Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not directly related to the content of articles published on the Black Bear Blog. Thank you.
U.S. Army Course Authorizes Use of Deadly Force, Internment Camps During U.S. Civil Disturbance
” Trappers need to be confronted with video cameras. We need to use technology to scare wolves away from traps. Scents, noises, you name it. There’s lots of creative ways to go about this. If I lived in Montana or Idaho, I’d already have a group in place that travels the woods, freeing trapped animals with bolt cutters and other gear. I’d use dogs to help find the trapped animals. ” —Chicago Mike, the Wilderness Sportsman blog, posting this threat to violate state and federal laws, on the Maughan blog, at July 13, 2012 at 1:46 pm.
Citation: I.C. § 36-1510
Last Checked by Web Center Staff: 10/2011
Summary: This section comprises Idaho’s hunter harassment law. Under the law, no person shall intentionally interfere with the lawful taking or control of wildlife by another; intentionally harass, bait, drive or disturb any animal for the purpose of disrupting lawful pursuit; or damage or destroy in any way any lawful hunting blind with the intent to interfere. Idaho also expands these activities to include the harassment, intimidation, or threatening of any person who is or was lawfully engaged in the taking of fish or wildlife by such means as personal or written contact, telephone, e-mail, or a website. Every person convicted or entering a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere for violation of this section is subject to a fine of not to exceed $1,500 or confinement for 6 months in the county jail, or both. Further, any person damaged by prohibited acts may recover treble civil damages and a person can obtain an injunction against violations of this law.
Statute in Full:
(1) No person shall:
(a) Intentionally interfere with the lawful taking or control of wildlife by another; or
(b) Intentionally harass, bait, drive or disturb any animal for the purpose of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or
(c) Damage or destroy in any way any lawful hunting blind with the intent to interfere with its usage for hunting; or
(d) Harass, intimidate or threaten by any means including, but not limited to, personal or written contact, or via telephone, e-mail or website, any person who is or was engaged in the lawful taking or control of fish or wildlife.
(2) Any fish and game enforcement officer or peace officer who reasonably believes that a person has violated provisions of this section may arrest such person therefor.
(3)(a) The conduct declared unlawful in this section does not include any incidental interference arising from lawful activity by land users or interference by a landowner or members of his immediate family arising from activities on his own property.
(b) The conduct declared unlawful in this section does not include constitutionally protected activity.
(4) Every person convicted or entering a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere for violation of this section is subject to a fine of not to exceed one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) or confinement for six (6) months in the county jail, or both such fine and confinement.
(5) In addition to the penalties provided in subsection (4) of this section, any person who is damaged by any act prohibited in this section may recover treble civil damages. A party seeking civil damages under this subsection (5) may recover upon proof of a violation of the provisions of this section by a preponderance of the evidence. The state of Idaho, or any person may have relief by injunction against violations of the provisions of this section. Any party recovering judgment under this subsection (5) may be awarded a reasonable attorney’s fee.
S.L. 1987, ch. 288, § 1; S.L. 1992, ch. 81, § 36. Amended by S.L. 2010, ch. 245, § 3, eff. April 8, 2010.
Perfect example WHY the COLLABORATION PROCESS is so dangerous and vital we stop IDFG from further destroying our freedoms with the IDFG Summit using this process!
Tania krabbei- Is very dangerous for the moose population. Tania lowers the condition of the moose so bad that the cow moose abort their fetuses. If you really want to study this BARB you need to talk to people in S. Idaho that are moose hunters, the “moose” population is completely destroyed due to it, because the female moose “abort.”
“Study” : Alaska moose populations-Taenia ovis krabbei-Where Native sustenance hunters would starve due to not having moose to eat-. It will literally “wipe” out moose populations and this has happened quietly in S. Idaho, and was covered-up by the USFWS and IDFG.
Tania-stops the twining of the moose cows then their body conditions get so POOR. IDFG was still allowing people to hunt Moose, when the Moose population was being decimated! People were very concerned and yes this was being covered-up! Hunters were shocked at the condition of the moose they shot, and alarmed at the “grossly” site of worms infested within the muscle tissues. Taenia ovis krabbei is very harmful to all muscle tissues of the animal, especially the most important muscle the “heart.”
So why haven’t we heard about our moose being infested with Taenia ovis krabbei? Why haven’t we been told about this parasite disease infecting our valuable moose populations? This was NOT an Idaho problem prior to wolves.
Tania-Kills off our precious moose herds, kills it off. Idaho’s moose population was recovered and thriving prior to wolf introduction. There is a reason in Region 7 that NO studies have NOT been on moose by their biologists, and one is they have covered up the depredation of moose by wolves, secondly they have DONE no studies I am aware of with Tania ovis krabbei in our precious moose populations!
