No, jaguar is not a code name for illegal immigrant, drug smuggler or gun trafficker. In this context, the jaguar to be “tracked” is an endangered species in the Arizona and New Mexico area near the border with Mexico. Homeland Security is spending 3/4 of a million dollars to install 120 cameras in several locations across Arizona and New Mexico to first determine if there are any jaguars around and second to “Learning how much impact the U.S.-Mexican border fence, illegal immigrants, and vehicles and equipment used to pursue immigrants has on the animal.”

Is this the best use of the people’s tax dollars? We hear the continued beating of the pity drum that there is just no place to cut spending. Really? There is the argument that our borders aren’t even secure enough to prohibit illegals, whether immigrants, drug traffickers or gun smugglers from crossing into the U.S., while complaining about no money to do a better job and Homeland Security has $771,000 to watch for jaguars?

Give me a break! This is an outrage! It seems everything this government does is an outrage. Call your Congressman today and tell them to put an end to such foolish nonsense!

Tom Remington

There are many things that could be said about the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that what killed a government controlled Mexican gray wolf in Arizona was that of a lightning strike. Trust me. I bit my tongue several times and I’m still holding back.

One thought I had about this was wondering if the wolf perverts will sue God for causing a lightning strike on one of their own? But then I realized they wouldn’t sue God because mostly God doesn’t exist for them. So, I guess it’s on to Gaia and/or Mother Earth. Will they sue Gaia? How can they stop the uncontrolled striking of lightning? Difficult as it may be to determine how to stop it, lightning must have rights according to these debauchees.

One has to wonder, the news article said that this now half-fried and dead alpha female was wearing a radio collar. It is most assuredly a fact that had this wolf not been wearing a radio collar, it would not have been struck by lightning. It must have acted as a grounding rod delivering the tens of thousands of volts of electric energy through its neck and taking her out in an instance…..perhaps. Or the animal suffered miserably, as surely as Nature is just.

Looks like a great opportunity to launch a lawsuit against the USFWS for collaring that animal. It is, after all, cruel and unusual punishment to bestow upon any animal…..well except for a few humans who are into the S&M thing.

Natural regulation! Just when you though it was all man’s fault!

“Lightning is striking again and again and again!”

Tom Remington

MISSOULA, Mont.–Winterkill, habitat problems and wolves have driven elk numbers down in some areas. But many of America’s roughly 800,000 elk hunters have reason to be optimistic about upcoming seasons, based on hunt forecasts compiled by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

(Note: The following data, compiled from state and provincial wildlife agencies, reflect biologists’ best estimates of elk populations. Each year, animal rights activists blatantly misrepresent these data to prop up their argument for keeping wolves perpetually on the Endangered Species List. It’s a fact that where wolves are concentrated, elk herds are being impacted. Calf survival rates in certain areas are too low to sustain herds for the future. Wolves must be managed, same as elk. In spite of the misuse, RMEF believes these data are valuable to hunters and will continue to provide them.)

Following are condensed forecasts for 29 states and provinces. See full-length versions at www.rmef.org/hunting/features. For even more detailed coverage, see the Sept./Oct. 2011 edition of the RMEF member magazine, Bugle. To join, call 800-CALL ELK.

RMEF members have now helped to conserve or enhance 5.9 million acres of habitat for elk and other wildlife.

In the forecast intro, Bugle Hunting Editor P.J. DelHomme notes, “When RMEF launched in 1984, there were 550,000 elk in North America. Fifteen states and four provinces had elk hunts. Today almost 1.2 million wild elk roam the continent and 23 states and six provinces are holding elk hunts. There’s also been a huge surge of bulls entering the record books, with world records for Roosevelt’s, tules and non-typical Rocky Mountain elk all falling in the past decade.”

This may indeed be the Golden Era of elk hunting. Good luck this autumn!

Alaska
Elk Population: Etolin (GMU 3) 300-400, Kodiak Archipelago (GMU N/A
Bull/Cow Ratio: GMU 3 19/100
Nonresidents: $85 license, $300 elk permit
Hunter Success: GMU 3 13 percent, GMU 8 N/A
Highlights: Most elk in GMU 3 reside within the formidable South Etolin Island Wilderness on Etolin Island, where 48 hunters braved the bush to kill six bulls last season. Calf recruitment is good at 51 calves to every 100 cows. Numbers for GMU 8 on the Kodiak Archipelago were not available at press time, but the area has yielded some impressive Roosevelt’s bulls in the past few years. Visit www.wildlife.alaska.gov.

Alberta
Elk Population: 33,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $255, must hire a guide
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Elk populations in the foothills of the Rockies, especially west of Rocky Mountain House, this year felt the combined impact of months of deep snow and predation by wolves, mountain lions and grizzlies. However, range is expanding as elk pioneer new territory to the south and east, with some respectable bulls among them. Meat hunters should look at agricultural zones where liberal permits for cows are available. Outfitters receive roughly 10 percent of the draw tags. Visit www.srd.alberta.ca.

Arizona
Elk Population: 25,000-35,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 35/100
Nonresidents: $151 license (nonrefundable) plus $595 elk permit
Hunter Success: 31 percent general, 39 percent muzzleloader, 24 percent archery
Highlights: The Wallow fire burned over 520,000 acres in Units 1 and 27 and many elk have been displaced to other areas. A silver lining? These units could see even more monster bulls in coming years if forage responds as it did following the massive Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002. A mild winter meant low stress on elk but also led to a dry spring–hence the massive wildfires. Arizona Game and Fish Department’s “Hunt Arizona” offers a great resource on harvest data, drawing odds and hunting pressure. Visit www.azgfd.gov.

