Ed Bangs, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service head wolf recovery man, says the wolf recovery effort in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana has been independent of politics. Read about that and other nonsensical potions in this morning’s Great Falls Tribune online.

Never mind the Wheaties. Start your day with this story while you slurp your coffee! But don’t choke.

Tom Remington

What a confusing mess! I guess this is another classic example of government making shambles out of anything they touch. Idaho Department of Fish and Game in their most recent wolf report shows they have confirmed wolf kills on livestock outnumbering last year. The same report shows more wolves have been killed than last year but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in September that wolf populations were on the decline in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. So what gives?

According to IDFG, since January 1, 2008 until November 24, 2008, they have 325 confirmed kills by wolves – 100 cattle, 212 sheep and 13 dogs. For all of last year, there were 278 confirmed kills – 57 cattle, 211 sheep and 10 dogs. Can we conclude that there are more wolves?

Perhaps but we could also say certain conditions made the wolves more hungry or as some would probably like to say, the ranchers aren’t taking care of their livestock.

The same report says that again from January 1, 2008 until November 21, 2008, 136 wolves have been killed – 86 authorized through Wildlife Services for various reasons, 13 taken under the ESA 10j rule and 37 other, including illegal kills.

During the whole of 2007, 77 wolves were killed – 43 by Wildlife Services, 7 by 10j, and 27 other. Can we conclude there are more wolves?

OregonLive.com has a short article today that says that Steve Nadeau, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game large carnivore coordinator, reports that wolves are “moving onto private land”. He also was quoted as saying:

“You can’t just keep stuffing wolves on top of each other,” he said.

This doesn’t make sense according to other talking points we hear about how wolves are loner animals who love the wilderness and are fearful of humans and just want to be left alone. We have to ask why the wolves are moving onto private land? Maybe because the wolves have no fear of man and they see man and his activities as a food source, much the same way as bears do.

But if Nadeau is saying that “You can’t just keep stuffing wolves on top of each other”, isn’t that also an admission on his part that wolves are on the increase? Can we conclude there are more wolves?

Just last week, Jim Unsworth, Idaho Fish and Game Deputy Director, said wolves were the biggest cause of elk herd reduction in the Lolo Hunting Zone.

The agency estimates cow elk in a remote area designated as the Lolo Hunting Zone have dwindled by as much as 13 percent each year. A recent study of radio-collared cow elk indicates that for the most part, wolves are to blame, Fish and Game says.

Not only is he blaming the wolves for taking its toll on the elk herd in this region, the IDFG says that they fear a continued reduction at the current rate will drop the level of herd sustainability below recovery rates. This could devastate the elk herd.

Can we conclude there are more wolves?

If this is “on the ground” evidence of what’s going on with wolf depredations, why is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reporting that wolf populations are on the decline? The Service provided no real proof of their claim other than to say that’s what they have concluded. They even said they didn’t understand why their conclusions would show that.

Steve Nadeau claims the wolves are on the move. Well, maybe they moved and Ed Bangs and his entourage at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have slept through the move.

It has taken a long time for the IDFG to begin to acknowledge that wolves are affecting at least the elk herds in Idaho. Some indications show that deer numbers are down as well. Could it also be the wolves are having a field day with them as well? It’s time to get the wolf off the ESA list and get them managed before we are forced into spending millions more dollars trying to recover elk and deer herds.

Can we conclude there are more wolves?

