Two things in play in our society today and one of them dominates all others. The second issue is that our society struggles to laugh at themselves and find humor in things where humor is intended to be found. The first and most dominant point of departure is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy reveals myriad things in a society, one of which is the manifestation of people’s incompetency to make legitimate judgements about much of anything worthwhile. Hypocrisy is dishonesty and when we exemplify that we are also showing the world our anger and hatred, all of which drives our bias.

A current example playing out in this nation is the joke telling dealing with the topic of President Barack Obama’s revelation that when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he ate dog. Do rational people care about this beyond the obvious, that either the president’s family was poor and that’s all they could afford or eating dog was acceptable table fare?

Even though I think we as a people are losing our ability to laugh, I still believe that existing in a society that considers laughing healthy, we have always had a strong yen for humor. Once, every comedian and late night talk show host made gobs of money telling jokes about presidents. We all laughed no matter who was in the White House. Of course some presidents became better targets of the quipsters, mostly dependent upon what they did or said. I even recall impersonators like Rich Little, who struggled to impersonate some presidents and then got plenty of mileage from others, sometimes by just the simple way they looked or the tone and quality of their voice. Think of the actor John Wayne, who had a distinct walk and a voice to go with it.

Today, people too often tend to limit their laughter based on political bias. This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. A joke about George Bush may make some laugh and others not, taking offense that they are being made fun of or that somehow it’s not fair. If the same comedian told a joke about Barack Obama, the roles become reversed. Don’t misunderstand me here. This hypocrisy swings in all directions and the worst kind is that coming from those who refuse to recognize it for what it is.

Let’s also be honest, if that’s possible anymore. Barack Obama is half black and half white. We have struggled as a society to get beyond racism and bigotry and as such, I’m positive in my assessment that a lot of restraint has been shown in targeting Barack Obama for jokes out of fear of just what has happened; accusations of racism.

President Obama ate dog as a child. What’s wrong with that? I’ve written about eating dog in our history and that eating dog is still the cuisine of some societies. When President Jefferson sent Captains Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean, neither of the men or their expedition would have survived had they not eaten dog. But as humans, we are prone to make jokes about it, I think some because we are uncomfortable with talking about the subject, but mostly because humor defines us.

On the website The People’s Cube, an entire array of photoshopped pictures depicting President Obama eating or chasing after dogs with the intent of eating them, can be found.

On John McCain’s Twitter page he posted a photo of his son’s bull dog and ends his Tweet by saying, “I’m sorry Mr. President, he’s not on the menu!”

When asked at a press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, struggled to answer the question as to whether the President was aware of all the jokes but he couldn’t resist making a joke about the jokes.

If you click on the link to John McCain’s Twitter page, you can read some of the comments irate people left to John McCain about his sick sense of humor.

But what about the hypocrisy? Recall, if you will, that not long ago, there were a lot of people very upset about the movie “The Grey”. Two issues played out here. The movie was about a plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Survival was key, i.e. finding food and prevent becoming food. The plot is about these survivors fending off a hungry pack of wolves. The first issue of outrage was that the makers of the movie dared depict wolves in a truthful setting; that they are bloodthirsty killers. The second issue is that the wolves they killed, they ate.

Hang on for a second. This is a movie! But yet there was still outrage. In addition, before filming of the movie began, the cast and staff tried eating some wolf meat in order to gain a better understanding of what they were up against. Doing so has “dogged” them ever since. (See what I mean?)

The point is there was outrage over this and I recall reading in several places among the media outlets, including Online, that people just did not eat dog. That our society (American) has never eaten dog, etc. etc. etc. This is what prompted me to dig back through the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals to recount all the times they not only ate dog meat buy preferred it over deer or elk. In addition this dog meat they ate, included domestic dogs they bought from the natives and coyotes and wolves they were able to kill during their journey.

The hypocrisy here is that while there was outrage that dogs were depicted as being eaten in a movie, there was no outrage at the disclosure that President Obama actually did eat dog as a kid. Instead, their biased anger is directed at those who chose to make jokes about it, seemingly now supporting the eating of dog….well, depending upon who did the eating I guess.

One can argue that most of these jokes originated from people or organizations that are working to elect a different president, but why is this all of a sudden different or deserve a different level of scrutiny? Campaigns bring out the worst in everybody.

What the reasons are that President Obama ate dog as a kid, I don’t know, nor do I care. I think some of the jokes are funny. I find some a bit over the top. I certainly can understand a person who adores dogs, finding offense in some of these photos and jokes. And I find the same level of humor disseminated the same way regardless of which side of the political aisle they walk on.

Tom Remington

Okay! Here’s the topic of the day. I want to see this debated til there is no end. I’m still gathering all the information in order to write my own story, but it appears that Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, has come out and stated that the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation is socialism and hunting needs to be privatized.

Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn’t trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska’s state constitution and laws throughout the West, as “socialism.” It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.

You must read the entire article for context.

Personally, I think there is a lot of shallow thinking and ignorance surrounding this topic and the use of the word socialism has been foisted for emotional reaction, which it appears Peay has gotten.

So let’s hear it. Read the article and then let’s hear the ups and downs of a “public resource” versus “private resource”, the models in the true and intended sense and what things influence the administration of those models.

Have at it!

Guest blog by: James “Mike” Laughlin
(Retired) Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Animal Damage Control – U.S Department of Agriculture & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bachelor Science Degree – Wildlife Biology – Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 31 years working in 9 Western states, Mexico, Provinces of Canada, Professional big game guide and outfitter in Colorado for 17 years

After hearing reports of no elk and lots of wolves in Yellowstone Park, we decided to go look for ourselves. During the week of August 25 – 30, 2011 we packed our binoculars and spotting scopes and left Nevada headed for Yellowstone Park.

In January 1995, U.S. and Canadian wildlife officials captured 14 wolves from multiple packs east of Jasper National Park, near Hinton, Alberta, Canada. In March 1995, the 14 wolves in two packs were turned loose in Yellowstone.