Arkansas
Elk Population: 440
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
Nonresidents: Auction and landowner tags
Hunter Success: 63 percent
Highlights: Elk permits are available to landowners in a five-county area, with 23 permits issued under a quota system. Anyone who owns property in those counties, whether or not they are a resident, qualifies for the drawing. Nonresidents who buy a lifetime license also are eligible for the drawing. Public land hunters will find elk using an increasing number and quality of managed forage openings on the Ozark National Forest and Gene Rush WMA. Visit www.agfc.com.

British Columbia
Elk Population: 63,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 25-30/100
Nonresidents: $180 license plus $250 elk permit, must hire a guide
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Rocky Mountain elk herds are thriving, with the agricultural zones in the Peace River region a great bet. For a backcountry experience, look to the Omineca region in north-central BC. If you’ve always dreamed of hunting a trophy Roosevelt’s bull, the stars are aligned for a great season. No limits or quotas have changed since last season, and limited-entry tags are still a tough draw at roughly 35/1. Outfitters are allotted a percentage of those tags and you can bypass the long odds by booking a hunt. The $430 cost for a license and permit is a relative bargain. Visit www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw.

California
Elk Population: 11,400 (1,500 Rocky Mountain, 6,000 Roosevelt’s, 3,900 tule)
Bull/Cow Ratios: 20/100 to 90/100
Nonresidents: $151 license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $1,200 elk permit
Hunter Success: 75 percent
Highlights: The West’s best hunter success rates and world-class bulls of all three sub-species await those who beat tag lottery odds ranging from 100/1 to 1,000/1. This could be the year a tule world record is broken. The largest brutes are in the East Park Reservoir and Grizzly Island units. Good spring rains should have racks in prime shape. For a backcountry experience, try Marble Mountain Wilderness, which offers 35 bull tags, 10 antlerless and 5 late-season muzzleloader/archery either-sex tags. Everyone has a shot here, as 10 of those tags (nine bull and one cow) are randomly drawn while the other 30 are weighted for preference points. Visit www.dfg.ca.gov.

Colorado
Elk Population: 283,400
Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
Nonresidents: $354 cow, $554 any elk
Hunter Success: 22 percent
Highlights: Colorado is an ideal destination with more than 23 million acres of public land, almost twice as many elk as any other state, over-the-counter bull tags (OTC), and an informative call-center. Rifle tags for bulls in the 2nd and 3rd season are unlimited and sold at outlets all over the state. Leftover draw tags went on sale August 9 and some may still be available. OTC rifle tags for cows are limited, but OTC antlerless archery tags are wide open in the northwest and southeast corners. The past few years have been moist with heavy snows and wet springs, which have kept forage lush and antler growth robust. Visit www.wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting.

Idaho
Elk Population: 103,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
Nonresidents: $155 license, $417 elk tag
Hunter Success: 19 percent
Highlights: The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is being hammered by wolf predation exacerbated by a long slide in forage quality. Elk populations are far below management objectives in the Lolo and Selway zones and slightly below objectives in the Sawtooth zone. Elk and hunting aren’t what they used to be in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, either. Statewide, elk tag sales fell from 92,565 in 2008 to 84,765 in 2010–a decline of about 8 percent. But not all the news from Idaho is bad. Populations at or above objectives in 20 of 29 elk hunt zones, and the statewide population actually broke a long plummet and grew by 2,000 animals from last year. Hunters should look to the southern and western portions of the state, as well as areas like the Owyhee-South Hills Zone, where hunters can now chase antlerless elk August through December. Visit www.fishandgame.idaho.gov.

Kansas
Elk Population: 250-275
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
Nonresidents: Tenant permits and one Commissioner’s Permit, usually sold at auction
Hunter Success: 36 percent
Highlights: This past season was a tough one for Kansas elk hunters. On Fort Riley, where most of the state’s elk roam, hunters had their second-lowest success rate since the hunt began there in 1987. This year, 10 either-sex and 15 antlerless tags are available. Mammoth bulls exist but don’t come easily. The state’s other main elk herd roams the opposite corner far to the southwest in the Cimarron National Grasslands. The Grasslands themselves are closed to hunting, but over-the-counter unlimited permits are available for surrounding private lands. Visit www.kdwp.state.ks.us.

Kentucky
Elk Population: 10,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-40/100
Nonresidents: $10 to apply, $130 license, $365 elk permit
Hunter Success: 65 percent
Highlights: The toughest part here is beating the odds in the drawing. This year, 61,500 applicants vied for 800 elk hunting permits, with 80 permits reserved for the nearly 19,000 nonresidents who applied. But elk look to be plentiful. A calf recruitment ratio of roughly 85/100 means nearly 2,000 more elk hit the ground each year. Also, hunting success was down last year as the acorn crop was big and the elk stayed in the hardwoods and out of the open, plus ice and snowstorms coincided with key weekends. This year, managers have dropped the 4-point or better antler restriction. Visit www.fw.ky.gov.

Manitoba
Elk Population: 6,100
Bull/Cow Ratio: 45/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 20-60 percent rifle, 5-10 percent archery
Highlights: You have to live in the province to draw an elk permit, and they’re avidly sought. Some very large bulls roam this country. The Duck Mountain, Interlake and Porcupine regions are all consistent trophy producers. The province has numerous elk seasons running from late August through December. Visit www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/hunting/.

Michigan
Elk Population: 780
Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 70-90 percent
Highlights: Managers have the elk population where they want it and are in maintenance mode, which explains why available elk permits dropped by roughly 30 percent. Applications this year were down slightly, with 35,000 people vying for 55 any-elk and 100 antlerless tags. Improving timber management and habitat on public land should mean more elk hunting opportunity in the future. Visit www.michigan.gov/dnrhunting.

Minnesota
Elk Population: 175
Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 72 percent
Highlights: Less than 1,000 hunters applied in 2010 for the dozen once-in-a-lifetime elk tags available (at $250 each). But a widely publicized monster bull scoring 458-4/8 was found in Minnesota last year, and word got out that this state can grow massive trophies. No word yet on whether applications rose. The state has two herds. Managers counted 35-40 elk in the Grygla herd, which is a couple more than what the management plan calls for, and 141 elk in the “border herd.” Visit www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/elk.