Tom Remington

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has submitted his comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the public comment period required before the Service can proceed with a second attempt to remove the gray wolf from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Below is a copy of those comments.

~~~~~~~

November 12, 2008

NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov
Subject: “RIN number 1018-AU53″

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator
585 Shepard Way
Helena, Montana 59601

In re: Comment — Canadian Wolf Delisting and Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment

Submitted electronically.

Dear Sirs,

The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) is the primary organization asserting the rights and prerogatives of hunters in Montana. MSSA has members throughout Montana. MSSA was opposed to the initial “introduction” of Canadian Wolves into Montana, supports the earliest removal of these wolves from protection by the federal government, and opposes any Distinct Population Segment designation for the following reasons:

First, MSSA incorporates by reference here all comments previously submitted on March 31, 2006. Those comments are posted at:
http://www.mtssa.org/wolfdelist.phtml

Second, MSSA has the following additional comments to add to the record:

Argument has been made that “genetic diversity” and “genetic connectivity” of wolf populations must be assured before wolves may be delisted in the northern Rocky Mountains. We assert that these conditions are not required under the Endangered Species Act. We also assert that there currently exists sufficient “genetic diversity” and “genetic connectivity” of Northern Rockies wolf populations to pass any rational, unbiased test. We assert that wolf advocates had years to raise these issues, but either slept on their rights or committed fraud though deliberate silence.

Further, wolf introduction efforts, coupled with failure to delist, does has never adequately addressed the issues of wolf transportation and transmission of disease and parasites that may affect people, domestic animals and other wildlife.

Finally, the introduction of Canadian wolves into the Northern Rockies may have eradicated the different and endangered wolves already living here, making the release of Canadian wolves itself a violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Genetic diversity. This topic is over-hyped. Those involved in animal husbandry will affirm that genetic diversity is not any sort of prime requirement for healthy animal populations. Many animal breeders actually concentrate bloodlines in order to produce desirable traits in offspring, without any species degradation. This has been done since before biblical times.

In addition, scientific testimony was presented in the lawsuit in federal court to reverse the previous delisting effort to document that some populations of wolves begun in isolated location(s) with only one male and one female, and with no additional injection of genetic material, are thriving – that lack of genetic diversity is no handicap to species survival whatsoever.

Further, the Canadian wolves that were released in Montana by the USFWS were drawn from several different parts of Canada, giving that released population a genetic diversity base far exceeding that necessary for a healthy population.

Actual practice and historic observation inform us that the only genetic diversity issue of any real consequence whatsoever is that there be both males and females. Once that diversity threshold is achieved, all rational genetic diversity needs have been met.

Those who advocate genetic diversity have offered no proof that genetic diversity among wolves is either desirable or necessary. If genetic diversity is so important, why has it taken wolf advocates over a decade to discover and articulate it? Why was argument for genetic diversity not made when the Endangered Species Act was crafted, or when the several state wolf management plans were devised? If the argument of genetic diversity has been apparent to the wolf advocates for a decade but they have deliberately not raised it until the 11th hour could that long silence be a type of fraud?

Genetic diversity is a thin, ruse argument. It is grasping at straws. Anyone who claims merit in that argument is either agenda-driven and using the argument as a facade, or they are living in la-la land.

Genetic connectivity. This argument is also a ruse. First, wolves social makeup is strongly antagonistic to genetic connectivity. Wolves regularly and reliably kill other wolves, with other genetic makeup, that stray into the area claimed by a pack. So, wolves actively resist genetic connectivity, no matter how much nature-loving environmental activists wish it were otherwise.

Second, without need for genetic diversity, as discussed above, there is simply no need for genetic connectivity.

Third, there is already a potential for genetic connectivity that is probably an order of magnitude greater than anything that might be required for a genetically-stable population. For example, a few years ago a wolf collared and released in Montana was found as road-kill in Texas. This wolf had traveled an incredible distance.

There are three populations of wolves discussed in the Northern Rockies; the population migrating from Canada in northwestern Montana, the population introduced into the Yellowstone Park area, and the introduced population in central Idaho. There are documented wolf packs west of Missoula, both north and south of Interstate 90, and area that is roughly equidistant from the three general populations mentioned preceding. It is axiomatic to presume that the wolves west of Missoula came from one of the other three wolf population centers. Ergo, if wolves can reach the center of the existing population triangle, wolves are then quite capable of reaching any part of the triangle from any other part of the triangle. To say otherwise is to defy rational thought.

If there is inadequate intermingling of wolf genetics (according to some), it is mostly because wolves kill strange wolves at the first opportunity. Perhaps the advocates of genetic connectivity ought to be assigned the task to force the mating of wolves strange to each other (sorry, no protective clothing or protective devices allowed). Let’s get on the record just how well wolves tolerate that.

Laches. Wolf advocates have long known terms of delisting. Those objecting to delisting had years to raise new issues concerning delisting, but they never did. They cannot claim ignorance of pending delisting. There have been multiple opportunities to new raise issues in comment on state management plans, listing and delisting, yet genetic diversity and genetic connectivity have never before been central to the wolf advocates’ position. See laches and 1-3-218, M.C.A., “Vigilance. The law helps the vigilant before those who sleep on their rights.”

Disease and parasites. Precious little attention has been paid to the diseases and parasites for which wolves may be vectors. Wolves are certainly hosts to or potential vectors for many dangerous diseases and parasites that affect other wild animals, livestock and humans, e.g. distemper, rabies, anthrax, brucellosis, echinococcus granulosis, and others. Because wolves are so highly mobile, their role as vectors is a huge liability to other species also subject to the diseases and parasites they may carry. Therefore, the potential exists for wolves to have a vast and incalculable negative impact upon other species, domestic, wild, and of course, humans.

