse has been through enough.

Also the dogs are wormed regularly and do not eat live prey or have access to gut piles. I also organize a vet day and pay to have a vet come up here and vaccinate/worm the village dogs. I have been know[sic] to cover the cost for those who couldn’t afford it. Do you think that is sufficient? Or do you have further suggestions on how we should change our lives to “live with wolves”? Or do you like so many other[sic] think we are “ignorant hillbilly rednecks” because we don’t want habituated wolves living around us?

I can tell the difference between wolf, dog, fox, and coyote crap, as well as several other mammals, and some birds. I know where the bear sh*ts in the woods too. I’ve talked to Will Graves, and he knows the part of the country my grandfather came from – and about the wolves there. My grandfather told us about the wolves in the old country – he survived a wolf attack.

If you think my comment harsh, well I get miffed at people who think they know more than I do when they have not walked a mile in my shoes.”

~~~~~

I recall several years ago when I was writing about things going on in Idaho with wolves, elk, ranching, etc., a reader came onto this site and left me a comment/question. The tone of the comment, followed by a question was that I had no business offering commentary about Idaho because they knew I didn’t live there. The question was, “Why do you think you can write about people and places you’ve never been or seen?”

Well, not that I think that it is a disqualifier because you haven’t been someplace to be able to offer commentary, but my answer was simple. I have been to Idaho and I have met some of the fine folks who live there. They are probably very similar to the person who left the above comment.

I never heard back from this person again when I shared about the families I met and the beautiful children. Sitting down with a three generation family and sharing a prayer followed by a meal, the bounty of their harvest. These people are very much the heartbeat of America. Regular and real people seeking the same things most of us do; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Think about what happens to you when your world is suddenly disrupted, completely changing many things you do, snatching away the liberties you so enjoy. The next time you get ready to open your mouth and make a comment about whiny people, or any other adjectives you might choose to use, think of this one person and realize how alive and real this person is.

And you want to ruin their life? For what?

Tom Remington

Q: What are some ways you like to set up for calling predators?

A: My favorite sets are field edges in the early morning hours. This is the best time to catch predators on their feet feeding.

Q: Do you pay attention to wind direction?

A: Yes. Wind direction is a big part of your set up; if you get winded the game is over!

Q: What types of calls do you use?

A: Mainly distress calls: Puppy Distress, Blackbird Distress, Cottontail Distress. I will also use a howler as well.

Q: Have you used electronic calls? If so, how?

A: Yes, electronic calls have been my main choice for my set ups for several years. The electronic calls are easier to change up calls on my set ups with the handheld remotes. Plus all of my favorite calls are right in the palm of my hand. When you add a decoy to your set ups with the e-caller, it makes a bad day for the predator on the prowl!

Q: Do you use any type of decoy?

A: Yes, decoys play a big part on my sets. I use mainly decoys that have motion to them such as Mojo Woodpecker. I’ve noticed by using the motion decoys, it keeps the animal more focused on it and less on the hunter! I also use a life-size coyote decoy as well on some of my sets.

Q: Do you hunt with a rifle or shotgun?

A: I mainly use a shotgun due to the areas I hunt in. Most of the shotguns on the market today, set up with the right choke tube, can give you kill shots out to 50-60 yards. I have two Remington 870 12-gauges in Mossy Oak Break-Up camo, set up with a Carlson HeavyShot Dead Coyote Choke tube. I also have a rifle. I prefer using my Remington 22-250. It is a good caliber, with less damage to the hide of the animal. I’m planning on getting a Remington AR-15 in 223 caliber. On some of my sets, I will carry both my shotgun and my rifle depending on where I’m hunting.

Q: How long do you call from a set up?

A: Most of my sets range between 15 -20 minutes per set.

Q: How far do you move between set ups?

A: Where I live, it is flat terrain with little patch woods and open fields. For most of my sets, I use my truck to get from place to place. So it could be a half mile to 10 miles; it just depends on what farms I plan on hunting that day.

MISSOULA, MONT. – In MSSA v. Holder, the lawsuit to validate the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA), plaintiff Montana Shooting Sports Association announced today that it is now free to take this lawsuit to the next judicial level, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, “We’ve believed all along that the federal District Court cannot grant the relief we request. We seek to overturn a half-century of bad precedent. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. In that light the pending dismissal by the District Court means little except that we are now free to move to the next step of the process.”

MSSA and its partner the Second Amendment Foundation filed MSSA v. Holder on October 1, 2009, to validate the principles of the MFFA. Enacted by the 2009 Montana Legislature, the MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are simply not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the Constitution to “regulate commerce … among the states.” The MFFA is part of a growing national effort by states to reject federal authority and control over everything. It is an assertion of states rights, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Since the MFFA was enacted in Montana, it has been cloned and enacted in seven other states: Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Idaho and Arizona. Other clones have been introduced in the legislatures of 20 other states.