Montana
Elk Population: 150,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 5-25/100
Nonresidents: $812
Hunter Success: 16 percent
Highlights: The biggest news for nonresidents is the 37 percent jump in the price of an elk permit. A ballot initiative last November abolished 5,500 outfitter-sponsored licenses and forced all nonresident hunters into the drawing. For those who drew a bull tag in the Bear Paws or Big Snowies, the higher fees could be money well spent, as the bulls there are growing old and big. Winter was tough in parts of central and eastern Montana, but elk in the legendary Missouri River Breaks came through fine. Hunters would be smart to look at Region 3, which yields almost 50 percent of the annual elk harvest, including some big bulls. Wolves have taken a brutal toll on some herds. In the Danaher Basin of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, cow/calf ratios are just 9/100, down from a long-term average of 24/100. Herds in the West Fork of the Bitterroot and the lower Clark Fork watershed are in steep decline, and the famed northern Yellowstone herd continues to plummet. Visit www.fwp.mt.gov.

Nebraska
Elk Population: 2,300
Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/50
Residents only
Hunter Success: 61 percent
Highlights: Landowners are allotted one-third of all elk tags, and this year, both landowners and the general public will have the best opportunity in a decade with 294 tags, up 22 from last year. For public-land hunters, the rugged Pine Ridge in the northern panhandle offers good odds as three units there hold more than half the state’s elk herd, two-thirds of the total permit allocation and more than 100,000 acres of public land.
Visit www.outdoornebraska.ne.gov/hunting.

Nevada
Elk Population: 13,500
Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
Nonresidents: $142 license plus $1,200 tag
Hunter Success: 47 percent
Highlights: Through the drawing, an elk tag costs well over a grand, and that’s a steal compared to the 89 private landowner tags that sold for more than $7,800 on average last year. But 66 percent of the bulls killed last year were six-points or better, many of them jaw-droppers. Nevada’s herd has grown dramatically, swelling by 10 percent this year alone. That’s great news for residents who get 4,600 tags–a good thousand more than last year. Nonresidents are allotted 133 and odds of drawing one were 1/44 in 2009. Visit www.ndow.org/hunt.

New Mexico
Elk Population: 75,000-95,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40-45/100
Nonresidents: $555 standard bull, $780 quality bull
Hunter Success: 33 percent
Highlights: A mild winter and expected monsoons should have elk in top shape this fall. The state is split roughly into 30 percent “quality” units (big bulls, small odds) and 70 percent “opportunity” units. Hunters looking for plenty of opportunity should focus on the north-central units including Unit 36 where elk herds continue to grow and managers have issued more permits. For last-minute nonresident hunters with cash to spend, landowner tags are your ticket. Hunters will have a little more time to get their bull this year, with shooting hours expanded to 30 minutes before sunrise and after sunset. Visit www.wildlife.state.nm.us.

North Dakota
Elk Population: 1,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: One raffle tag available
Hunter Success: 49 percent
Highlights: For the past few years, North Dakota has had far more elk than managers wanted. That changed last fall and winter as hunters in Theodore Roosevelt National Park culled 406 elk out of an estimated 950. Managers still hope to get numbers under 400 and another shoot is likely this year. Outside of the park, elk can be found in the northeast corner and along the west-central border, with estimated numbers at around 450. Other small herds are scattered in pockets throughout the state. This year, managers will issue 500 tags–355 any-sex and 145 antlerless tags. Visit www.gf.nd.gov/hunting.

Oklahoma
Elk Population: 2,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $306
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Only 85 public-land permits were available this year, down from 330 last year. The largest herd and best opportunity is on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. A few small herds are scattered in the northeast and southeast corners of the state with one permit available for those areas. Residents looking to pull one of these once-in-a-lifetime tags have less than a 1 percent chance. But there is no quota on private-land elk and hunting access can be had for a fee. Visit www.wildlifedepartment.com.

Ontario
Elk Population: 700
Bull/Cow Ratio: 30/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Thirteen years after RMEF helped reintroduce elk to Ontario, the province will hold its first modern elk hunt this year. Between 300-775 elk reside in the Bancroft-North Hastings area in the southern end of the province where the hunt will take place. Lucky hunters now hold 24 bull tags and 46 cow tags for the late-September hunt. Visit www.ontario.ca/hunting.

Oregon
Elk Population: 125,000 (65,000 Rocky Mountain, 60,000 Roosevelt’s)
Bull/Cow Ratio: 19/100 Rocky Mountain, 13/100 Roosevelt’s
Nonresidents: $141 license, $501 tag
Hunter Success: 16 percent Rocky Mountain, 12 percent Roosevelt’s
Highlights: Much of eastern Oregon saw record snowfall in the mountains, and biologists are hopeful that elk populations came out unscathed. Bowhunters can prowl most of the east side with only a general tag. For rifle hunters, nearly everything east of the Cascades is permit-only, save for a second-season rifle hunt in a few units of the northeast. Roosevelt’s elk tags are still over-the-counter (except for the far northwest and southwest corners), herds are strong and there are some beasts on the hoof. This season, hunters 17 and under are required to wear a hunter orange hat or vest when hunting any big game with any firearm. Visit www.dfw.state.or.us.

Pennsylvania
Elk Population: 750
Bull/Cow ratio: 28/100
Nonresidents: $101 license, $250 elk tag
Hunter success: 80 percent
Highlights: It’s been reported before and here it is again: Pennsylvania could produce a bull this year that breaks not only state but also world records. Along with antler size, elk populations and hunter opportunity are growing. With the herd up 7 percent over last year, the state is offering 10 more antlerless tags for a total of 18 bull permits and 38 antlerless. Odds for drawing remain slim (around 1/1000), but if you do pull the coveted tag, the state boasts the highest success rate in North America. And more than half of the elk live on over a million acres of public land. Visit www.pgc.state.pa.us.