For more information about disease and parasite transmission, I reference Wolves in Russia by Will Graves, and incorporate that book by reference in this comment.

I submit that the liability associated with far-ranging wolves as disease and parasite vectors argues strongly for aggressive wolf management by the affected states.

Eradication of native wolves. In her book Yellowstone Wolves, Kat Ubrikit makes a compelling case that a separate subspecies of wolf inhabited the greater Yellowstone area, including Montana and Wyoming, than the subspecies of Canadian wolf released by the FWS. This subspecies looks different, has different social structure, and hunts differently. There is a history of far too many documented sightings of this native subspecies for there to be any rational doubt that it existed prior to the release of Canadian wolves. Facing the near-certainty that this native subspecies existed and inhabited Montana and Wyoming, then the thoughtless or arrogant release of the Canadian subspecies was an overt violation of the Endangered Species Act.

By reference here, I incorporate the entirety of Yellowstone Wolves by Kat Ubrikit.

These reasons and those submitted on March 31, 2006 are all arguments why it was a mistake for wolves in Montana to come under federal protection, why it was a mistake for Canadian wolves to be introduced into Montana, and why it is important to remove all federal protection and allow state control at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

Gary Marbut
President, Montana Shooting Sports Association

According to Local News8 in Pocatello, Idaho, an interim Wyoming Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee has picked one of six wolf management bills to sponsor. The proposed bill will allow for hunting seasons on wolves as long as the state maintains its minimum requirement of breeding pairs of wolves (15).

Interestingly, this proposed bill will stick to the dual status labeling of wolves, meaning that wolves near the Yellowstone area will be classified as game animals and everywhere else in the state as predators.

It appears that Wyoming will be left out of the delisting process that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to push through by the first of the year, mostly because the courts didn’t like their wolf management plan, one that was approved by the USFWS.

The Wyoming Attorney General’s office states that the two wolf classifications can be defended in court. It may not be defending the dual status that will be the legal problem however. Consider this if you will.

The USFWS named the Northern Rocky Mountains region at first an experimental population of gray wolves. That was followed by renaming the same Distinct Population Segment of wolves, in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Eastern Washington, Oregon and small portion of Utah, endangered.

This past summer the USFWS removed the wolves in this area from federal protection but was soon placed back under protection when Judge Donald Molloy decided he didn’t like the idea too much.

Shortly after Molloy’s ruling, Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C. ruled that the USFWS couldn’t create a Distinct Population Segment within a Distinct Population Segment and as a result he placed the Western Great Lakes population of wolves back on the Endangered Species List.

If Friedman’s ruling is not challenged and defeated in the courts, then surely how can the USFWS leave Wyoming out of the mix and essentially create a new Distinct Population Segment within the existing DPS and consider it for delisting?

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.”

Tom Remington

Also don’t forget to head over to Dicks Sporting Goods where you can get many of their stuff right online for 50% off.

Just what in God’s name does that mean? Check out this map and hope you aren’t located in the middle of one of these “migration corridors”!

In 2007, the Western Governors’ Association, approved their resolution, “Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West”. Here’s the pdf version found on the WGA website.

Large intact and functioning ecosystems, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and abundant public access to natural landscapes are a significant contributing factor to the West’s economic and in-migration boom as well as quality of life. Critical wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitats are necessary to maintain flourishing wildlife populations.

Sounds wonderful to me! But maybe not so wonderful if you happen to be in one of these designated “wildlife corridors”. It also sounds like for hunters and fishermen, this should guarantee access to land and opportunities to hunt and fish forever. Ummmm……maybe not! Better look more closely.

After approving the resolution, the group set out to write “The Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative”. This more precisely spells out for us about these wildlife corridors and how they are going to “maintain flourishing wildlife populations” among other promises. Here’s the pdf version of the 142-page “Wildlife Corridors Initiative”. The “Initiative” was approved this past June.

Who better suited to decide how wildlife corridors and what can and cannot be done with land designated as “protected” wildlife corridors than groups representing the five following fields? Gas and Oil, Energy, Transportation Infrastructure, land use and climate change. I guess they got all their bases covered, especially when it comes to us scum-of-the-earth hunters and fishermen.

If you want to get a head start reading about this movement, masquerading as a “save the wildlife” group, go ahead and download the reports and read them for yourself. If you don’t want to do that, I have another idea for you.

Some of you have probably heard me speak of my friend George Dovel in Idaho. George is the editor of his highly successful print magazine, “The Outdoorsman”. George promises in the next issue he is going to delve into this fiasco and I’ll guarantee it will be good. George asks his readers, “if they can handle the truth?”

So, here’s what you need to do. Click on this link and you’ll find a printable subscription application for your own one-year subscription to The Outdoorsman. The cost is $20.00 for one year. It’ll be the best $20.00 you’ll spend this year.

The form is very short. All you need to do is print it out, fill it out and send it, along with $20.00 to The Outdoorsman. I get my copy on a regular basis and I have never learned so much as what I have gotten from this publication.

Don’t think it’s just for Idaho and western readers either. George covers a multitude of subjects and even the ones that focus on local issues, could be written about anyone’s state.

Don’t miss out on this opportunity!

Tom Remington

Remaining unchecked and unmanaged, the wolves in Idaho continue their slaughter of personal property livestock, according to the latest Wolf Update from the website of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

From July 28 to August 15, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services documented 24 confirmed wolf depredations and five probable wolf depredations on livestock. The federal agents confirmed that wolves killed 77 sheep, four adult cows and seven calves and injured another six sheep and determined that another 11 sheep, seven calves and a guard dog were probable wolf depredations. During the reporting period, WS killed 11 wolves and captured and released six wolves, five of which were radio -collared. During the same time frame in 2007, WS documented eight confirmed wolf depredations and one probable wolf depredation.