Seventeen additional wolves captured in Canada were released into the park in April 1996. Officials believed that the natural reproduction and survival were sufficient to preclude additional releases. According to the National Park Service, at the end of 2010, at least 97 wolves (11 packs and 6 loners) occupied Yellowstone National Park. The Druid Pack in Lamar Valley, at one time, had over 30 wolves running together in a pack.

The main reason, according to the National Park Service, that these Canadian wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone was researchers suggested that the elimination of major predators from the Park had allowed the elk population to explode and they had over-browsed the aspen and willows thus causing damage to stream sites from erosion and loss of beaver and songbird habitat.

In 1973, the grey wolf was listed as an endangered species. From this original Canadian wolf transplant in 1995, the wolves have multiplied throughout Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana and have reached into Oregon, Washington and beyond. It has been found that an expanding population of wolves may increase 30% a year.
Mortallity factors influencing wolf population since 1995 are mange, in-fighting between packs, road kills, and wolves killed by Animal Damage Control in response to confirmed livestock kills. According to National Park Service reports, it appears that the wolf population has stablilized in Yellowstone in 2010.

Let it be understood that the Canadian wolves (Canis lupus occidentalis) that were introduced are a different sub-species than the grey “buffalo” wolves (Canis lupus irremotus) that were indigenous in the United States and some came from as far north as Fort St. John, British Columbia. The Canadian wolves are as much as 30% larger animals and they tend to run in larger packs. This makes them much more successful in taking down large prey such as bull elk and adult bison. Canadian wolves tend to a solid black or grey color. They can weigh up to 150 pounds. They have very large feet, the average being 4 inches wide by 5 inches long. They can run up to 35 miles per hour for a short distance. Pack territory size varies with location. In the US it is between 25 and 150 square miles.

So, what did we see in three days in Yellowstone? We saw very few elk. We heard no elk bugle. We saw one calf elk and no elk with horns. We saw no deer, no moose, no pronghorns, no bighorn sheep, and three coyotes. However, we did see two packs of wolves (7 in each pack including pups and several adults). We saw two bunches of elk. One herd came out of the trees at about 10:30 am running for their lives out across a sagebrush meadow. We did not see the wolves that were chasing them but there is good chance that is why they were running away. The other herd was milling around on high alert in an open meadow with a herd of buffalo in mid-afternoon on the edge of Teton National Park.

We did see a large number of buffalo. The wolves had killed an adult buffalo near Canyon and we saw wolves feeding on this kill the next day when we got there.

There was talk that the wolves are killing more buffalo because the elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep numbers continue to decline. The US Fish and Wildlife service says that elk comprise up to 92% of the winter diet of Yellowstone wolves, and estimate the overall kill rates of Yellowstone wolves on elk to be 22 ungulates per wolf annually. Grizzly bears are following the wolves and taking over their kills. Wolves evidently cannot fight off the grizzlies at a kill, leave, and go on to kill again. Grizzly numbers have reportedly increased to over a thousand individuals in the Yellowstone Park ecosystem. During our trip, a grizzly killed a lone hiker five miles from the trailhead west of Hayden Valley. When you see more wolves from the road than coyotes, there is a good chance you may have more wolves than coyotes!

After three days of looking and glassing, we came out the south entrance of the Park and continued on to our friends’ ranch south of Moose, Wyoming. When we drove onto the ranch there were five large bull elk lying in the hayfield next to the main house. We asked our friends how long these elk had been here. They said, “Oh, they have been here all summer. They never go far.” Why do you suppose these large bull elk were camped near the house? I would guess to stay alive and keep away from the wolves.

If you think for one minute that the introduction of Canadian Wolves was simply to protect aspens, stream banks and songbird habitat, guess again. These introduced wolves are being used to end sport hunting and livestock grazing as we know it throughout the west. There a number of organizations such as Western Water Shed, Defenders of Wildlife, etc. that are against sport hunting and livestock grazing. Why not use the wolf to help put an end to sport hunting and grazing by increased wolf depredations upon livestock and depletion of our big game herds?

What is the answer to this large problem? There is none. In a period from 1883 to 1917, more than 100,000 wolves were killed for bounty in Montana and Wyoming. All types of control tools were used during this period and wolves were killed in Yellowstone Park as well. Now we are down to hunting with a rifle, no hunting in National Parks, and more rules and regulations than you can read. Looks like the wolves will have it their way from here on out. If you put together all of the livestock owners, outfitters, motel owners, grocery stores, etc, that the 1995 wolf introduction has had an impact upon, it would be a large list and it is growing. As one old timer said when the wolves were put in the Park, “This is like putting mice in a cheese factory.” Well said!

It doesn’t really amount to much to only present a video, done by the Public Broadcasting System, depicting wolves as harmless, loveable creatures that only a handful of people refuse to “understand” and “co-exist” with. The PBS presentation was biased (you need to pay attention to what is said and how things were presented), misleading, and contains several errors. Why I am going to spend the time to do this rattles my brain and really PBS doesn’t even deserve the attention. Regardless, here’s a closer look.

The reporter for PBS, Miles O’Brien, gives us, early on, an example of his biased reporting. This may have been an attempt at a bit of humor, although I am really stretching things here in hopes of giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The video begins with O’Brien introducing us to a rancher, Martin Davis, who can’t seem to locate half of his cows. O’Brien says: “Among ranchers like Martin Davis, the wolf is always guilty until proven, well, soon-to-be-guilty.” Note also in the way that Mr. Davis is portrayed in the video. Do you get the sense that he is being made out to look stupid? Inept?

This is biased and misleading. There are many ranchers who deal with various predators and grazing issues and not all ranchers are “always” pointing a finger at the wolf. I don’t think Mr. O’Brien knows anything of the struggles and countless issues that face ranchers. Dealing with predators such as the wolf is but a thorn in their side, albeit a costly one. The ironic part is that later in his piece, O’Brien spends a fair amount of time with his focus on some ranchers who are trying different methods to combat against livestock losses. Note again here how these ranchers are being depicted.