(See: http://www.FirearmsFreedomAct.com)

MSSA v. Holder has attracted numerous amicus curiae parties that have filed supporting briefs, including the State of Utah (also representing other states), the Goldwater Institute, the Paragon Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the Weapons Collectors Society of Montana, Montana Legislators, and Legislators from other states. It is expected that other amici will join as this suit is appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Once the Ninth Circuit rules on the appeal, plaintiffs intend to appeal any continuation of the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court, at which point in the process plaintiffs could get an actual ruling on the merits of the case. Or, the Ninth circuit could recognize the merit of the issues involved and remand the matter to the District Court for an actual trial.

“That the U.S. is so desperate to keep this matter from going to trial,” Marbut said, “tells me that they are very afraid of any precedent that might be established. Normally, a Motion to Dismiss is to preserve judicial economy. In this case it is to prevent a fair hearing on the significant issues we raise. The federal government doesn’t want any questions about the extent of its power.”

“The vehemence of the recommendations by the magistrate involved” Marbut continued, “demonstrates the desperation of the federal government, including its judicial branch, to prevent a fair adjudication of the issues underlying the MFFA.”

George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, continued posting answers from the five candidates for Maine’s governor. At his blog at Downeast.com, he posts the latest round of questions and answers.
For previous questions and answers follow links, here and here.

Tom Remington

Leave the science to the scientists. That was part of a statement made in an editorial appearing in the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday. Allow me to post the laughable snippets from that uninformed opinion piece.

“Congress should eschew this misguided bill and leave the science to the scientists.”
Yarrrrrr! Like this is the only time that some lame politician or foolish judge has wandered away from “science” in favor of politics. Like Duh! It is a crying shame that since Obama became like the President or something, we gotta do what he says and put science where it belongs or something.

“Politics has no place in decisions regarding the protection of wildlife.”
We know this to be true because when politics aides the narratives and agendas of the environmentalists, this is heavenly. However, if politics plays a role in stymieing those agendas, it’s a bad thing and we must revert back to the science of the environmentalists.

“Wolves also give pause to hunters and outfitters, many of whom are unwilling to share their game with another apex predator.”
Gosh! Remember when the big fat kid from down the street used to come by and visit? Within about 15 minutes he had cleaned out the refrigerator and cupboard, leaving the house in a trail of food crumbs? You mean that kind of sharing? I suppose too we could ask if the editorial writer(s) are willing to share their community and work places with Al Qaida. I mean, after all! Let’s not be greedy. I know writing editorials is a legitimate business enterprise but them useless hunters and outfitters. Cast them into the Lake of Fire! And I think somewhere out there, there might be a state Constitution or two mandated game management. Or do we ignore those documents now. I get so confused.

“they’re beginning to disperse throughout their original range”
I wonder! In making such a statement, would the author(s) please provide proof that these wolves are in “their original range”. Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with that according to his writings while in the West.

“That return to the natural order of things poses a problem for those, like Matheson and Chaffetz, who want man to master nature, not live in harmony with it.”
I answer this with a question. Is “the natural order of things” and “live in harmony” with wildlife like it was in the days of Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden, Milton Sublette, Joe Meek, John Fremont, Charles Preuss, Captain J. H. Simpson, and Howard Egan? I would suppose that when wolves are finished with their chores, the editorial staff at the Salt Lake Tribune don’t mind eating horses.

“But a federal judge ruled that the entire Western population of wolves is a contiguous unit and must be protected or delisted en masse under the Endangered Species Act,”
Is that what Judge Molloy said? I don’t recall that Judge Donald Molloy laid out any boundaries, well, except those that he liked. Forget about the boundaries that were used when wolves were introduced and the boundaries used to determine what kind of protections certain wolves would get as opposed to others. Nope! I recall nothing in Molloy’s ruling that said that gray wolf protection was limited to “the entire Western population”. That means there’s plenty of room for wolves in downtown Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Atlanta and New York City.

And this, a great ending.
“Worse, by usurping the role of the federal Environmental Protection Agency in administering the Endangered Species Act, lawmakers would set a dangerous precedent.”
First off, let me say that I wasn’t aware that the Environmental Protection Agency administered the Endangered Species Act. I thought it was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with the NOAA. But then again, the U.S. Supreme Court gave authority to the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases and as a result, somehow, polar bears, a species that has grown consistently for several decades is now listed on the ESA. I guess maybe the EPA at least controls the ESA like it does every other aspect of our lives.

But, I think somewhere in this mish-mash of words we can find two things. 1). It’s all George Bush’s fault, and 2)controlling wolves will lead to more global warming.

Now there’s some science for ya!