Moose and wolves did not co-exist in Alaska, study the devastation on moose in Alaska especially with the dangerous Taenia ovis krabbei, it literally wipes out the reproduction capabilities of the cow moose to produce, and their condition becomes extremely poor, how is this healthy?
Moose and wolves did not co-exist in Alaska? How about in Canada, the lower 48? From whence came those wolves in Alaska? Not long ago it was claimed on these pages that the Yukon wolf, the largest of all, was introduced into Idaho and Yellowstone.
Again grasping at straws Barbara Lee Rupers. You use the word co-exist like wolves benefit the moose. I’m using that “collaborative” word you and Carter Niemeyer like to use, as a FARCE. Moose were devastated in Idaho by wolves through depredation and then we find out Tania orvis krabbei-I don’t call that co-existing, I call that provincial extinction of our moose, just like our famous elk herds. There is nothing Co-cooperative about it.
Chandie, as always there seems to be a problem with communication. To me Co-exist means “To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.” Definition one from an on line dictionary. Please post your definition so we can get on the same page and try to converse. That would be novel.
Show me one place where I have used the word “collaborative”.
My intention is that ARA use the “term” co-exist loosely to imply that wolves and moose, or wolves and caribou, or wolves and elk, or wolves and humans have lived in a “state” of “natural-harmony.” The context these statements are made by tunnel-visioned Preservationists and ARA, and also you Barb, is that this relationship has a “natural-balancing effect,” and is a “balance” if only humans would not interfere.
This is grossly misrepresented as this Ph.D has made note of when making a statement about Will Graves book, Wolves in Russia, Anxiety Through the Ages.
“This book must be read by every serious wildlife biologist, resourcedecision maker and park manager, as well as the recreation-minded, for it clearly shows that co-existence between man and animal has limitsthat can never be forgotten.”
James A. Swan, Ph.D., from Not-so-cuddly canines
Range Magazine, in its Winter 2008 edition published an article about Wolves in Russia
entitled “Anxiety Through the Ages.” In the opening subtitle, Range says, “In his new book ‘Wolves in Russia,’ Will N. Graves chronicles the reasons wolves are feared by the people who must live with them.” Barney Nelson, Ph.D., says in introduction to the Range article, “‘Wolves in Russia’ is a must-read book for wolf advocates, ranchers,college professors, government agencies, and those who might be camping
in wolf territory. Will Graves’balancedinvestigation providesrare honesty and sanity in a groundbreaking and illuminating collection of Russian wolf science and documented predation on humans andlivestock. The book paints a vivid picture of government suppression of information; it documents the effect of an unarmed population on wolf behavior; and it points to cycles of terror and starvation that correspond to wolf population explosions.
I asked you for your definition of co-exist.
“My intention is that ARA use the “term” co-exist loosely to imply that wolves
and moose, or wolves and caribou, or wolves and elk, or wolves and humans have
lived in a “state” of “natural-harmony.” The context these statements are made
by tunnel-visioned Preservationists and ARA, and also you Barb, is that this
relationship has a “natural-balancing effect,” and is a “balance” if only humans
would not interfere. ”
does not give a definition.
For starters what is the ARA? Perhaps the Australasian Raptor Association? Anti-Racist Action?Oh wait, perhaps animal rights activists (ara) such as PETA, SPCA, or HSNA?
Where did I talk about a “natural-balancing effect”? I would be more likely to use Le Chatelier’s Principle.
“Natural harmony” between predator and prey is NOT any idea I subscribe to.
That claim the Yukon wolf, C. l. occidentalis was introduced into Idaho and Yellowstone was a “study” that was done by “researchers” it was not “claim” without the backing of scientific “data. The researchers definately write that this Northern sub-species is very different than what inhabited the lower 48 before in sub-specific variety, just like Stanley and Young wrote about in Wolves of North America and Cat Urbigkit provided in her very thorough and well-researched book.
Tom posted the link for the “study.” C.l. occidentalis is described as the largest sub-species of wolf in North America by Stanley & Young in Wolves of North America. I have posted their comments right out of their book, and references from Cat’s book also citing Wolves of North America countless times with references!
Barb, You can read the “study” as Tom posted it. I noticed you never commented on it when he did.
Idaho Wildlife Summit
Ever wonder why agencies with new policy or regulation changes, such as
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, hold meetings in a very regulated
format where public input is “said” to be important, but rarely used?
The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained
before the meeting took place, why have the meeting? Herein lies the
genius of this Delphi Technique.
It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is
theirs! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their
input was recognized!
If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it.
If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.
This very effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to
change our form of government from the representative republic, intended
by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” Now,
citizens chosen at large are manipulated into accepting
preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced
the outcomes which are now theirs! The reality is that the final
outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took
place, determined by individuals unknown to the public.