Rancher Davis makes reference that wolf numbers need to be reduced to help alleviate depredation of livestock. O’Brien, first, gets in a typical description used by wolf advocates for years by saying that wolves are “misunderstood”. He fails to explain just what that means and who is purportedly misunderstanding wolves or why that is so. The intent here is to wrongfully paint anyone who would like to see wolves controlled and properly managed as misunderstanding the wolf. This is a very inaccurate assumption.

While there is a fair amount of misunderstanding of the gray wolf that occurs at all levels of this debate, it seems more which “science” is injected into any wolf debate that stirs the most disagreement. It is this very explanation as to why this PBS television report is a bad piece of journalism. The reporter simply accepts as fact the information told to him and offers very little in the way of opposing views and differing scientific data. Everybody loses when this happens, but I argue that this is the intent of PBS, to mislead.

Perhaps intentional, perhaps not, O’Brien makes the following statement: “gray wolves returned 16 years ago after a 70-year hiatus.” They “returned”? A more accurate description here would have been “introduced”. However, later on Mr. O’Brien does allude to the use of “reintroduction” of the gray wolves to describe the presence of wolves in the Rockies today. Regardless, omitting the proper term is misleading.

He continues: “Starting in the early 1900s, they [wolves] were systematically poisoned, trapped and gunned into extinction in the Lower 48, a good riddance for ranchers, an unconscionable extermination for environmentalists.”

If O’Brien was intending to educate his audience to the truth of historical accounts – bearing in mind he was probably limited in how many minutes he had to present his puff piece – he could have slipped in a few words like; the wolves were poisoned, trapped and gunned with the eager assistance of the United States Government. I’m also confused here as to what message, if there is one, that O’Brien is trying to convey by saying that during the time that wolves were being extirpated, I doubt there existed very many, if any, “environmentalists” who opposed such mass killings. The environmental movement of “true believers” is a recent phenomenon and played no role in early Western settlement. Also inaccurate and again misleading is to point out that killing off all the wolves was only a benefit to ranchers. Mr. O’Brien should open up some history books and learn all the reasons wolves, in addition to other larger predators, were disliked and virtually all citizens wanted them gone.

If Mr. O’Brien, or any other readers, are seriously interested in historic accounts of what was transpiring during this poisoning, trapping and gunning down of wolves, coyotes and grizzlies, I have several articles with links and information from the writings of Charles Gordon Hewitt – here, here, here, and here. Or you can simply find Hewitt’s book, “The Conservation of the Wildlife in Canada“, here. (Don’t be distracted by Canada in the title. He covers both Canada and the U.S.) There are of course countless other documents readily available for research.

Mr. O’Brien then brings in Doug Smith, a controversial member of the Yellowstone Park Service, much involved in the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho in the mid-1990s. O’Brien asks Smith: “Is this ideal wolf country?”

Here was Smith’s answer: “This is. Some people said before we reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone that this was the best wolf habitat in the world, and had no wolves.”

In addition to this O’Brien then makes the following comments: “The wolves are thriving here. They are, after all, at long last, home. What began with 31 individuals imported from Canada has blossomed into a population of more than 1,700.”

All I will say about the “1,700″ gray wolves invoked here is that this is nothing more than a low-balled guesstimate used to politically appease and mislead the masses. The real truth is nobody knows how many wolves there are because, like most wildlife, models are used because no actual head counts are taken. Dr. David Mech, one of the lead guys with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leading up to, during and after wolf reintroduction, in an interview for a documentary film “Elk in Peril”, said that there could easily be as many as 3,000 – 4,000 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Perhaps Mr. Smith is correct when he states that at the time of reintroduction, Yellowstone was good wolf habitat. I’m not sure it was the best in the world but we got the point. However, O’Brien conveys to viewers of his piece that “they [wolves] are, after all, at long last, home.” This misleads viewers of accurate history in this event. There have been years of argument and speculation as to whether or not the Canadian wolves brought down from Canada were the best choice for reintroduction.

I did a piece some time ago while researching and examining the historic documents of Teddy Roosevelt’s travels in and around the Northern Rockies in which he describes the wolves/prairie wolves and coyotes he witnessed and at times describes them in detail. He also makes reference to the bigger, more feared wolves north of the Canadian border.

We could spend forever discussing historic accounts, which brings me to a piece written by Dr. Charles E. Kay, “An Alternative Interpretation of the Historical Evidence Relating to the Abundance of Wolves in the Yellowstone Ecosystem”. (I have a copy on my desktop for anyone interested.)

Dr. Kay presents historical documentation that refutes the oft repeated claim that Yellowstone was some “paradise” for wildlife, that wolves, elk, deer, bear, and perhaps even a unicorn (just kidding) freely romped about the wilderness waiting for the destructive hand of mankind to interrupt their nirvana.

Kay examines the historic documents and accounts of 20 different exploration parties between the years of 1835 and 1876 comprising a total of 765 days accounted for in the field. Of that amount of time by that number of people, Kay writes: “no reliable observer reported seeing or killing even a single wolf, and on only three occasions did explorers report hearing wolves howl.”

Dr. Kay reports that a similar observance can be found as it pertains to ungulates, i.e. elk, deer and moose and that bison were a rare sighting.

It may make us all somehow feel better to simply believe the information all too often given that before Europeans arrived, the United States was “pristine” in its nature and landscape. Or we could question this belief, review our recorded history that hasn’t been purposely tainted, and gain a truthful understand of how things were, why and what really happened after that, in order to move forward from a position of fact rather than fiction. But I contend this doesn’t fit the narrative of those protecting wolves nor that of PBS. It’s a shame really.

Once the Yellowstone Park was opened, protected and managed, prey species and habitat probably became quite ripe for the notion of bringing in wolves. In its “natural” state, Yellowstone was not the best wolf habitat in the world.

Of all things, Mr. O’Brien brings in a lawyer to support his story about how wonderful the wolf introduction has gone and the “whoa is me” attempt at painting the Center for Biological Diversity as some helpless little organization trying to help save wolves. Bill Snape is an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

See what Snape says: “Using their political muscle, the ranchers got their members of Congress to put a provision in the federal budget bill that took the wolves off the endangered species list.” In the way this is presented, it sounds as though everything was fine and dandy with wolves, that they needed protection as have been since 1973, when the big bad ranchers used some trumped up “political muscle” to force Congress to allow them to kill all the wolves off again.