Last month, Judge Donald Molloy, issued a temporary injunction that immediately placed the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and parts of Utah, Oregon and Washington, back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to determine their legal options I have been told.

Tom Remington

Below you will find a recent article written by Jim Beers. You’ll also find a short bio about Mr. Beers. His article helps readers to begin making a connection between the efforts of those manipulating the Endangered Species Act for personal agendas and those wanting to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights.

I will also include two other parts along with Jim Beers’ article and bio. One is a bit of an introduction to his article and the last will be a response by someone who has read Beers’ piece.

This information raises some interesting questions about the connections of people once in high places moving to other organizations and landing in high places. You can draw your own conclusions.

First will be Beers’ bio, followed by his introduction, the article and then a response to that article.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Folks,

This is a copy of something I just sent to Charles Kay, a great biologist and friend. Since I just remembered that Charles is probably in Africa, I thought I would send this around.

Remember that the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Clinton oversaw the theft of $45 to 60 Million from the hunting and fishing excise taxes. Those funds that were intended by law FOR STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS were NEVER REPLACED AND OUR STATE AGENCIES NEVER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REPLACED (don’t want to offend the boys and girls passing out all those federal grants). The stolen funds were used to pay for the capture, transportation, conditioning, and release of WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK to ‘seed’ wolves in the Upper Rockies. That Director established The Defenders of Wildlife as the erstwhile federal “partner” responsible for “paying” for wolf depredations. This was and is merely a smokescreen to fend off complaints of the harm of wolves, only a small amount of livestock loss was ever remunerated and dogs and game herds and other losses were simply unavoidable casualties of this “war”. That ex-FWS Director went to work in a top job with The Defenders of Wildlife as soon as the law permitted (The National Wildlife Federation payed her a big salary while she had to cool her heels after resigning when the Republicans won the Presidential election). As you read the e-mails below, remember she still directs this wolf business for The “Defenders”, lobbies her former associates in FWS, and, I would guess, is a player in the upcoming election where if she is lucky (and we are not) she will be reincarnated in some other position in a “high place”.

Hopefully you may find this worthwhile. FYI

Jim Beers

Subject: Re: Wolves and The 2nd Amendment

Charles,

I believe the entire predator “push” from grizzly increases in range and numbers; to limiting methods of take of cougars (dogs, on-sight as depredating, seasons); to federal requirements (in the works as grant requirements) to make cougars invading places like Iowa, Kansas, etc. Protected Native Species and not classified as unprotected so that any take is difficult; to keeping black bears on the Threatened List in LA and FL (and adding other states opportunistically) and claiming large tracts of Florida as “Florida Panther” Critical Habitat — all are seriously jeopardizing the future of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Not only will game numbers (and hence seasons and harvest and license revenue and ancillary expenditures) decrease: areas open to hunting will decrease and hunter participation will necessarily decrease. Then there is the SAFETY EFFECT. Hunters that leave a kill to get equipment to haul it out or to get help will increasingly return to a predator on the kill. Hunters using bows for big game or turkey hunters or predator callers, all sit still and watch INTO the wind. There will be more run-ins with un-harassed grizzlies and cougars and black bears as food dwindles or as rabies or other disease outbreaks ravage the increasing predator population. What hunter will dare to sit and call after hearing how some guy was attacked FROM BEHIND by a grizzly or jumped by a wolf (a wolf once jumped a Russian lumberjack from behind WHILE HE WAS RUNNING THE CHAINSAW!)? What parent will let their kid go our after school to hunt alone after reading these accounts of attacks?

All of this will shrink the number of hunters and urban hunters especially. While the rural residents (both hunters and non-hunters) will increasingly want, need, and use guns – the anti-gunners will have a big leg-up as fewer and fewer urban folks hunt and become less vociferous in challenging the take-away activities of anti-gunners and urban mayors. Bottom line is a shrinking contingent of gun users and gun defenders with a concomitant increase in the need for guns in a shrinking rural American population that is more and more subject to the imaginary whims of urban voting blocs. Result? More rural residents from families and retirees to resource-dependent businesses and other entrepreneurs leaving rural environs. As an old bureaucrat it looks good for federal growth and bureaucrats that will have less opposition to buying more and more of rural America for everything from re-establishing Native Pre-Columbian Ecosystems to establishing “Corridors” and “Roadless” “Wildernesses” as more rural areas are evacuated. The only “winners” will be bureaucrats, politicians, and the modern rich land-buying aristocrats.
The environmentalists and the animal rights radicals never “win” because they will never be “happy” until they are the only ones left and that will never happen. I am reminded of that great line by Eli Wallach as the Mexican bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven. As Yul Brynner invites Wallach to move on and leave the villagers alone, Wallach snarls “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep!”. For too long we have been sheep.

Jim Beers

Subject: Wolfs and The 2nd Amendment

Hi Guys,

A friend forwarded me you URL today. My name is xxx I live in Powell, WY. Like you over there, our elk herds are rapidly disappearing. I am working on a freelance article commissioned by Predator Magazine. The subject of the article is the politics of wolf reintroduction. In particular, the connection between Defenders of Wildlife and Handgun Control, Inc, now known as the Brady Campaign.