Tom Remington

Yesterday in brief email exchanges between interested and involved parties for efforts to gain control of the gray wolf from the Federal Government and Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, it was noted that Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester derailed an effort in the House and Senate to pass a bill that would have amended the Endangered Species Act to exempt gray wolves from consideration of that Act.

What follows is a copy of a longer explanation of what transpired, according to Don Peay. After the email copy, you’ll find photos in two parts of the letter to Sen. Reid from Wyoming Gov. Freudenthal as referenced in the email. Click each photo to enlarge it for reading.

“Toby,

I gave the SHORT version to a very complicated issue.

Don Peay, Miles Moretti, Clint Bentley and Ted Lyon meet[sic] with Leader Reid last week about getting this wolf issue resolved, NOW. With all the things going on in Washington, I am very appreciative of leader Reid’s efforts on this issue for the West. He told us he wanted to get something done. Leader Reid did NOT make a time commitment.

Had the Senate wanted, they could have passed Chet Edwards[sic] bill on the Continuing Resolution (CR) Bill. If the CR bill is not passed, the Government would shut down on Sept. 30 at midnight.

Chet Edwards bill had been Carefully researched by a very successful Texas trial attorney and strong democrat who has met privately with Governor Schweitzer on this issue.

I don’t like to speak for others, but several prominent sportsmen had MAJOR discussions with Senators Baucus and Tester for WEEKS, about getting behind the Edwards bill.

Had the Senate passed it, due to Rules, the House had no choice but to accept the CR as written, no conference, no back and forth, etc. It would have been done.

Tuesday morning, the Republican Senators from Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, and Utah were saying “we can’t put the Edwards Bill on the CR, we voted in our party and made the commitment to minority leader McConnell that we would vote for NO attachments to the CR.”

Of course, I went ballistic with some staffers and asked does anyone in Washington want to get things done, or do we just do protocol ?

Under the leadership of Sen. Hatch, Risch, Crapo, and Barrosso[sic], these statesman[sic] also got Sen. Enzie of Wyoming and Sens. Kyle and McCain of AZ to say,
“we will vote to put the Edwards bill on the CR and solve this problem” These 7 Senators wanted to solve this issue for America.

I will forward you a letter from Wyoming Governor Dave Frudenthal[sic], who had also talked with Leader Reid’s office asking, then in writing to pass the Edwards bill.

A 45 minute meeting was held in Leader Reid’s office at 4 pm. Eastern time yesterday. Baucus and Tester fought it tooth and nail, and essentially killed it. I was then invited in the Room by Leader Reid, and he explained the time constraints. Sen. Baucus then started giving this lame duck reason why the Edwards bill would not be fair to the people of all the other states, to which is said, “With all due respect Senator, pass the Edwards bill, NOW, and people in EACH STATE can manage wolves how they want.” If you really want Montana and all other states to have a say, it is simple, pass the Edwards Bill. He then told me how I was wrong, but he is wrong.

So, Toby, there was no official vote. But clearly, had Senators Tester and Bacchus[sic] wanted to get this done, it would have been done. We had private meetings with democratic Senators Pryor of Arkansas, Nelson of Nebraska, and Bill Kiefer had flown in From North Dakota, and a meeting with Senator Dorgan.

This now is just typical Washington DC smoke and mirror politics, shell games, hide the ball.

Toby, it is time to smoke them out.

In my opinion, had Baucus and Tester gotten behind the Edwards bill, and worked to get it on the Senate CR, Thursday night, wolves would have been off the ESA.

I wrote the email about two votes, because I just spent 20 hours a day in Washington, for 7 days, fighting through all the smoke screens, double talk, BS and I gave it to you straight.

Now, we get to waste millions of more dollars fighting fights in the PR game, in court, and our big game herds continue to get destroyed.

Don Peay,
SFW”

Tom Remington

A reader sent me this photo from a game or trail camera. It captures a gray wolf giving chase to an elk. The wolf is easy to spot but if you look near the top center of the photo, you will see the legs of the fleeing elk.

Note: I offered this photo in a format where you can click on the image and view a much larger image.

Tom Remington

Sometimes it is like waking up one morning to discover that while you slept you time-traveled back to 16th century Russia. Unfortunately your sleep was cut short and instead of awakening in your comfortable surroundings, you remain in 16th century Russia.

Will Graves, author the book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, explained to me why the Russian people suffered so from the invasion and life-snatching existence of wolves in their lands. Perhaps the most prominent for seeming helplessness on the part of the people was the government’s control to make sure the citizenry remained unarmed, unable to defend themselves and their property from wolves.