My point is, that how difficult would have been for O’Brien and his editors to have done a bit more work and presented at least just enough facts to counter the clear intended misrepresentation of the history of wolves and the statistics to back it up. The history of getting to this point in time for the people of Idaho and Montana, pertaining to gray wolves, is critical to any discussion that brings up the delisting process which he did. This is a huge mistake by O’Brien which detracts from any credibility of this report.

For instance, Mr. O’Brien states: “Since the wolves returned to Yellowstone, they have been linked to more than 4,500 cattle and sheep killings.” Just one more sentence or two here could have gone a long way to explain that 4,500 killings are “linked” to wolves doesn’t mean that’s all they have killed. It has been conservatively estimated that for every 1 livestock kill officially blamed on wolves, 3 go by without such a designation, simply because it can’t be proven by an eyewitness. There is substantially more private property loss than what protectors of predators want people to know about.

But here’s a claim by Mr. Snape that goes completely unchallenged by Mr. O’Brien. This makes it obvious that Mr. O’Brien went to do his story unprepared and failed to substantiate claims made by those he interviewed before presenting it. Snape says: “They want to shoot hundreds of wolves through a private hunting scheme that would decimate the pack structure and really change the dynamics of the wolves’ success.”

In an attempt to help discerning readers understand the text of this interview, I’ll point out, not simply to become nit-picky, that the text becomes confusing as to who Mr. O’Brien is referencing. Before he quotes Snape on the “private hunting scheme”, O’Brien is talking about ranchers and calling them repeatedly “they”. Whether he is confused or has no specific identity to lay his information in the lap of, I’m not sure. He says: “They claim the wolf population is now large enough to sustain hunting.” This coming in the next paragraph after talking about ranchers and referring to them as “they”.

This leads into his discussion about wolf hunts. So, I’m guessing O’Brien shifts “theys” in midstream and “they” become hunters? perhaps?

Assuming so, Snape says “they” (hunters?) want to shoot hundreds of wolves “through a private hunting scheme”. I’ll address the rest in a moment. A private hunting scheme? In O’Brien’s ignorance he is clueless about questioning Snape’s referral to a claimed “private hunting scheme”. There is nothing private about the wolf hunting season. It has been put together lawfully by both the state’s of Idaho and Montana and is open to the public for anyone wishing to buy a hunting license and a wolf tag. If Mr. Snape is making implication that this perceived “political muscle” of the ranching community has created some “private hunting scheme”, he is delusional. His choice of words, left unchallenged by the reporter places hunters and ranchers in Idaho and Montana in the light of being something other than lawful citizens and going against the laws of the land to become wolf vigilantes.

But Snape also says that: “Montana will grant licenses for hunters to kill 220 out of about 600 wolves. Idaho has 1,000 wolves and will allow hunting until the population drops to 150.”

Again, this is extremely misleading. Remember, I’ve already educated you to the fact that there are far more wolves than what is “official”. Snape wants viewers to believe that simply because there is a wolf hunt season, the landscape will be running red with wolf blood. O’Brien also fails in presenting the facts behind wolf introduction and the plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove wolves from federal protection once wolf populations reached 300 across three states. He never mentions either that it was Snape’s organization and others that were successful in convincing the courts that at least 5,000 wolves were necessary before they would survive. Is this somehow no longer important evidence?

Nearly two years ago, I spent hours researching and crafting a four-part series called, “To Catch a Wolf“. Utilizing historic accounts from around the world, including the United States, and information contained in the work of Will Graves’ in his book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, one can read this. Just follow the link provided and learn for yourself the near impossible task of hunting wolves to extinction.

In the early 1900s it became possible only after the government became involved and it became financially motivational to go and kill wolves. Nothing of the sort will ever happen in Montana or Idaho, regardless of the image people like Snape want us to believe. What is hoped to happen is to haze wolves to gain a better understanding that man is also a dangerous predator and to reduce wolf numbers to ease the threats of property losses and public safety concerns.

To listen and view attorney Snape in this video piece one would think the end of the world had arrived. Perhaps his fear is his cash cow will dry up.

The rest of the report is spent making every effort to show that everybody wants to live with wolves and that the wolf is some kind of magical beast that “balances” nature, which science clearly refutes and that which Dr. Valerius Geist refers to as “intellectual garbage”.

While the overwhelming majority of people who watch this piece will go away, once again, thinking that the ranchers and hunters are bad, which is clearly the intent of the piece, efforts to educate remain difficult. To further fortify the indoctrination they have been forced to swallow for decades, organizations like PBS continue to present one-sided, misleading and biased “puff pieces”.

What is never mentioned in this report is the biggest crime of all. This reporter never even hints at the fact that little in this report would be possible if it hadn’t been for the efforts of the sportsmen who have forked over hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to grow and protect wildlife. We are the greatest conservationists on this planet and we are scoffed and demonized and ridiculed.

Had it not been for the effort of these sportsmen, this “world’s greatest” wolf habitat in the Yellowstone ecosystem would never have been possible. And what do we get for it? Pissed on.

PBS has tons of resources at their disposal. Had they used some of them, they could have put together a factual narrative to go with the video clips. Clearly, this was not their intention. I am just one person, working from my office at home, with a computer and a telephone, and I can provide the information this report should have had in it.

It’s all quite a shame.

Tom Remington

Up and at it early this morning, I was contemplating what to share with readers about Constitution Day. Why reading through readers’ comments during the night, I came across a post a faithful reader added to the comments section. I read it and decided it was an outstanding piece to share more openly here on the main blog. Here’s what was written:

The Doctrine of Silent Acquiescence

http://youtu.be/-bWiviWUOgw

“The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead.” –Aristotle

Many folk’s these days are trying to figure out how to secure their rights to themselves. Well if you’re a trustee of a bankrupt construct and have not come out and joined or formed the new nation state. What rights do you think you can possibly have?

If you are truly prepared to come out self-govern and assume among the powers of the earth a separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s creator provide.