As you likely know, Defenders is one of the main players in this ongoing circus. They have funded most of the court cases that have kept and will keep wolves listed for the foreseeable future. in 2004 they won two key decisions, one in Federal District Court in Oregon, one in Vermont. Basically these two judges found that so long as there are no wolves in Oregon/Washington, they are still endangered in our area. These decisions were based on the way the US F&W drew the wold management boundaries, and the way that the Endangered Species Act spells out management requirements. On the 28th of this month, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will “delist” wolves. The day after that, DoW et al, will file a motion for injunction which will likely be granted. In order for delisting to proceed, the wildlife management groups in ID, MT, and WY fish &game will have to appeal theses precedents in Federal Appellate court. If they are successful there, DoW will appeal that decision. According to my sources inside the WY F&G they expect that will take 2-3 years. By then the damage will be done. Unless the states can have the original decisions overturned in Appellate court, wolves will remain protected far into the future. As you know, we are already standing on the brink of “too late”.

Wolves cannot be reintroduced in eastern Washington, because DoW was able to have the Mountain Caribou in that area listed as endangered. So, wolves cannot be reintroduced there until the caribou populations have recovered. That will never happen because caribou don’t want to be there in the first place.

So here’s the Catch. The way that U&S F&G has drawn their boundaries between elk species, if DoW can manage to get the Rocky Mountain subspecies listed as only “threatened”, they can stop sport hunting of that subspecies throughout its entire range!!

What better way to cut the financial legs out from under both the NRA and State fish and game organizations.

The connection between wolves and anti-gun groups comes in the form of one Charles J. Orasin. For more than 15 years he was the rabid VP of Operations for Handgun Control, Inc. IN a flurry of Congressional hearings regarding shady fund raising practices in 2000, he disappeared from HCI and reappeared at Defenders of Wildlife as their VP of Operations. Should we believe that he just abandoned his life’s work to kill the 2nd Amendment to go save wolves and sea turtles?

If you look at the string of Federal Court rulings they won after he got to DoW you see and alarming pattern. Did you know that 10-12 years before the wolf planting recovery programs were started, elk were transplanted into areas that exactly match the original wolf reintroduction proposals? Never make the mistake of thinking that reintroduction of wolves has anything to do with “balancing” the ecosystem. For 6 years, the US Fish & Wildlife Service fought Wyoming’s management plan tooth and nail. Seemingly over night, they reversed their position. Why?

In 2003, I read an article that said the National Park Service was considering a study on the impact of wolves on ungulate populations. When you call and ask them about it now, you get a lot of er….uh….well… we ..ah.. never did the study….”Why not?” er …uh…well… we don’t see an impact high enough to warrant spending the money on it. Yet, The studies in Wyoming and Idaho tell a different story altogether. I believe it is the alarming results of state studies that flipped the US F&G literally over night.

The 2007 study done by the WY G&F shows that 4 of Wyoming elk hers are close to calf survival rates that will not support its population WITHOUT growing predation from wolves/grizzlies/lions.

Predator Magazine is the only publication that has the hair to have a go at putting out the news that the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated by DoW and their ilk, not to save species, but to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Most folks think I’m just a crackpot, conspiracy nut. But, WHY did MR. Gun Control go to work for DoW? Why did their strategy change so suddenly upon his arrival. I can find but one answer. I sent your URL to Ralph Lemeyer at Predator Magazine. He was asking me to find some wolf kill photos for the article. I think you guys have that covered! I hope we can get together sometime to compare notes.

Best Regards, and keep Hammerin ‘em!

Posted by Tom Remington

A child who cannot be expected to have the reasoning capabilities of full-grown adults, will cover their eyes with their hands and believe that because they can’t see, they can’t be seen. When adults do the equivalent, the results can be disastrous.

Are we to believe that diseases that affect elk and the rest of our ungulate species can only be spread in one direction? It seems that forever, the discussions about the prospect of diseases such as chronic wasting disease and brucellosis being spread are always from the domestic populations out to the wild ones. And why is that? Simple really. Someone told people that that is how it happens. We accept that theory and move on without any further discussions it seems.

This is eerily similar to the debate on global warming. Those who insist on keeping their hands over their eyes say that global warming is settled science. They don’t want to talk about it anymore because they are afraid of hearing something they don’t like.

For those who may not know, chronic wasting disease is far from settled science. As a matter of fact there is only one theory, never proven by science, that has been attached to any discussions on chronic wasting disease. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people that I talk to believe that CWD is caused by animals congregating in pens and that it is spread through one animal “kissing” another. Kissing is a term that has been used to describe when two animals touch in and around the nose/mouth/head area and fluids are exchanged.

The finger is always pointed at the domestic cervid ranches as the cause of CWD and the danger that might exist with our wild elk herds. Of course this finger pointing is the result of the ongoing campaign to convince people that the ranches is where it all starts.

Covering up your eyes will not change facts and will put all elk, whether domesticated or wild, at greater risk because we don’t want to hear about other ideas, facts, studies and research. Doing so is dangerous and doesn’t allow science to move ahead in a rapid and prudent manner.

Because someone is saying that domestic elk just one day out of the blue becomes infected with CWD, we have to make sure these animals never get out of their pens or the wild populations will be in danger. Most people don’t realize the continuing spread of CWD is being done throughout the wild populations in some states and is not showing up in domestic herds. Is that because we have built double fencing around the elk herds so their noses can’t touch? No. It is because the ranchers are learning how to test and prevent the spread of the disease. Not all fish and game departments can say the same thing.

In many cases reasonable steps have been taken with domestic elk ranches to detect and control CWD. Compare that with the efforts that many fish and game departments have put forth and it becomes troubling. Fish and game departments are still importing known diseased elk into their states from others. Very little testing of harvested deer and elk during the hunting seasons is being done, yet all the attention is being put on domestic cervid ranches to stop spreading the diseases.

Ranchers understand perhaps more than anybody else the importance of maintaining disease-free livestock. After all their entire livelihoods often depend on it. They’ve stepped up to the plate to test for and stop the exporting and importing of diseased animals. What has your state’s fish and game done to stop the spread of CWD in your state?

Oregon cervidae ranchers are facing opposition from several directions. Some want to run these people out of business because they fear disease. CWD has not been found in Oregon but some believe the natural progression of the spreading will eventually bring it there. By focusing all the attention on ending elk ranching, what is being done to ensure the wild herds aren’t being put in danger other than from these ranches?