Saskatchewan
Elk Population: 16,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 23 percent
Highlights: It was a tough winter across much of the province, and the central and northeast areas saw high deer mortality and some elk mortality. Near the town of Hudson Bay, though, where the prairie meets the forest, managers have implemented a bulls-only season, followed by an either-sex season–all of which can be had with over-the-counter tags. In the south, elk populations are on the rise and each year seems to bring new hunting opportunities. New in 2011 are antlerless seasons in zones 21, north of Regina, and 52, south of Prince Albert. Visit www.environment.gov.sk.ca/hunting.

South Dakota
Elk Population: 3,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: 34/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 53 percent
Highlights: There are several small prairie herds scattered across the state, but managers want to see the Black Hills herd grow to roughly 4,000. They aim to increase hunter opportunity in the long term, which means decreased hunter opportunity in the short term. Managers cut any-elk rifle tags by 25 to 470. Antlerless tags took an even bigger hit, dropping from 570 to 395. Visit www.sdgfp.info/wildlife/hunting.

Tennessee
Elk Population: 300-400
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: 1 permit to nonresidents and 1 auction tag
Hunter Success: 60 percent
Highlights: Tennessee’s elk population is holding steady but the ultimate goal is a herd of 2,000 animals. Managers are working to expand and improve elk range while keeping hunt permits conservative. Only four permits are available for residents. Last year, two of those hunters failed to fill their tags. Visit www.state.tn.us/twra/elkmain.html.

Utah
Elk Population: 72,500
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $80 license plus $280 to $1,500 permit
Hunter Success: 17 percent
Highlights: Utah has produced a staggering number of record-book bulls over the past decade. The state’s largest herds are found in the Wasatch, Plateau and Fish Lake units, which should produce some serious antler growth this year on the heels of a particularly wet spring. The fact that the overall population continues to grow as well is testament to good management. The state issued 1,200 more cow tags and 1,250 more spike permits this fall. Odds are still tough for limited-entry tags. Nonresidents get 10 percent of available rifle tags. Visit www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame.

Washington
Elk Population: 55,000-60,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 12-20/100
Nonresidents: $434 (will increase to $497 before season starts)
Hunter Success: 8 percent general, 39 percent for special limited-entry permits
Highlights: The state’s elk population is divided about evenly between Roosevelt’s in the west and Rocky Mountain elk to the east. In the famous Blue Mountains of southeast Washington, resident and nonresident hunters alike will find over-the-counter spike tags readily available. Highly-prized permits for branch-antlered bulls will be far tougher to come by. The Yakima herd has improved and this year the area has increased antlerless permits. In the Mount St. Helens area, managers are still trying to decrease herd numbers with more special permits for antlerless elk. Both nonresident and resident hunters should take note that elk tag fees will jump nearly 15 percent effective September 1 to help cover budget shortfalls. Visit www.wdfw.wa.gov/hunting.

Wyoming
Elk Population: 120,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
Nonresidents: $591 permit, $302 cow-calf permit, $1,071 special permit
Hunter Success: 44 percent
Highlights: Last year, hunters harvested 25,600 elk, up from the five-year average of 21,000. Biologists say mature bulls continue to thrive in most hunting units and the statewide population remains above management objectives. The dark exception is the state’s northwest corner. Elk numbers in the Clark’s Fork and Cody herds are still down due to predation and poor habitat. The Jackson herd that summers in Yellowstone is well off the mark, too, and managers are being conservative on tags. Roughly half the hunting units just outside the park have set quotas, one is closed and rest are limited to antlered elk only. Visit www.gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/hunting.

Yukon Territory
Elk Population: 250-300
Bull/Cow Ratio: 24/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 52 percent
Highlights: With two distinct herds, Takhini and Braeburn, the territory held its first elk hunt in a quarter-century in 2009, and followed it with a second hunt last year. Those hunts were overwhelmingly successful–too successful. Hunters had a 73 percent success rate on bulls and a 31 percent success rate on cows. So this year managers are offering cow-only permits to lighten the pressure on bulls while reducing overall herd numbers down to management objectives. The target bull/cow ratio for the area is 50/100. Visit www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca.

MISSOULA, Mont.–Drawing funds from local as well as national coffers, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation today committed $150,000 in support for wildfire mitigation measures in Arizona.

The RMEF funding is a response to two emergency proposals from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD).

One project will supply livestock feed and hay to private landowners whose cattle, sheep and horse pastures are now being grazed by unusual concentrations of displaced elk. Separating and feeding the livestock will reduce conflicts with wildlife. Soon, summer monsoons should allow burned forestlands to green up and elk to naturally disperse back to native habitat.

A second project will supplement an initiative to re-seed native grasses in severely burned areas. RMEF funding will ensure that seed stocks include native browse plants used by deer and other wildlife. Re-seeding will speed recovery of the habitat.

RMEF Chairman of the Board John Caid, who manages conservation and hunt programs at White Mountain Apache Reservation, said, “The good news is, much of this region’s elk habitat, with assistance from all of us, will be well on the way to recovery in a few weeks. Within three years, Arizonans can expect very good forage quality and, in turn, elk calf production.”

Caid said local RMEF chapters in Arizona raised and committed $75,000, which has been matched by funds from RMEF national.

In e-mailing the mitigation proposals, AZGFD region manager Jon Cooley wrote, “Working through both local and national representatives, RMEF has been providing constant coordination, support and encouragement as we address the myriad of community and wildlife resource challenges that we now confront. The leadership and engagement of RMEF, and the energy and commitment of the RMEF people that have coordinated with us from the start, has proven to be very beneficial and productive.”