The state of this nation state;

Parens Patriae: The state is the supreme guardian of all children within its jurisdiction, and state courts have the inherent power to intervene to protect the best interests of children whose welfare is jeopardized by controversies between parents.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/9014/Parens-Patriae.html

Is that not where we find ourselves today?? Just look around, the people who can actually think for themselves are in the minority.

Here’s a small example of how they have done this;

Go to:

www.irs.gov…

Search for form 56.

Form 56 is a “Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship” the first line asks for:

Name of person for whom you are acting(as shown on tax return).

Form 56 is a pdf, so scroll down to the bottom, to the “Definitions” section:

Person. A person is any individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company, or corporation.

An individual by legal definition is a natural person, while something like a trust is an artificial person. The registration of your birth with the State, your Birth Certificate, and your social security number represent a trust which is an artificial person.

The Federal Reserve has a lien held on that trust because you are being held as collateral for the National Debt that the bankers created.

After slavery was abolished (by the thirteenth amendment, not the fourteenth) the “freed” slaves were placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government by the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1:

Amendment 14 “Citizenship Rights”
Ratified 07-09-1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Pocket Edition defines a ‘Privilege’ as the following:

privilege. 1. A special legal right, exemption, or immunity GRANTED to a person or class of persons; an exception to a duty

legal,adj.1. Of or relating to Law; falling within the province of Law. 2. Established, required, or permitted by Law; LAWFUL. 3. Of or relating to Law as opposed to equity.

grant,verb. 1. To give or confer (something), with or without compensation. 2. To formally transfer (real property) by deed or other writing. 3. To give permit or agree to. 4. To approve, warrant, or order (a request, motion, etc).

As you can see, by the Fourteenth Amendment you are U.S Citizen who falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and the Federal Government grants you your so-called “unalienable rights.”

Remember that the Contract makes the Law, and we have the unlimited right to contract, even if we have no knowledge of making a contract.

The Declaration of Independence states clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, —

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

en·dow (n-dou)
tr.v. en·dowed, en·dow·ing, en·dows
1. To provide with property, income, or a source of income.
2.
a. To equip or supply with a talent or quality: Nature endowed you with a beautiful singing voice.
b. To imagine as having a usually favorable trait or quality: endowed the family pet with human intelligence.

Jurisdiction is a HUGE part of Law. If your Creator (whomever that may be) endowed you with “unalienable rights” what mortal, or mortal institution, has the Lawful authority to strip you of those rights? Like, if you have the “Right to Bear Arms” why do you have to ask the State for permission to exercise that right by obtaining a permit?

The philosophical idea of a “Creator” is the idea of an “Absolute, Highest-Authority.” That authority “endowed” YOU with unalienable rights, so why are you asking the State for permission to exercise them?

It is because you are less-than human. Or at least something pertaining to you is.

Remember that slaves were considered to be animals and “less-than-human.” Even after slaves were freed, when two “freed slaves” got married it was considered “animal husbandry.” The newly freed slaves DID NOT have the same citizenship status as everyone else, the thirteenth amendment freed them and the fourteenth amendment charted out their citizenship status.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed

Notice the word consent. TO consent means to make a contract.

And the contract makes the Law.

You have willingly (yet unknowingly) diminished your own political status by contracting with the State and placing yourself under Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction.

If you have a Birth Certificate you are contracted with the State.

If you have a Driver’s License you are contracted with the State.

If you are a registered Voter you are contracted with the State.

If you have a gun permit you are contracted with the State.

If you have a Marriage License you are contracted with the State.

The idea of Capitis deminutio and having a “strawman” is merely a symptom of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You do not have a “right” to do something if you have to ask for permission, you have a privilege.

Stop asking for PERMISSION and just do it!

And get out of Debt.

Perhaps somewhere along the line, it was forgotten that steam power was a source of “alternative” energy……or then again, maybe that wasn’t such a good idea for those powerful oil magnates.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

In the book “Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving, as the reader progresses through the chronological order in which the book was laid out, a few things become clear in the debate about game animals and predators during this time frame.

For instance, in recent times I have heard information being passed about by biologists within the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and others, that whitetail deer never were abundant in the northern part of the state and that moose and deer did not and could not survive together. In this claim some have said that when the deer moved north, the moose disappeared and/or when the moose were plentiful through the state, the deer were not. Accounts recorded in this book do not show that to be the case at all in my opinion when considering all written accounts. In actuality all three species of moose, deer and woodland caribou existed throughout the state together, at times very plentiful and other times not.

What does become apparent is that the proclivity of more or less game animals, i.e. caribou, moose and deer, was all dependent on the presence of wolves. What remains unsettled is when, if ever, did wolves leave the state of Maine and what was the reason for their exodus?

Most accounts in this book seem to agree that widespread and numerous packs of wolves in Maine had disappeared by the 1860s – 1870s, even though there are accounts of wolf encounters by people into the early 1900s. As is typical even to this day, hunters and trappers reported seeing wolf tracks many times and yet the continuing presence of wolves would not be acknowledged unless someone killed one and brought it out of the woods.

As an example, appearing in the Maine Sportsman, of an account in 1899, an anonymous writer says, “Thaddeus Coffron of Grand Lake Stream, claims to have seen two large gray wolves not long since on Big Lake near the mouth of Little Musquash stream. He walked up within a few yards of them, being armed only with an axe. Their tracks had been frequently seen in the vicinity previously.”

But as appears in “Forest and Stream”, we read this, “Again there are reports of wolves in Maine with their tracks followed by old wolf hunters, who ‘could not be mistaken.’ They do not bring out the trophies, however, and until they do the ordinary individual is inclined to regard their stories in the same light as that of the well-read fable.”

According to the editor of Shooting and Fishing in 1920 the last officially recorded wolf kill happened in Andover. “The report of the State Treasurer of Maine for 1895 shows that there was one wolf killed in the state during that year, for which a bounty was paid. This single specimen was killed in Andover, and is said to be the only wolf killed in Maine for many years.”