The Baker City Herald in Oregon has a short article today that is actually quite misleading to the majority of people who are basically ignorant about disease and ranching. The first thing the article does is lead the reader to believe that because elk ranching contributes less money to the Oregon economy than the wild elk population brings into the state, it is somehow expendable.

Why has our society reached a point where if you are in the minority you are not worthy of equal treatment?

The article then goes on to explain how the domestic elk ranch is a threat to wild elk.

Trouble is, those elk ranches pose a potential threat to the valuable herds of wild elk.

Domestic elk can spread fatal diseases to their wild cousins — notably chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. This has happened in other states but not, fortunately, in Oregon.

To the average reader, this statement will lead you to believe that the diseases only come from the ranches and without these ranches, Oregon would be free from the threat of CWD or brucellosis.

Oregon is proposing to require double fencing around elk ranches to stop escapes and prevent a wild elk from touching noses with a domestic elk. The Baker City Herald says this is a reasonable solution.

This seems to us a reasonable precaution. Domestic elk don’t have to escape a fence to spread disease — nose-to-nose contact through a fence can transmit germs, too.

When I visited Idaho last spring, I spoke with several elk ranchers and we talked about fencing. As a matter of fact, I did an article about the fencing and explained quite a bit about it.

The fencing, I was told, costs between $25,000 and $50,000 per running mile depending on terrain. I guess because some feel the domestic elk industry is expendable, this is a reasonable cost for the rancher to incur and for what reason?

R.A. Forrest of StopCWD.org in studies researched indicates that while contact between domestic and wild elk is possible, the chances of transmitting the disease is unlikely.

While nose-to-nose contact is possible between wild elk and domestic elk, the seemingly transitory nature of exposure would be in contravention of the perceived intensive exposure necessary to infect older animals as determined by Miller (1998).

Furthermore, Forrest’s research seems to indicate that ingestion is the likely cause of the spread of CWD and not nose to nose contact.

Baker City Herald suggests that if there are less costly options that adequately protect the wild elk, they should be used. I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that when officials have already made up their minds as to what causes and spreads CWD, what are we to do.

People shouldn’t take me wrong in this discussion. There is nothing I want more than to find ways to stop the spread of CWD to all ungulates, wild and domestic. We can’t do this when we think like the global warming alarmists. The science isn’t closed. As a matter of fact it’s not been discussed much at all.

Even studies from years ago suggest that transmitting CWD via nose-to-nose is difficult and unlikely. Ranchers have done remarkably well to care for their livestock. Testing is ongoing and the presence of disease is non-existent. On the same token, my fear is that while officials and others focus their time and energy in a direction where there is little or no real threat of disease, it will creep in the back door because we didn’t pay close enough attention.

I think it is safe to conclude that one of the best ways of controlling the spread of disease is to control the movement of diseased animals. Recently the state of Idaho imported known diseased elk from Wyoming to be slaughtered. Until science has determined all the ways this disease is spread, we have to stop these kinds of irresponsible and hypocritical events from occurring.

If, as Forrest indicates, CWD is spread through ingestion of infected food supplies, we should also be focusing our attention on better tracking possible diseased hay and preventing grazing in areas known to have been part of an endemic area.

Further, we can’t allow hunters transporting game from one state to the other and more testing of wild harvested game should be done. There are states now that do no testing at all and CWD is all around them, yet states like Maine where the nearest cases of CWD showed up in an isolated place in New York, do extensive testing and have stopped all importation of wild ungulates, dead or alive, into the state, including anyone passing through.

CWD is an unsolved mystery. Running ranchers out of business in hopes it will help will do nothing to stop the spread of disease. Actually, these disease-free ranches may be our best friends years down the road. We should work with them and not against them, while focusing our energies to stop the spread of the disease via reasonable methods we have control over. We need to expand our research of the disease to first be able to discover how it is formed and then exactly how it is spread and stop the guessing. Then we can move toward finding a cure.

Tom Remington

Fascism takes on many forms some of which are difficult to spot. I see far too many groups and individuals attempting to force ideals onto others. When this happens an assortment of tactics are employed in order to manipulate the system and sway public opinion to achieve an end result.

Take for example the state of Idaho. Idaho is home to one of the best run domestic elk industries in the United States, in my opinion. It is well run, clean, disease free and brings a substantial economic contribution to the people of that state as well. Some people don’t like to see elk trapped behind fences even though elk have been domesticated world wide for centuries.

These people who have the problem, in some cases have organized and attempts have been made within the Idaho Legislature to shut down the domestic elk industry. Threats of running a campaign for a ballot initiative looms over the family’s heads who own elk ranches.

One of the tactics used, mostly to scare people, is the threat of disease. Elk can contract several diseases one of which seems to get the most attention, is chronic wasting disease. CWD is similar to mad cow disease but has never been found to be of the same threat to humans. In Idaho, the sale or importation of elk is strictly regulated. Animals are well cared for and tested for disease. Currently there is no live animal test for chronic wasting disease so every elk that is killed on a ranch must be tested for disease. No chronic wasting disease has ever been detected in any elk on any ranches in that state.

In North Dakota, a group calling themselves sportsmen, are in the process of gathering signatures for a citizen’s initiative to end all cervidae ranching in that state. Once again those wanting to shut down the industry spend a substantial amount of time trying to convince the public that disease from these ranches will infect the wild populations.

There is currently legislation being considered in Colorado that would create similar restrictions and a handful of other states have already passed legislation banning the industry in part or in whole.