Durward Allen and Dr. David L. Mech were VERY responsible for Value Added Science:
In 1947 wolves were classified by taxonomy and it wasn’t until the
1980′s when DNA designations were created that this changed . This
transition took us from having over 27 different species of wolf to
having only 5, and this realignment consolidated the Canus Lupus
Occidentalis, Columbianus and Irremotus into one grouping now called the
”Gray Wolf.” This is like grouping different pain treatment medicines
into one group simply because they all treat pain.
These wolves as you mentioned are a great deal more aggressive, hunt
as full teams and often kill excessive numbers of ungulates as sport or
in frenzy killing sprees. This a great deal different than what the
wolves we had here (which were nearly eliminated in our areas by the
These wolves have become a great deal more reproductive than the US Fish
and Wildlife Service and our State Fish and Game Departments said they
would. These statements they made when they knew they were not
generally true. Yet they have been able to convince the uneducated that
they were/are factual. This is what we call “value Added Science” which
is diametrically opposite of objective Scientific Method base research.
The Fact that these allegations by our program staffs’ were not
completely true but were accepted as the whole truth was partly due to
L. David Mech’s statements made after he published his doctorial
Dissertation at Purdue University, after he completed his research in
late 1950′s and early 1960′s. Note: He was directly involved at the
beginning of an 18 year (1958 to 1976) study the “Wolves of Minong”
headed by Durward Allen, at that time Professor at Purdue, on the wolves
on Isle Royale, Lake Superior, Minnesota.
During the 1980′s and early 1990′s our US Fish and Wildlife Service
developed and had approved a plan to inject wolves captured in Canada
into our three State area (i.e. Montana, Wyoming and Idaho). They
contended that the wolves WOULD NOT DO many things that historical
research and scientific investigations, including Allen’s and Mech’s,
had already substantiated that they would do. Yet because our Program
Leaders had already decided that no matter what the objections they were
going to force these wolves, in 1995 and 1996, upon us; hence, the plan
was executed. The program is still being executed under full
Government protection and we now have a situation that is, and can
easily be characterized, as completely out of control.
We are now in the 10 to 20 year post introduction bracket for these
wolves. This is the period when we find that our urban and residential
areas are being routinely invaded by these extreme carnivores. Numerous
people have had very close physical encounters with these wolves with
some close interactions showing that we will shortly see human attacks
and physical injuries, not just backyard pet killings and casual
pursuits of humans.
The wolves we now have are very infected with Echinococcus granulosus
(E.g.). In 2008-2009 a laboratory evaluation of 123 wolf carcasses was
done. The results were that 63% of the wolves had the disease. In
addition we have determined that a large percentage of our wild ungulate
population has come down with Hydatid Cysts, and as you may know you
have to have both of these elements to establish and maintain an E. g.
life cycle. From the interface of these two host, definitive (canine)
and intermediate (ungulate), we get the real problem—the fully
established, wide spread and maintained Life Cycles.
Recently, two additional and separate evaluations were done and in
several areas we are finding that 84 plus % of our wolves now have the
tapeworm and the Cyst phase is becoming more prevalent in our wild
ungulates. Next we will discover the Cyst in Domestic Livestock and
hybrid wolf-coyote and wolf-dog canines.
When the wolf “Recovery Plan” was about to be enacted, Will sent a
letter to Edward Bangs, who was the program manager, of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, warning him of the problem of bring wolves into a new
area before evaluating fully the potential for zoonotic diseases, which
leads to health and safety emergencies. Bangs sent a copy of Will’s
letter to a Russian Wolf Scientist in Russia. I have examined very
constructively both Will’s letter and the response.
The reply letter was a very generic Country to Country response and
it noted that the Russian’s could not find support documentation for all
the facts that had been cited in the book “Wolves in Russia; Anxiety
Through the Ages,” even though Russian points of contact had help
extensively with the background research.
As a indirect result of this letter and a direct results of incessant
other wolf-introduction-supporters from the United States and Canadian,
Ed Bangs stated that the wolves would be treated for diseases before
they were released and that these wolves would not cause any increase in
the spread of diseases carried by wolves including Rabies. Of course
this statement was subjectively founded not objectively based and done
in a hurry.
In fact what the Environmental Impact Statement, released by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service stated was: “a Finding of NO Significance” as
regarded wolves disease spread. This written conclusion was
scientifically unfounded but became the concrete subjective conclusion
and thus wolves were injected.
The treatment that was given to the Wolves prior to their release into
the wild was focused on immunizations and shots that would keep the
wolves from getting disease that would kill them before they could
establish a enduring population.