The editor further accounts that even though there may be a stray wolf killed sometime into the future, his “trustworthy sources” believe the wolf is “practically extinct” in New England.

What we don’t know for certain is why the wolf became “extinct” or “practically extinct” in Maine and New England. We have been led for decades to believe that the wolves were all shot, trapped or poisoned by man. Accounts in the book don’t seem to readily agree with this hypothesis nor does it that the caribou were killed off due to uncontrolled hunting.

As was recorded in the Maine Sportsman for the year 1900, a man who worked as a log scaler in the Penobscot region and traveled by foot as far away as 60 miles between lumber camps tells of his observations. “During the whole winter we saw no deer and but few moose, the entire absence of deer being due to the wolves with which the woods were overrun. Caribou we saw everywhere and I plainly remember that one day, coming out upon them trailing along in single file was a herd of 17 caribou.”

However, the scaler’s recall of what was once is soon become reality as he wonders where the caribou went. According to several writings in this book, deer, moose and caribou had once been reduced drastically, probably from a combination of predators and uncontrolled hunting. When the wolves disappeared, the deer and moose recovered and caribou for a time before it is believed, for whatever reasons, they just migrated out of the state. Perhaps they were simply tired of being harassed by predators, including man.

F. E. Keay writes in 1901 that wolves were the “most dreaded” of wild animals and that by their nature were found to be “ferocious and cunning” and did “incalculable” damage to livestock. In dealing with these large predators, Keay describes the effort this way: “They traveled in companies, sometimes of ten or twenty, and were caught or killed only with great difficulty.”

As I have pointed out in other parts of this review of wolves in Maine, the majority of reports all seem to agree that wolves were quite prevalent in Maine until around the year 1860, in which most also agree the wolf simply left the state with the exception of pockets of areas where some packs remained. While it is inarguable that the efforts of hunters and trappers, in conjunction with bounties being paid over 130 years and more, a sizable dent was put in Maine’s wolf population but evidence from these accounts can support the notion that this was not the cause of the final “extinction” of wolves in Maine.

While some accounts in this book of “Early Maine Wildlife” say that wolves for the most part left on their own, coinciding with a time in which many accounts tell of very little game, i.e. moose, deer and caribou, this would support the theory that large predators, like the wolf, will move into an area and essentially devoid it of prey and then move on. We seem to see that here, although several wolves and packs remained behind until the late 1800s when “trustworthy sources” declared the wolf “practically extinct”.

In having a better grasp of more recent coyote/wolf history in Maine, we discovered that it was not long after the wolf had become “practically extinct” that what was called the eastern coyote began populating the region. I recall in the 1960s seeing a stuffed eastern coyote that had been killed in Maine. This version of coyote was approximately 30 pounds in weight. This is a far cry from the more abundant sizes of coyotes now present in Maine, commonly reaching 50 -70 pounds in size.

It has been determined that what roams today’s forests in Maine and are commonly referred to as coyotes, are actually some concocted conglomeration of mixed breeds of wolf, coyotes, and domestic dog. It became common knowledge after the influx of eastern coyote into Maine that this varmint, perhaps because of a very small migrating population, interbred with “wild” dogs or domesticated dogs left to run unrestrained. No one is sure of how the wolf mix got into these animals.

It has been theorized that what was once called the gray wolf in Eastern Quebec, Canada, began migrating or random scatterings of these wolves, entered northern Maine and as such resulted in the inbreeding of the already inbred coyote/dog.

Considering the evidence provided in “Early Maine Wildlife” one has to honestly consider that given the relatively short period of time from when “trustworthy sources” declared the wolf in Maine “practically extinct”, that some of those earlier wolves remained behind and began breeding with the migrating coyotes.

It would be intellectually dishonest not to consider all the facts in educating ourselves to the changes of wildlife, including predators and large game animals and use them to better be able to effectively manage these species. It is reasonable to consider that man’s efforts to eradicate, – and make no bones about it, that was their intent – was not wholly what drove wolves out of Maine. If this is the case, then it would be beneficial to gain facts and knowledge to understand what events total caused this to happen.

Tom Remington

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part VI

When studying and reading through, “Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving, it becomes clear that there was not always agreements about wildlife. This particular book chronicles the “observations” of hunters, trappers, outdoor writers and historians. Not always do the observations of one person agree with the observations of another. This is the same thing we see today in that people jump to conclusions based on brief and not necessarily scientific observations or at least those based upon sound and thorough data. And at times, the observations of the very seasoned hunter or trapper were scoffed at. More on this in a moment.

In previous parts I have shared information I had found about human encounters with wolves. For decades in this country we have had it drummed into our heads that it were hunters and trappers mainly responsible for the extermination of wolves and also that there has never been any wolf attacks on humans in the Lower 48 States. Those who read their history, know both of these claims are not entirely true.

In 1884, in a February issue of “Forest and Stream”, a writer tells of what it was like living in Maine and dealing with wolves. He writes: “Some fifty years ago these animals [wolves] were numerous and terribly ravenous in the many sparsely settled districts of New England, and the farmers found it impossible to raise sheep, and even calves and pigs were frequently destroyed. Instances were numerous where strong men were attacked and overpowered by packs of wolves.”

This is yet another report and confirmation of regular and frequent attacks on humans by wolves.

But disagreements began to mount as to the validity of two events concerning wolves – when they when “extinct” in Maine and what caused that “extinction”. (I put the word “extinction” in quotes because it has never been determined if the wolf in Maine was effectually exterminated or even what exactly defines extermination.)

Some writers believed that by around the 1880s the wolf that roamed the Maine landscape had disappeared and there seems to have been just as many who disagreed with that assessment.

In another article that appeared in “Forest and Stream” in 1883, a writer recounts the encounter with wolves on the Mattawamkeag River. The author tells of the “blood-curdling” howl of the wolf that frightens all but the very experienced of outdoorsmen. He also tells that on only three occasions in his life did he witness a wolf bark and he says that in each of those events the bark was directed at a human. He describes the bark this way, “The tone is very deep, delivered slowly and deliberately, and each time in exactly the same key, and is in a strange contrast to the rapid, rasping yelp of the coyote.”