Truth be known, no one is certain where the disease originated. Some studies suggest the disease is a “natural” occurrence that has been around perhaps since day one and goes through cycles. Some believe it originates on these ranches. Studies have indicated that the disease more easily is spread when animals, such as deer and elk, are congregated in large numbers. It is believed the disease is passed from animal to animal via bodily fluids but recent studies show that may not be the only way. Prions, which carry the disease, has been found in the soil and in some cases it is believed that it has been there a long time. Studies on the disease continue.

What some people don’t quite understand is that nobody seems to know which came first – the disease from inside out or from outside in. Because most all animals trapped behind fences are tested regularly for disease and testing of wild ungulates is spotty at best in some locations, wouldn’t it make sense that the disease would be discovered first on a ranch or a laboratory?

In states like Idaho, the fish and game there are dead set against the elk industry and would like to see it shut down. They too espouse the notion that the domestic elk industry poses a threat to the wild deer, elk and moose populations through the spread of disease.

What if the table is turned? What if the government agencies became the ranchers? What if local, state or federal governments owned elk or deer ranches? Would they then be as concerned about their own animals infecting wild animals on the outside of their fences? Or would their focus turn to protecting their animals inside the fences?

Oregon is another state where groups are trying to put an end to the elk ranching industry. These groups along with state officials lament over the idea that these ranches, like in Idaho and North Dakota, will spread disease. No cases of chronic wasting disease have been discovered in Oregon or Idaho for that matter, whether on a ranch or in the wild.

So, here we have a state claiming that fencing in elk will cause disease and that it can be spread to animals outside the fences. The thought process behind this is that animals can touch nose to nose through the fence or that in some cases, deer will be able to jump fences and get in.

Yet, in Eastern Oregon, near La Grande, the government runs a substantial elk ranch there. What is there concern? Disease getting in or disease getting out? Perhaps they don’t really have any concern at all about disease.

Thanks to reader Mark, he sent me an article he found in the Express-Times out of Pennsylvania. I chuckled when I read the first two paragraphs.

The elk herd at Trexler Game Preserve will get a higher fence meant to keep out company under a proposal that was expected to gain Lehigh County Commissioners’ approval Wednesday night.

Specifically unwanted are white-tailed deer that can transmit the fatal chronic-wasting disease to elk at the county-owned preserve.

The Trexler Game Preserve is owned and operated by the county. Their concerns are that deer FROM THE OUTSIDE, will jump the fence and get in threatening their herd of elk with chronic wasting and other diseases. How bizarre! Yet intelligent enough to consider protection one’s investment.

Are we to conclude that the government can run disease-free preserves and a private rancher can’t while under the regulations of the same governmental agency?

When I spoke with elk ranchers in Idaho about this same scenario, I discovered that many ranchers were quite concerned about their investment in elk being threatened by disease contracted from outside their fences. As I said before, Idaho has no known cases of CWD in the wild or on ranches. Should CWD show up in wild deer, elk and moose, this certainly will raise the fear factor considerably with the elk ranchers.

At the Trexler Game Preserve in Pennsylvania, officials there are putting funds together to raise the fence around the elk herd to 10 feet at an estimated cost of nearly $50,000. This will prevent the deer from jumping the fence but does very little in terms of keeping the animals from touching through the fence – an event that little is known as to how often if any it actually takes place and how real a threat it is.

So, now I have to wonder. In what direction would officials be focusing their concerns about disease if this involved a private game preserve? Would their concerns be about disease getting out or disease getting in?

Tom Remington

On today’s Open Air with Tom Remington broadcast on Skinny Moose Radio I talk in detail about what I believed to be the top ten stories that most affected our hunting, fishing and outdoor lives. These stories may not have been the most written or talked about but they deal with issues that I think has or has the potential to have the most effect on our lives. I thought I would list out the top ten with a brief comment.

10. Pennsylvania Deer Management Problems – There are nearly one million licensed hunters in Pennsylvania and that is reason enough to list this issue as one that has broad consequences. If you will recall, Pennsylvania decided a few years ago to change the whitetail deer management program in order to reduce the deer herd to save the ecosystem and restore the forests. Not all hunters have liked the idea – enough so that one organization sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The debate rages on and the success or failure of this deer management plan could have sweeping affects on many other states that are watching.

9. Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease – EHD or blue tongue is a virus carried by small biting insects that can kill deer, sometimes in large numbers. This year’s outbreak was larger than normal and hit states in northern climes not accustomed to the disease. Thousands of deer nationwide were wiped out covering more than a dozen states. Drought and dry conditions were blamed for the increase. In some locales, dead and decaying deer carcasses were feared to be contaminating water supplies.

8. Increased Bear Attacks in the West and Bear Spray – A prolonged and severe drought and hot temperatures resulted in a substantial reduction in natural food supplies for black and brown bears. The result was more human/bear conflicts. Of course this had to become a political issue when groups tried to blame elk ranchers for causing the increased bear encounters because of improperly caring for their animals. In one instance, the USFWS was considering a suit against a photographer who regularly feeds wildlife in order to get pictures.

To go along with this increased activity, officials in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming began telling people that using bear spray was a more effective way of dealing with attacking bears than a gun. This set off a controversy particularly among hunters who vowed they would not put down their gun and pick up a can of spray should they be attacked by a bear.

Vic Workman, a member of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, made enemies within his ranks when he went public after being attacked by a grizzly saying that if he had tried to put his gun down and take out his spray, he more than likely would be dead.

7. Wolf Delisting – The announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it plans to remove federal protection of the gray wolf via the Endangered Species Act, will have broad consequences on millions of people. Most people believe that when the feds make the official announcement, animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups will file lawsuits tying the process up for years. It has been reported that as many as 27 groups are already prepared to bring suit against the USFWS.