MISSOULA, Mont.–With wildfire burning through some of Arizona’s renowned elk country, and with media reporting “devastated” wildlife and habitat, concerned citizens are calling for an emergency feeding program for elk that survive the blaze.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation says elk mortality from wildfire is typically low, making supplemental feeding unnecessary.

“Elk are extremely mobile and adaptable. In a fire event, they simply get out of the way and move to other areas with adequate food, water and cover,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We’ve seen elk return to burned areas very quickly, sometimes within days. Fire releases nutrients and rejuvenates decadent grasses and forbs. Burns are usually quite fertile and when they begin to green up, elk really prosper.”

When fire burns very hot, such as in overgrown or undermanaged areas of a forest, soils can be damaged. But wildfires typically burn in a mosaic pattern that creates a diversity of habitat favorable to elk and many other species.

Biologists say Arizona’s Wallow Fire is burning in a similar fashion to the massive Rodeo-Chedeski fire of 2002, which brought very little direct mortality to elk. Most that died were at the base of the Mogollon Rim where they became trapped in box canyons. The Wallow Fire started on top of the rim, so biologists speculate that direct mortality to elk may be even less.

Even in the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, fewer than 100 elk died.

Both the Rodeo-Chedeski and Yellowstone fires proved beneficial to elk in following years. Biologists will assess impacts following the Wallow Fire, but at this time there’s no reason to expect a different outcome.

By official policy, RMEF may support feeding of elk only in emergency situations and only when supported by state wildlife agencies.

*Editor’s Note:* Back in January 2011, I wrote an article about two starkly different approaches to game management, i.e. Utah and Nevada. That was also information contained in The Outdoorsman, No. 41.

It was the Nevada Game Commission that demanded the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) kill predators and grow mule deer and other game. In The Outdoorsman article below, you will see that it was the director of NDOW, Ken Mayer, who refused to obey that order and put a halt to the Commissions plans. The editor of The Outdoorsman, George Dovel, explains the whole story and the disturbing politics behind it all, including rotten politicking by the new governor of Nevada.(TR)

Mule Deer Working Group Supports Feeding Deer to Predators Instead of Restoring Healthy Herds

By George Dovel

In December of 2010, Nevada’s Board of Wildlife Commissioners decided Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) biologists must take the necessary biological steps to restore and maintain mule deer populations as a condition of continued employment. See Outdoorsman No. 41 Pages 10-11 for details.

Like their counterparts in other western states, NDOW wildlife managers have ignored science and state law in order to implement the radical 1991 “Wildlands” agenda adopted by the United Nations in 1992, and promoted by assorted national and international interests. Their goal of “Re-wildling” North America – by replacing rural humans with protected large carnivores and “native” plants in a vast system of “Core Areas” and “Wildlife Corridors” – is already being implemented.

NDOW Director Refused to Obey Commission
As happened earlier in Idaho and in other western states, when a majority of Nevada Wildlife Commissioners directed NDOW to implement predator control in depleted mule deer herds during the past two years, the Director and his biologists refused to do it. Early in 2010 USDA Wildlife Services control agents explained they could not control predators when the state agency that normally gave them direction refused to agree to it.

In November of 2010, after repeatedly refusing to follow Commission direction to control mountain lions and coyotes in selected areas where they were decimating mule deer herds, NDOW Director Ken Mayor was fired by outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons. But once Nevada?s new Governor, Brian Sandoval, was sworn in, he re-hired Mayer as Acting Director and made no secret of his intention not to reappoint Commissioners whose terms expire in June.

Those Commissioners have already solicited applicants for the Director position and are providing Sandoval with three names from which the law says he may hire one. But if Mayer is not one of the three, Sandoval is expected to re-hire him after the Commission terms expire.

With Acting Director Mayer influencing the new governor and his legal counsel, the Commission lost the opportunity to acquire additional funding that was needed to restore a healthy predator-prey balance in areas where mule deer exist in a predator pit.

NDOW Director Solicits Help from MDWG
Then in an effort to completely discredit the Commissioners he was refusing to obey, Mayer sent the Commission Findings to WAFWA* Mule Deer Working Group Chairman Jim Heffelfinger, a biologist with Arizona Game and Fish Department. Heffelfinger responded with a letter he signed, plus four unsigned pages titled, “Comments from the WAFWA Mule Deer Working Group regarding the findings of the Mule Deer Restoration Committee of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners.”

(* Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

Instead of responding to any statement in the “Findings of the Committee” with biological facts, the amateurish response brags about how many mule deer biologists from 23 (WAFWA) member states or provinces have been involved in the Working Group since it was formed 14 years ago. It also brags about the multiple publications it has issued and claims it “is considered one of the most respected and productive working groups ever sponsored by WAFWA.”

It neglects to tell the Nevada Commission that the mule deer biologists who provided all of this “expertise” are the same biologists who supervised the destruction of healthy mule deer herds they inherited in the 1980s. It also neglects to mention that every state that has followed their advice during the past 14 years has experienced an accelerated decline in mule deer populations and harvests.

MDWG Stopped Short of Exposing Its Real Agenda
Although the MDWG response criticizes several proposed solutions in the “Committee’s Findings”, it remains quiet about its major findings, (e.g. that NDOW is currently structured to focus on observational biology and research – not to act on the results of the research and correct the biological problems). And the Committee?s recommended solution (to restructure NDOW to re-focus on the biology of game production) was also not mentioned by the MDWG because doing so would expose its real agenda.

As you will soon learn, that agenda has nothing to do with restoring mule deer – and everything to do with trying to re-create “native” ecosystems according to a fanatical belief that has no basis in fact. If you doubt that, I challenge you to read “the rest of the story.”

MDWG Blames Mule Deer Decline on Human Development, Greenhouse Gases
The several hundred pages in the assorted publications referenced by Heffelfinger in his letter to Nevada Commission Chairman Raine display the same message. That is – human-caused habitat destruction and global warming (referred to more recently as “climate change”) are the causes of the mule deer decline.