On the Mattawamkeag River, a member of the lumber camp had spotted a deer laying dead on the ice of the river. On the opposite shore, was a wolf and it was “barking” at this man, evidently in the fashion described above. The man returned to camp and it was decided to use a bottle of strychnine and poison the meat of the deer in hopes to kill the wolves.

When the man returned to the bait site the next morning, he was quite surprised in what he discovered: “On returning alone to the post, early the next morning, I found that the two wolves had called to the feast the largest pack known in that vicinity. Not a vestige of the deer remained but the hair, and that was so scattered and trampled upon as to be almost indistinguishable………They had gone up the river, and an old hunter who camped about five miles above told me afterward that he counted the tracks of forty-two where they had spread out on a big meadow, that they ate all the poisoned bait that he had out….”

Reports at this time were contrary and confusing. As I said, some were stating the wolves were all dead and yet we find accounts as those described above.

By 1884 there was a “Commission of Fisheries and Game” in Maine. It appears from the accounts in this book that even the commissioners believed the wolves were all gone as a report by the Commissioner of Fisheries and Game scoffingly wrote, “To the poachers’ cry of wolf, the Commissioners have responded by the offer of a double bounty for every wolf scalp. No claims have been presented.”

In a report filed by M. Chamberlain, he writes, “[Wolf] Was common from about 1840 until about 1860; since then, it has entirely disappeared.”

Perhaps the clearest indication of the disagreements between those living in the area about the existence of wolves, comes from an “anonymous” writer, I assume an editorial, in 1884 in the “Forest and Stream”. In this, the writer, again in a scoffing manner, speaks of how the Commission called on what they believed to be false claims that wolves were still killing game and livestock. This is when the Commission doubled the bounty. This editorial is rebutted which I’ll get to in a moment.

Of interest in this piece is that the author speaks of what he believes to be the facts that wolves are now all gone in Maine. But why are they gone? He writes, “Curiously enough there are old settlers in Maine who retain the theory that wolves follow deer. They claim that there were no deer at the time of the wolves – ‘the wolves killed them all off’ – but that since the extermination of the wolves the deer have gone on increasing.”

In this editorial the writer clearly blames the hunters for killing off all the deer and not the wolves.

In the rebuttal I spoke about earlier, the author, an experienced hunter and trapper, says he can prove his facts that the deer are all gone and it was the wolf that killed them and that it was not the hunters that made the wolves disappear. He writes, “In 1853 wolves were very plenty, and for the next five years were not scarce, plenty could be found within sixteen miles of Bangor in 1857 and 1858. They seemed to leave quite suddenly, the last I know of positively being taken was killed by Frank Fairbanks in 1860 in Munsengun. I know the wolves were not exterminated, as from the time they were quite plenty till the time they disappeared, very few skins were brought in. They left of their own accord, just as the caribou left us.”

Little has changed over the years, I would guess, when it comes to dealing with wolves. 130 years ago the wolf was vehemently hated and yet there existed those who wanted to blame man for everything wrong with wildlife.

Tom Remington

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part V, Part VI

“Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving can tell us many things about how wildlife was perceived, treated, abused and misunderstood. From the early 1600s, it should really come as no surprise that settlers and commercial trappers and game harvesters thought of wildlife as an endless resource. We learned that was not true and it resulted in the formulation of a wildlife management scheme that has proven immensely successful over the past century.

Wolves in Maine, much the same as in many spots across the U.S., were seen as a useless animal, one that competed directly with the hunters and gatherers and as we learned in Part III, when available prey for the wolf diminished, attacks on humans and livestock became more common. As a result, demands from people grew to get rid of the wolf.

In most all of the previous parts of this serial examination, seldom was anything good about the wolf reported, other than perhaps their pelts made for good decoration and available cover to go on the back of the seat in a sleigh.

Our repeated history and education in this country has mostly been centered on the notion that it were hunters and trappers that bore the responsibility for the extirpation of the wolf countrywide. History has shown us this is not true. In addition, those whose interests lie in the over-protection of the wolf are unrelenting in their talking points that humans were unjustifiably frightened of the wolf, embellished through made-up scary tales, and that people simply misunderstood the animal.

I don’t believe any of that to be true at all. World history clearly shows that in those regions of the world were wolves were allowed to flourish, hundreds and even thousands of people were killed by wolves. I don’t know about you but if I lost a family member to a large animal predator, it would only seem normal to develop a fear, or at least a healthy level of respect for the beast, and would more than likely promote the idea to get rid of the darn things. This isn’t fairy tale stuff as some might believe.

People saw little or no real value in wolves and why should they have. They competed directly for the very same resources man wanted and needed to survive, they threatened livestock, which for many was their life line, carried and spread disease and became a real threat to the health and safety of humans. As such, efforts to rid the landscape of the varmints became entire community efforts.

In “Early Maine Wildlife”, the authors reference the writings of E.E. Bourne, in 1875. Bourne’s work is the telling of the history of the Wells and Kennebunk area of Maine. Bourne recalls this area as early as the early 1600s, when the people were obviously still under the rule of England. In 1640, wolves appeared to be most everywhere along the seacoast of Maine and settlers were anxious for the King to offer some financial assistance to the communities to rid the countryside of wolves. Here’s what Bourne wrote:

“The new Government, Gorges’ general court, being legislative as well as judicial in its action, did not confine itself to the moral improvement of the people only, but at the same time looked carefully to their physical economy. It may seem a small matter to have made any enactments in regard to wolves. But to settlers it was much more important that they should be extirpated than it has been at any time since that of salmon, shad, and alewives should be preserved from destruction, or that the agriculture of the country should be protected from the ravages of the crow. Wolves then [~1640] abounded along the coast…….Every settler was interested in their extermination, and at this court it was “ordered that every family between Piscataqua and Kennebunk River should pay twelve pence for every wolf that should be killed.” This, it will be seen, was in the whole a large bounty.

“In 1730, five pounds were paid; a few years afterward, eight pounds. In 1747, it was voted that eight pounds should be paid to every person who should kill one; if he killed two, he should have twelve pounds each; if three, sixteen pounds each….. The action of the town for the destruction of wolves continued till about 1770, after which the municipal war against them was abandoned.”