Treatment necessary to prevent Echinococcus granulosus tapeworms: To kill this tapeworm, with a 90 % or higher probability of ridding
wolves of the tapeworm, requires three treatments with praziquantel at a
dose of 10 mg/kilogram of canine weight, over a 12 week interval with
the feces from the treated wolves being evaluated for coproantigen by a
PCR-DNA or ELISA test, and if antigens are found, this means the wolves
still have the worms in their small intestines and the treatment cycle
needs to be repeated. This goes for domestic dogs as well.
What documentation do you have to prove your claim that the wolves were not “treated properly”
This was information provided by the men that put on the Challis Overview about wolves, where the woman stood up and spoke about losing one-third of her liver! The wolves were treated for “their health” not the safety of humans, and NO they weren’t given the full-course of Praziquantel!
Barb, We work very hard to get our FACTS! It takes months and years of research and sharing. We don’t get any of our information from the USFWS/IDFG records as IDFG/USFWS hid the FACT 63% of the wolves in Idaho were tested positive for Echinococcus granulosus, and CHOSE to not warn the public!
Thank George Dovel for making this dangerous parasitic disease to our ungulates, livestock and wildlife, and more importantly humans public!
IDFG has done nothing since but try “damage-control.”
If you are so interested about Echinoccus granulosus, and the Hydatid Disease the secondary hosts-ungulates and humans-dead end hoses suffer from wolves, you can do your own research in Alaska, Canada, and more importantly study the counties suffering from high-rates like WE are doing.
You can’t just rely on simple google-searches! Remember the false-hoods IDFG published right away after George Dovel’s article, I’ve posted his responses to them many times, but you still try to “marginalize” me as being ignorant or making “false” claims…….
This was even stated in the EIS: In fact what the Environmental Impact Statement, released by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service stated was: “a Finding of NO Significance” as
regarded wolves disease spread. This written conclusion was
scientifically unfounded but became the concrete subjective conclusion
and thus wolves were injected.
NO INFORMATION THAT THESE WOLVES WERE EVER TREATED PROPERLY TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF ECHINOCOCCUS GRANULOSUS.
These wolves, which were captured in British Columbia and adjacent
Canadian provinces, were released after only ten (10) weeks and there is
no information available to the public that allows us to see if they
were tested post treatment, and/or if at any time a determination to see
if they were completely free of E. g was done.
Two points bear noting: First canines are again susceptible to tape worm
load immediately after completing treatment and secondly, that during
this treatment the canines are expelling viable eggs and/or progollids
(a pouch like segment), which contain thousands of the microscopic eggs
or egg segments. So to avoid exposure all feces must be picked up and
burned with the areas of droppings being likewise cleansed
You have made this false claim before. Wolves can NOT be infected by eating Echinococcus granulosus eggs.
To get another “load” they would have to eat an ungulate that had the cysts.
Remember, this is a two host cycle.
Barb, I understand the cycle perfectly. This was written by someone else, and the point they are making is it takes several doses of Prazequantel to properly treat the wolves before they are clean of the Echinoccocus granulosus tapeworm. The fact the IDFG/ USFWS vets failed to do this makes them not only negligent but culpable. You should be taking this matter up with them not me! I’m just providing the facts!
When we look at the latest government published data on wolf pack
locations we see that our residential areas are surrounded by wolves and
there is hard evidence that individual wolves are now and have been for
about 5 years dropping their infected feces in and around our living
areas. Our very conservative calculations have determine that every
infected wolf every day drops over 2,400 viable E. granulosus eggs in
our environment of which at least 1,600 remain viable/infectious to
humans for over 9 months.
We have been experiencing a rather intense pollution in our
wilderness areas for only 3-5 years, and we have not reached the point
at which the potential for human Cyst Disease has become assured or
diagnosable. But we are fast getting there.
The eggs after ingestion, inhalation or injection into a person
generally are not detectible as Hydatid Cysts for over 10 years, except
if they grow in the brain or grow large enough to cause vital organ
function problems—breathing for example.
Many patients have no symptoms for longer periods. It has been noted
that patients can live for over 50 years with undiagnosed Cysts. There
are various reasons for this primary of which is that the medical
professionals are not looking for the disease and hence they treat for
other ailment. A secondary reason is that they are not encouraged by
health rules or laws to look for the disease.
The reason for these last two assessment is that the exterior surface of
these eggs is very sticky and they can easily cling to surfaces like
shoe bottoms, pant legs or dog feet and thereafter be deposited in a
house for ingestion by hand or other means by women, children, toddlers
or crawling infants. Same goes for backyards.
Keep up with my blog. Just enter your email address to receive updates when new posts are published.
skinnymoose.com © 2017 Carbon Media Group Outdoors