In their 2009 87-page “Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer Intermountain West Ecoregion” (one of seven ecoregions), NDOW Biologist Mike Cox is a major author. On page 24 it admitted: “conservation and predator control dramatically reduced deer mortality (Leopold et al. 1947).”

Yet on page 66 it quoted Wallmo in 1981, “In my view, the only generalization needed to account for the mule deer decline throughout the West is that practically every identified trend in land use and plant succession on the deer ranges is detrimental to deer. Hunting pressure and predators might be controlled, and favorable weather conditions could permit temporary recovery, but deer numbers ultimately are limited by habitat quality and quantity.”

Aldo Leopold was talking about the first half of the 20th Century when he was a leader in the historical restoration of game populations, using predator control and reduced hunting seasons as the major tools. Wallmo was expressing a personal opinion that was already disproved by a dozen long-term studies using the same two tools following the second game decline in the 20th Century.

MDWG Offers Excuses to Ignore Research
Yet none of those highly publicized studies are even mentioned in the MDWG literature except for studies in Alaska (Gasaway and Boertje) and Canada (Bergerud). Although these extensive studies concluded, beyond any reasonable doubt, that predators – not habitat – prevented recovery of declining game herds, WAFWA claims they are not relevant for two reasons:

1. Although the prey species studied were all members of the deer family, black-tailed or mule deer were not the major species studied.
2. They said the Alaskan and Canadian research occurred in “natural” ecosystems where they say predators “behave differently” than they do in systems that have been altered by humans like those encountered in the lower 48 states.

Whether the MDWG information was published in 2009 or 10 years earlier, the claim that ecosystems in Alaska and Canada were not influenced by humans is simply not true. The MDWG material contains frequent statements about predation that are either unsupported opinions or, in some cases, a misrepresentation of known facts.

For example, they offer a 16-page review of deer-predator relationships published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin in 2001, which claims that 10 of 12 western states, including Alaska and Idaho, reported they did not have predator reduction programs to benefit big game species. Yet Idaho’s ongoing bear and lion reduction during the late 1970s through mid 1980s to restore Clearwater Region elk populations, and Alaskan and Canadian wolf control programs to restore moose and caribou populations were a matter of public record during the review’s 1987 survey.

Predator Control, Short Seasons Restored Game
Regardless of what they were taught by college professors caught up in the anti-establishment revolution of the 1960s, every wildlife biologist has access to historical documents that provide facts. Game populations in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska were over-harvested by both Native Americans and by the settlers who arrived in the latter part of the 19th century.

Compared to the number of present day hunters, a relative handful of people, equipped with primitive weapons and primitive forms of transportation by today’s standards, decimated the West’s game populations in a few short years. The hunter-conservationists who reversed the slaughter did not require decades of study and debate or expensive satellite tracking systems to implement a course of action.

They dramatically reduced the kill by predators with intense predator reduction programs, and imposed reduced hunting season lengths and bag limits to prevent excessive human take. They also banned commercial harvest of game species and mitigated the loss from occasional extreme winters in Northern states with timely emergency feeding in scattered critical areas.

And contrary to many biologists’ practice in the lower 48 states in recent years, they never allowed hunters to participate in an extra late season hunt to kill off the breeding stock because of drought or wildfire damage to forage, or early indications of a severe winter.

Yet the MDWG information wrongly claims that killing adult female mule deer in a special late season hunt before a severe winter is “compensatory” rather than “additive” by claiming the deer are going to die anyway. They conclude this will leave fewer deer to eat the limited forage and wrongly claim these remaining deer will then produce more replacement fawns.

If they took the time to read the Alaska studies, they might learn how ridiculous their statements sound to anyone with a basic knowledge of wild ruminant nutrition. Forcing deer to further deplete the fat reserves needed to survive a severe winter with an extended late season hunt guarantees fewer will survive and in even poorer condition.

Alaska Learned the Truth – and Published It
Long, either-sex seasons and multiple bag limits for deer in Idaho and Utah, and for moose and caribou in Alaska, resulted in record harvests during the 1950s and 1960s. Abnormally deep snow during the 1968-69, 1970-71 and 1971-72 winters in all three states triggered simultaneous declines in juvenile survival and adult populations.

With easy killing in the deep snow, predators increased those declines but biologists in all three states ignored biology and listened to earlier unsupported claims by Durward Allen and others that nature would balance itself. Later, in a 1985 National Wildlife magazine article, Allen’s former graduate student, David Mech, admitted he was responsible for the balance of nature myth that had all but destroyed the moose on Isle Royale and the once famous whitetail deer population in northeast Minnesota.

Boertje’s 20-year study in Alaska’s 6,564 square mile Unit 20A admitted they harvested more female moose than the number of replacement calves that survived, and said mortality from severe winters, hunting, and wolf predation were largely additive. And unlike biologists in Idaho and Utah, when the moose herd continued its decline to 2,500 in 1975, they reduced the number of wolves by 70-80% for five years and by 55-60% for two more years.

During the next 11 years, biologists did not kill wolves in 20A and the small number taken by hunters and trappers allowed the wolves to recover to a healthy level for the restored moose population. In 1984, there were 13,800 moose in the study area – 5.5 times as many as there were in 1975 – and hunters had harvested several thousand more caribou and moose than they could have without the temporary, but necessary, wolf reduction.

MDWG Offers More Excuses to Hide Its Agenda
The hundreds of pages provided by WAFWA’s MDWG biologists mention the claim by hunters and by a growing number of respected biologists that controlling predators is essential to restoring healthy mule deer populations. But instead of being honest and admitting they don?t believe in controlling predators, they either ignore the several dozen long-term studies published during the past 30 years supporting this action – or else provide flimsy excuses for dismissing the research and claim even more research is needed.