It’s important to note here that it appears from what is written that the people were a bit frustrated because efforts had been made to preserve the salmon, shad and alewives population, along with efforts to protect crops from crows, while nothing was being done to get rid of the wolf, a problem that obviously the communities saw as large enough to demand something be done to help.

So from what appears to be around 1640 until 1770, bounties were put together as an incentive for more people to kill wolves. Those bounties grew to be quite handsome. But mind you this was an entire community that was taxed in order that bounties be paid to rid the area of wolves. It must have been important to them in every way.

During that 130-year period of time, read what happens to the deer population.

Bourne writes: “Until about the commencement of the Revolutionary war, deer were very abundant in Wells. Herds of them, from ten to twenty, were very frequently seen. They were in the habit of visiting the marshes in great numbers……

“As late as the year 1770, a deer was started by a dog, and in chase he ran into the parlor of Joseph Storer in Kennebunk, and went out through the window.”

Does any of this relate to modern times?

But I don’t believe it was simply the efforts of communities and governments to pay bounties and put out poison that led to the extirpation of the wolf. Even utilizing all of those and other tools to achieve that goal, it is still a daunting task to actually completely rid a state or country of a species. I would also suppose that disease, along with changes in the prey base for the wolves and changes in climate, population growth and destruction of habitat all played a factor.

Tom Remington

Part I, Part II, Part IV, Part V, Part VI

The book, Early Maine Wildlife – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving, is proving to be an interesting addition to my library. I think the authors did a decent job of putting this information together; one, to make it readable, and, two, to give a reader a sense of the changes taking place across the lands over extended periods of time. I am glad they chose to list the entries in chronological order. Of course these changes come with no real explanations from the observers, often just recalling what it used to be like.

In 1860, J.G. Rich writes in the Bethel Courier about his hunts for caribou. He also explains that he has shot and killed two caribou in the previous 6 years and then states, “many hunters from different parts of the State have told me that the species [caribou] are almost extinct in Maine”. Obviously Rich wasn’t into conservation of wildlife, which most of us know came a bit later on after it was decided something needed to be done.

Henry David Thoreau relates the reports he got from lumbermen and hunters in the mid-1800s through the late-1800s. In 1858 he writes, “The lumberers told me that there were many moose thereabouts, but no caribou or deer.”

It was in 1860 when M.R. Keep told the tale of when the French first settled in the Madawaska area in Northern Maine, along the St. John River, the Indians got angry because the French were killing their moose and caribou. The story goes that the Indians, out of spite, slaughtered all the moose, and, “For twenty years or more, not a moose was seen or heard from in all Northern Maine or the adjoining borders of New Brunswick[.]”

However, wolves were still an often talked about species. Thoreau often spent time “listening” throughout his travels in Maine to hear the wolves howl. While people howled about the threats and utter destruction the animal caused.

It was in 1855 that C. Hardy wrote about what he knew of the grey wolf.

“The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has but lately made its appearance in Nova Scotia, not as in other provinces, however, in company with his prey, the Canadian deer (Cervus virginianus). The gray wolf is a large, fierce, and powerful animal. In Maine and New Brunswick, several instances have been known of his attacking singly and destroying a human being. This animal sometimes grows to the length of six feet. The hair is long, fine, and of a silver grey. A broad band of black, here and there, showing shiny silvery hairs, extend from the head down the back. The tail is long and bushy, as the brush of a fox. A wolf skin forms a frequent decoration for the back of a sleigh.”

This is the first I have read in this book (although I am barely past page 100 of 500) of reports of wolves attacking and killing people. I should point out that in reading accounts of wolves beginning in the very early 1600s, most descriptions of wolves up to this point related that they were wary of humans and for the most part steered clear. While there were also reports of some savagery of wolves on livestock, the number of those reports paled in comparison to the accounts of how the wolves feed on available wild prey, such as deer, moose, rodents, etc.

At this juncture, it appears that we may be actually seeing a pattern take place. As the reports from observers seem to be passing on the reduction of game animals and in some cases the lack thereof, i.e. the extinction of the caribou, incidents of livestock kill and now reports of attacks on humans are on the increase.

In 1842, Z. Thompson, in his “History of Vermont”, writes about “The Common Wolf”.

“For some years after the settlement of this state was commenced, wolves were so numerous and made such havoc of the flocks of the sheep, that the keeping of sheep was a very precarious business. At some seasons particularly in the winter they would prowl through the settlements at night and large companies, destroying whole flocks in their way, and, after drinking their blood and perhaps eating a small portion of the choicest and tenderest parts, would leave the carcasses scattered about the enclosure and go in quest of new victims. Slaughter and instruction seemed their chief delight; and while marauding the country they kept up such horrid and prolonged howlings as were calculated, not only to thrill terror through their timorous victims, but to appall the hearts of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Though sheep seems to be their favorite victim, wolves sometimes destroyed calves, dogs, and other domestic animals; and in the forest they prey upon deer, foxes, hares and other such animals as they can take. Impelled by hunger they have been known in this state to attack persons.”

Here is another account of attacks on people. And also notice that the indicator in the statement about attacks on people is, “Impelled by hunger”. If the accounts being recorded have much accuracy at all, we see that for what may be multiple reasons, the prey base for wolves is diminishing. This increases the incidents of livestock depredation and attacks on humans. I believe it only correct to make that assumption, knowing what we do about wolf behavior.

In addition, this account of Thompson’s, gives us our first glimpse into surplus killing or sport killing that protectors of predators such as the wolf and coyote so readily deny. Thompson describes the wolves’ actions as being anything but savage and pointless. Why has it been 150 years before these kinds of reports are showing up?

I am curious as to whether readers are surprised to learn of these incidences by wolves in Maine – their savagery of livestock and attacks on humans? I would guess they are, as they have been indoctrinated to believe that there has never been an attack on a human by wolves in the lower 48 states. These early observers and recorders of wildlife from the early 1600s, seem to have a differing set of facts.

Tom Remington