However the outcome falls, this entire process will end up costing taxpayers millions, maybe billions of dollars, in fighting lawsuits and implementing management plans that will continue to include some kind of private property compensation to ranchers and livestock owners. This process will continue to test the structure and viability of the Endangered Species Act as it becomes clearer that the Act needs help. It is being abused and manipulated in order to achieve personal agendas.

6. Sunday Hunting – A topic that just will never go away, has worked to divide the people. It has been shown in debates recently over Sunday Hunting in North Carolina that it is a divisive issue for various reasons. From religious convictions to the demands for equality under the law, hunters and non-hunters aggressively continue this debate and it isn’t going to end.

Pennsylvania is once again attempting to get a bill passed in the Legislature that would give the Game Commission the authority to permit Sunday hunting. Once again that debate is dividing the people of the Keystone state.

It’s an interesting debate that affects a lot of people but in a strange way. There are only 11 states that don’t allow Sunday hunting. In the other states that do allow it, there is no debate to end it nor are there any significant outcries about Sunday hunting. As a matter of fact, Sunday hunting goes about its business quite nicely with very little fanfare, yet in these states that don’t allow it, the outcry is very loud on both sides.

This is sure to continue to be an issue that affects many people.

5. New Jersey Bear Hunt – Probably until New Jersey ever sees fit to elect an new governor who is not dead set against hunting, there will not be any bear hunting the the Garden State. Corzine and his puppets have successfully managed to convince enough people not directly effected by the overgrown black bear population to support his anti-hunting agenda.

Shortly after Corzine took office, his newly appointed head of the Department of Environmental Protection, Liza Jackson, took the court-approved Black Bear Management Plan and tossed it in the garbage. Corzine having the backing of the courts managed to get rulings in his favor and instead of a hunt that would generate revenue for New Jersey, they opted for millions more in tax dollars in order to continue wasting it on non-lethal bear management practices that don’t work.

The antis have a very strong foothold in the state of New Jersey. I’m sure they will continue their “end all hunting” campaign there and try to put an end to other species of hunting.

4. Supreme Court To Hear District of Columbia vs. Heller – In a move that is sure to have perhaps the most affect on the citizenry of this country in decades, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear the appealed case of District of Columbia versus Heller, more commonly known as the Washington, D.C. gun ban case.

Earlier last year a District Court ruled that Washington, D.C.’s ban on guns was unconstitutional, setting the stage for a debate within the land’s highest court. How the court will rule remains only speculative but it is believed they will take up the case in the spring or early summer.

This ruling will, one way or another, effect every person living or visiting within the boundaries of this nation. The ruling should come right smack dab in the middle of the presidential race for the White House and could actually determine who becomes the next president.

Yes, this is big – bigger than most people are thinking.

3. Scent Lok Clothing Lawsuit – A class action lawsuit was filed this year against the makers of Scent-Lok clothing charging that the company knew the product didn’t work and continued its advertising campaign claiming it as being 100% effective. The suit also claims that Scent-Lok conspired with major companies that sell the products to cover up their knowledge about the failures of the product in order to deceive consumers.

This lawsuit will be tied up in the courts for sometime and could lay the ground work for how other companies will be allowed to advertise their products.

2. Jim Zumbo – The Jim Zumbo fiasco showed us several things, two of which I would like to touch on. The first is that it showed all of us the speed and power of the Internet. A tool that Jim used to communicate to his readers was also the razor-sharp weapon that pierced his femoral artery causing near instant death of a career.

Zumbo posted a blog condemning the use of “military-style” weapons for hunting and within hours he was crucified. Outdoor Life refused to stand behind him as was followed by his sponsors and other companies. The actions by those using the Internet to condemn Zumbo’s words were quick and powerful.

The second issue that surfaced from this debate was one that addressed freedom of speech. Many were outraged because Zumbo spoke his mind and was fired because of it failing to comprehend that his responsibility was to those who signed his check.

The bottom line here was that within a flash, millions of Americans were wrapped up in a debate over Second and First Amendment issues.

1. Rex Rammell and the Chief Joseph Elk Ranch – Clearly for me, this was the most written about issue for 2007 and one that I feel mushroomed into a cloud much bigger than a few escaped elk. What began as elk getting out of the confines of an elk ranch in southeastern Idaho has not found an ending yet.

What many of us thought was a simple event of a rancher needing to go find his livestock turned out to be a political and social quagmire. Politics got ugly when then Gov. Jim Risch ordered his people to go to the areas around the Chief Joseph Ranch and shoot to kill any elk that belonged to owner, veterinarian Rex Rammell of Rexburg, Idaho. Standing on the unfounded fears of inferior genes and disease, Risch justified his actions. A lawsuit brought by Rammell over the loss of his elk is still pending.

This set off a firestorm of events with politicians and members of some animal rights and hunting groups mounting campaigns against the Idaho domestic elk industry trying to strong arm them out of business. What began some time ago to shut down the elk industry almost overnight now had just the tool they were looking for to scare the public into believing that raising elk on ranches is a public health issue.

This debate is not over as it is expected that many of the same players will launch a citizen’s initiative to put an end to elk ranching once and for all. How far these groups and individuals are prepared to go remains to be seen. In an event last spring, an anonymous source witnessed leaders of well-known Idaho conservation groups discussing the prospects of creating a public health scare in order to promote their private agendas.

Ranch hunting has raised the level of debate several levels and has moved from Montana through Idaho and on to Oregon and North Dakota. Groups in Oregon are waging a campaign to shut down the cervidae industry and another group in North Dakota is seeking signatures as I write in order to place an initiative on the November ballot to stop elk and deer farming.

A simple elk escape has spread to states where some are seeking to legislate ethics and others are contemplating overstepping their own bounds of ethical behavior to create public health scares to promote agendas. This debate is far from over and will prove to be more of a dividing block for the hunting community than anything constructive.

Tom Remington