While America has a Second Amendment that promises every citizen the right to keep and bear arms, some citizens find themselves unable to protect themselves and their property from wolves. This isn’t being accomplished because they can’t own a gun. It’s because they can’t use it and the overreaching power of the Federal Government – the Empire if you will – is prohibiting the states of exercising their state sovereignty. Oh, sure! It’s very easy to sit at home and tell these people they have a right to protect themselves but those of us who don’t live in the middle of it, have no idea how life changing this is.

We can’t point a finger at any one person or agency because we all have had a hand in the making of this mess through efforts and lack thereof.

Nearly two weeks ago, I reported that Idaho County, Idaho formally drafted a Declaration of Disaster, because of wolves. That letter was sent to the “Guberniya” of Idaho.

On September 27, 2010, Idaho Governor Butch Otter responded to the Idaho County Commissioners with his own letter. The headline that accompanied the email to me with the letter read: “Otter Tells Idaho County You Are On Your Own”.

Essentially this is true but in all honesty what should we have expected? Did you seriously think Governor Otter was going to cast his bravado to the wind and challenge the U.S. Federal Government? Whether he should or not is certainly the subject of many conversations in coffee shops all over Idaho but who thought he would?

What’s sad and unfortunate is the mere fact that a governor of any sovereign state in this Union has to send a letter to a commission of county officials and tell them that he is disappointed too but the “Empire” dictates to all of us how we must live.

Otter’s letter to Idaho County opens with the following two words: “Dear Commissioners”. It could have just as easily began: “Dear Comrades”. Citizens of Idaho will have to decide for themselves if Governor Otter is a leader they want or that he is, in fact, hamstrung and regardless of who sat in his seat, could muster no better results. Maybe there is a messiah.

As I said, Otter’s response could have been to his comrades in the year 1685, expressing his disappointment in the decision of a government-run pseudo court and pleads with his subjects that he is seeking “flexibility” in dealing with wolves. No one is sure what “flexibility” is being sought or what that specifically means but somehow this is supposed to be a pacifier.

The Guberniya reassures the people that they have rights to protect themselves and their property from wolves, that is so long as they can prove it or be around when it’s happening. Sadly, we read this: “In your declaration you specifically reference concerns about public safety. Please be aware that you have always been able to kill a wolf in self defense or in the defense of other humans. That has not changed, nor is a disaster declaration necessary for you to protect yourselves and loved ones from wolves.”

Governor Otter reveals to us that he believes his hands are tied and he has no interest in moving in any direction that would go beyond the ball and chain tightly locked around the leg of Idaho and her citizens. Instead, he seeks flexibility.

One would ponder what flexibility he and the Idaho Legislature would seek when the first human – odds are it will be a child – is attacked and killed by wolves?

Our Guberniya, once a sovereign state, is controlled by the Great Empire. Don’t step out of line.

Tom Remington

The Holy Bible is loaded with verse after verse warning us of the consequences of judging others, perhaps the most common being that we shouldn’t judge other unless you want to be judged yourself. While Christ spoke often to his disciples about judging other people, he did spend time giving them instructions on ways in which they can determine whether a person might be a “false prophet” or a “deceiver”.

Personally I do not believe that God would consider a man as standing in judgment of another by pointing out the obvious. After all we know that the truth shall set men free. 1 John 4:1 tells us to “try the spirits” of a man to determine if that spirit is from God. And in Romans 16:17-18, Paul writes to caution us to be leery of those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine [God's Word]“, and “by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

It is election season in which ravenous wolves put on their sheep’s clothing and head out among the masses seeking whom they might devour. In their great deception they wish for you to think things about them that are not true. It is up to you to “try the spirits” of that politician and ask God to grant you the wisdom of discernment.

These thoughts came to me this morning as I was reading about the sudden change in President Obama in openly talking about his “Christianity”. Through nearly two years of his presidency, while claiming he was a Christian, never did he speak specifically about it- his faith, prayer, etc. Why the change?

The Washington political establishment has created a culture of distrust to the point that few Americans have any confidence in that institution and the people within it. We often jokingly refer to politicians as liars but in honesty the majority are and thus the culture of distrust is born. Some may consider such words harsh but any words spoken that are not truth are lies. It is that simple.

I have spoken openly in the past and more so of late to be wary of chameleons as they begin their ritual pretending to be something they are not. Much like a mockingbird. The song they sing might sound pretty, to a point of having convinced you it is a different bird, but in the end it is finally discovered to still be just a mockingbird.

With this convention of skepticism flourishing in our midst, one can only “try the spirits” of people, like President Obama, who appears to be afflicted with a sudden metamorphosis when polls show a continued increase in American’s doubting his Christianity and just as importantly, we are headed into an election cycle.

As we now are but 34 days from heading to the polls, I would like to leave readers with one of God’s promises; an assurance that can help us sustain through the coming days.

Psalm 1: 1-6 (King James Version)

1.Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2.But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3.And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4.The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5.Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6.For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Tom Remington