Their four most common excuses are: 1) research does not concentrate on mule or black-tailed deer or 2) research on those species is confined to islands; 3) research is limited to tiny areas too small to allow effective control; and 4) predator control is too costly to be cost-effective.

Vancouver Island, B.C., the location of several black-tailed deer research projects, is significantly larger than nine states in the U.S. A deer-predator study at the MDWG website reported, “Reid and Janz (1995) estimated that resident deer hunters on Vancouver Island received a $5.90 benefit for every $1.00 spent on wolf control.”

A 1986 Alaska Board of Game document may be even more revealing because the cost per wolf killed by airplane or helicopter appears quite expensive. From 1976-1984 Alaska biologists spent $824,200 to kill 1,313 wolves in the entire state, an average of $628 per wolf even then.

But based solely on the market value of $2.74 per pound for the extra 1.24 million pounds of wild meat that was harvested as a direct result of the wolf control, the direct benefit for meat production alone was $3.4 million. This 1-to-4 cost-to-benefit did not include the multiplier value of increased recreation and tourism providing income to merchants, pilots, guides, etc., or the increased wildlife viewing and photographic opportunities for everyone.

Despite these examples of the massive economic benefit from controlling wolves, a 2008 Reno Gazette-Journal interview of NDOW/MDWG Biologist Mike Cox included his quote: “We’re trying to find a (predator control) prescription that works, and if we can find that, we will use it in other parts of the state, So far we have not found anything that is going to work or that we won’t need to spend a half-million dollars for a small increase in the number of (deer) tags for that expenditure. In my book that is not an economically viable management tool.”

Yet without expressing any concern for the citizens who must pay the horrific cost of supporting their non-game agenda, Cox recently joined Western Governors in endorsing a $6 billion multi-state sagebrush-steppe habitat project that will not even slow the mule deer decline.

The MDWG claim that declining adult mule deer weights prove deer populations exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat ignores lengthy research by Creel, Winnie et al concluding that harassment by predators is the real culprit (see also “Predator Mediated Competition” and “Predation and the Ecology of Fear” by Dr. Charles Kay in Outdoorsman No. 40 & 41). The decades-long 3-Bar study described on the next page indicates the carrying capacity for mule deer is much higher than is claimed by biologists.

State Wildlife Biologists Experts at Deception
The elaborate deception engaged in constantly by state wildlife biologists reflects a disdain for the law, for the license buyers who pay their wages, and even for the Predator Policy established by their F&G Commission.

For example, Arizona’s Predator Management Team stated, “Predators and their prey cannot be managed separately.” And the Policy adopted by the Commission in 2000 states in part: “Mountain lion and coyote management may occur in, but is not limited to, the following circumstances: • Where wildlife populations are below management objectives and where there is evidence that predation may be a factor.” (emphasis added)

Yet MDWG Chairman Hebblewhite and former Chairman deVos brazenly ignored the Policy and let lions and coyotes decimate their mule deer population – pretending that habitat is always the problem. Read “Deer Predators and Drought” to see what they are covering up.

*Editor’s Note:* Deer, Predators and Drought will soon follow.

Get more information on this at this link.

Tom Remington

*Press release sent by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

MISSOULA, Mont. — A Congressional bill yesterday was introduced by Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester that calls for delisting of wolves in only Montana and Idaho, which leaves a call for Congress to fix the growing wolf delisting debate far short of an acceptable solution. Some 47 of America’s leading sportsmen and agricultural groups are calling for Congress to step-in and stop the overreaching and manipulating use of the Endangered Species Act to tie up wolf delisting in the courts.

The groups — including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Mule Deer Foundation, American Farm Bureau, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, National Sheep Industry Association, NRA and many others — recently endorsed two bills already in Congress, H.R. 509 and S. 249. Both bills would broadly remove unnecessary federal protections on fully recovered wolf populations and grant management authority to the states.

The bill introduced by Senators Baucus and Tester calls for delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho, leaving out multiple states with fully recovered wolf populations and those states with wolves now crossing their borders. Senior Montana Senator Baucus stated, “This debate has gone on long enough and Montanans don’t need D.C. bureaucrats telling us how to manage wolves in our state.”

“We agree that we don’t need bureaucrats dictating wildlife policies so why are we stopping short of providing all states with the same considerations. Further, this bill does not remove the D.C. bureaucrats from the issue. This proposed legislation leaves out dozens of states with wolf issues and one has to ask why would we do that to one another? Sportsmen, ranchers and farmers alike have one another’s backside on issues like this, we don’t leave others out of a real solution,” said David Allen president and CEO of RMEF.

“Why won’t Montana’s Senators support a bill that’s cosponsored by so many Democrats, and so many reputable organizations? We fully support Congressman Rehberg’s and Congressman Matheson’s bi-partisan efforts to delist wolves in all states, and encourage Senators Baucus and Tester to also cosponsor the Senate companion, S.249, introduced by Senator Hatch,” said Miles Moretti, president and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation. “Further, we don’t understand the reluctance to squarely address the real problem of the overreaching and manipulation to keep this issue tied up in the courts. Why do the views of the environmentalists trump good, solid science and common sense?”

Great Lakes states, also desperate for wolf management, are omitted from the Baucus-Tester bill as well as several Western states where wolves are unchecked. Gray wolves have been listed as endangered in the Great Lakes since the mid-1970s and have been deemed a recovered species for over two decades.

“We cannot afford to get this legislation wrong. Merely winding the clock back to 2009 as the Baucus-Tester bill does, does not fully address the real issue. It leaves many, many states out in the cold and it still leaves opportunities for future court litigation, so this bill falls short of addressing the real issues. Sportsmen and agriculture are solidly together on this issue and we do not support a fractional solution,” stated Jim Magagna, executive vice president of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association.

The fate of the State of Wyoming has been in limbo for some time in this entire debate. Recently a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted in a capricious and arbitrary way in denying Wyoming’s wolf management plan in the past. “Wyoming has been used as a scapegoat and yet there is simply nothing wrong with their wolf management plan. Wolf numbers have thrived in Wyoming despite the debate and there are many areas of Wyoming where wolves do not belong as these are strictly farm and ranch areas; wolves will do nothing but get into trouble in those areas. Wyoming’s plan is very reasonable,” Allen added.

Alternatively, H.R. 509 and S. 249 recognize the urgent and sustained need for – and the long and successful history of – professional state-based management of wildlife resources. Allen urged RMEF members and other concerned sportsmen and conservationists to contact their elected representatives and confirm support of these two measures.

Groups endorsing nationwide wolf delisting and management via H.R. 509 and S. 249:

American Farm Bureau
American Sheep Industry Association
Arizona Cattle Feeders Association
Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association
Arizona Wool Producers Association
Big Game Forever
California Cattlemen’s Association
California Public Lands Council
California Wool Growers Association
Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
Colorado Wool Growers Association
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
Florida Cattlemen’s Association
Georgia Cattlemen’s Association
Idaho Cattle Association
Idaho Wool Growers Association
Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas
Kansas Livestock Association
Maryland Sheep Breeders Association
Michigan Cattlemen’s Association
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers Association
Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association
Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Mule Deer Foundation
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Trappers Association
Nebraska Sheep & Goat Association
Nevada Cattlemen’s Association
North Carolina Sheep Producers Association Inc.
Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
Oregon Sheep Growers Association
Public Lands Council
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Safari Club International
Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
Utah Cattlemen’s Association
Utah Wool Growers Association
Virginia Cattlemen’s Association
Washington Cattlemen’s Association
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wyoming Stock Growers Association

At its winter meetings in Tuscon, Arizona, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies voted 17-0, with Montana abstaining (don’t know why yet), to draft a letter and a resolution to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar requesting management of wolves be turned over to the states.

Below is a copy of the letter (find a full copy of the letter here.), and a copy of the resolution (a full copy of the original document found here.)

January 21, 2011

The Honorable Kenneth L. Salazar, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240

Dear Secretary Salazar:

At its recent mid-winter meeting in Tucson, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (Association) directors discussed – at length – the current situation involving gray wolf delisting. Those discussions led to the development and eventual passage (17-0, with Montana abstaining) of the attached resolution titled Delist the Gray Wolf and Restore Management to the States. The language of the resolution expresses the collective view of member agencies. At its core, the resolution – without ambiguity – clearly states the Association’s support for and endorsement of immediate delisting of gray wolves in the WAFWA member states from the Endangered Species Act, “…….either through legislative or
administrative means, and that this species be managed by the respective State wildlife agencies”.

Founded in 1922, the Association represents 23 states and Canadian provinces, spanning from Alaska to Saskatchewan to Texas to Hawaii. The Association is a strong advocate of the rights of states and provinces to manage fish and wildlife within their borders. The Association has been a key organization in promoting the principles of sound resource management and the building of partnerships at the regional, national and international levels in order to enhance wildlife conservation efforts and the protection of associated habitats in the public interest. Our mission statement reads, “Delivering Conservation Through Information Exchange and Working Partnerships.”

Given the Association’s long history and stellar conservation record, the resolution – in sum – reflects the all too common and unacceptable level of frustration that directors are currently experiencing when it comes to the status of the gray wolf in the West. It is the sincere hope of our member agencies that a way forward can be found, and found very soon – one that removes ESA protection for the gray wolf and returns management to the respective States.

We appreciate your serious consideration of the Association’s position on this important resource issue. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Joe Maurier
WAFWA President

~~~~~~~~

WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Resolution

DELIST THE GRAY WOLF AND RESTORE MANAGEMENT TO THE STATES

WHEREAS, the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of gray wolves exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery level of thirty or more breeding pairs in 2002; and

WHEREAS, population estimates as of 2009 include at least 1,700 animals well distributed among Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and

WHEREAS, the remarkable increase in gray wolf populations was only possible because of the historic management and stewardship of ungulates by state fish and wildlife agencies; and

WHEREAS, a primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.”; and

WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the ESA has clearly been achieved for the gray wolf, and gray wolves have recovered in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and

WHEREAS, a lack of delisting, given the species has met recovery goals, can result in an erosion of public acceptance of wolves and the ESA; and

WHEREAS, State wildlife agencies are the competent authorities to manage resident species for their sustained use and enjoyment; and

WHEREAS, the overall aim of the ESA is to recover species such that the species can be managed by the appropriate entity. State wildlife agencies are the appropriate entities to assume management of the gray wolf as a resident species; and

WHEREAS, delays in federal decision-making, induced partly by citizen-suit litigation over virtually all aspects of Mexican gray wolf recovery, have, after 34 years of protection under the ESA, including 12 years of reintroduction efforts, resulted in failure to recover the Mexican gray wolf; and

WHEREAS, the States of Arizona and New Mexico, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, various local governments and local stakeholders are willing and able to use incentives and interdiction measures without being encumbered by the gridlock resulting from federal listing, to increase the Mexican gray wolf population to levels in both states that, coupled with conservation efforts in Mexico, would establish and maintain a rangewide population of Mexican gray wolves that is self-sustaining and managed at levels sufficient to meet scientifically-valid population objectives.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies supports and endorses immediate delisting of gray wolves in the WAFWA member states from the ESA, either through legislative or administrative means, and that this species be managed by the respective State wildlife agencies.

Adopted in Convention
Tucson, Arizona
January 9, 2011

Jim Geraghty, in the National Review, has a short but precise piece on what he thinks is mostly going on with the responses and reactions by people to the Tuscon, Arizona shooting tragedy.

Tom Remington