Nearly a year ago, I wrote about “Intellectuals and Wildlife Management“. Perhaps the piece is not necessarily about intellectuals as much as just about the indoctrinated/educated and wildlife management. In that piece, I quoted Thomas Sowell about intellectuals:

Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

For many of us, a continuous battle wages on to reeducate the indoctrinated wildlife managers who have been enslaved by the intellectuals. In doing so, we must gain a better understanding of who it is we are battling against and why they say and do the things they do.

In the article I described above and in a more recent article, I spoke of a definite “divide” that exists between the hunter/field person and the wildlife managers. This divide, which prohibits the honest dissemination of wildlife management information, is at least partially attributed to the elitist separation of the intellectual from the “common man”.

As Sowell describes, the intellectuals “create and disseminate” ideas. Ideas are not scientific equations substantiated with hard data. They are ideas. Ideas about wildlife management seems to have taken a strong rooting in wildlife management while hard and proven science takes a back seat. Hunters in the field see the truth of what is taking place in the field and it does not necessarily match the ideas of the intellectuals who are responsible for the indoctrination of the biologists. The divide widens.

Over a year ago I called for efforts between the sportsmen and the managers to work at tearing down these ridiculous walls that divide us. Little has changed. While it is still important to fight the good fight, perhaps the realization exists that there is little hope of “changing” the intellectual.

I am currently reading Eric Hoffer’s book, “The Syndicated News Articles”. In the late 1960s, Hoffer wrote The Syndicated News. This book is a compilation of many of his thoughts, ideas and commentary on the events of the day. Interesting as each and every article is, much of what he writes is applicable to today.

I have taken the time to type out one article called, “The Definition of an Intellectual”. I believe it to be important to help us gain a better understanding of this one man’s perspective on what an intellectual is and how they affect all of us. With a better understanding we equip ourselves with improved tools to get our jobs done.

Here is: The Definition of an Intellectual

February 16, 1969 – By Eric Hoffer in his book “The Syndicated News Articles” – Hopewell Publications, LLC

I have been wiping the floor with the intellectuals these many years, blaming them for everything under the sun. Though I have spelled out many times who these intellectuals are, I am still being asked quite often for a definition of the intellectual. Here it is.

My intellectual is a person who feels himself a member of the educated elite with a God-given right to direct and shape events. He need not be well educated or very intelligent. What counts is the feeling of being a member of the educated elite.

What the intellectual wants above all is to be listened to – with deference. He will forgive you everything if you take him seriously, and allow him to instruct you. It is more important to him to be important than to be free, and he would rather be persecuted than ignored.

Typical intellectuals feel oppressed in a democratic society where they are left alone to do as they please and say whatever they please. They call it “jester’s license,” and they envy intellectuals in Communist countries who are persecuted by governments that take intellectuals seriously.

The typical intellectual can be over-educated as Toynbee, Sartre and as Hans Morgenthiau, or undereducated as Lee Oswald and Hitler. I can see raised eyebrows: Oswald and Hitler intellectuals? Yes – typical intellectuals. Lee Oswald’s pretensions and absurdities were emblematic of the attitudes and impulses of a self-styled intellectual rather than of a common man.

Does anyone doubt that had Oswald been in Berkeley at the time of the Free Speech Movement he would have become an outstanding leader? He was an illiterate ignoramus, but he considered himself a sophisticated highbrow far above run of the mill Americans.

As to Hitler, he was a genius “man of words” with an unbounded faith in the power of words and ideas. He was driven to action by his own words, by his discovery that he had the power to move people with words. It is doubtful whether a man who does not style himself an intellectual would be overly impressed by his power to move people with words.

The intellectual’s feeling that he has a right to make history is an insane delusion. In a Hitler or a Lee Oswald the insanity is patent, but it is present also in normal intellectuals.

The intellectual knows with every fiber of his being that men are not equal, and there are few things he cares for less than a classless society. He is convinced that government is too weighty and complex to be left to common people. He cannot see how anything originating in an uninformed, unprincipled and uncommitted populace could be of any value. There is nothing he loathes more than government by and for the people.

Hat tip to readers Susan and Bion and other sources.

Denial to the extent of which coyotes can present themselves still runs rampant in this country. What it will take to alter the ignorant repertoire of repeated rhetoric remains a riddle. Consider the following stories from the perspective of interesting to unbelievable.

In California, a jogger, with his two Yorkie mix dogs, is attacked by a coyote. However, a horseback rider nearby spots the attacking coyote and intervenes. As we have come to expect, “authorities” exclaim the rarity of the event.

In late October I reported on the results of a new study that shows that coyotes and wolves have interbred and migrated to many parts of the country. The National Geographic files it’s own story on the report. In the National Geographic piece, the author writes:

Scientists have not yet studied the behaviors of the Virginian hybrids to see if they’re killing bigger wildlife or otherwise changing the ecosystem, Bozarth added.

While it may or may not be true that “scientists” haven’t performed any “studies” to determine that these coyotes, hybrids, wolves, “wolfies” or whatever you choose to call them, are killing bigger prey, those of us in the field know this has been going on for decades.

Which brings us to the incredible part of this report. On the website “Deer and Deer Hunting” a very long (sorry) series of photos, taken from a trail camera, shows coyotes killing a mature buck in Oklahoma. Although the number of photos, posted sequentially, is a bit tiresome to click through, I would recommend reviewing them as it will educate a lot of people to a lot of things about how those little ole “doggies” can take down a full grown deer. It’s not that difficult.

The photos begin on August 1, 2011 at 18:48 (6:48 p.m.) and concludes a few days later. The buck deer in the photos, sports an impressive rack of antlers of 10-points and although I am not the best at estimating live weights, my experience in deer hunting over the past 50 years tells me this buck probably weighed live around 180 – 200 pounds.

At 22:08 (10:08 p.m.), the same day, the first photo appears with what is visible as one coyote. The deer is on his feet and staring intently at his enemy. At no time in any of these pictures can I spot more than 3 coyotes. However, I have no idea how many participated in the kill. Interestingly enough, the photos also show never more than one coyote at a time attacking the buck. This, of course, does not tell us this didn’t take place.

The attack commences. I will warn readers that in time the photos become a bit graphic but should not be a deterrent to those wishing to educate themselves to the truths of predator/prey relationships.

The photos will show that in about an hour both the coyotes and the deer are tiring as tongues and mouths are agape. At 23:07 (11:07 p.m.) the buck either lays down on his own (which is what I’m concluding) or the coyotes have taken him down. The photos do not show this.

At 23:25 (11:25 p.m.), the buck gets back up onto his feet, which is why I conclude both predators and prey needed a rest, and the battle rages on. The photos clearly show how the buck was attacked from the rear, chewing holes in his rump and going after the annal area. You can also note bite marks, some quite large, near the deer’s belly and underside. Blood becomes more prevalent as the buck weakens and the coyotes persist.

At 00:15 (12:15 a.m. on August 2, 2011) the buck is down with two coyotes eating at the rear end. The below photo, taken at 00:24 (12:24 a.m.), shows the buck down, still with some fight left in him and presumed agony as he is being eaten alive, while two coyotes begin feeding. If you will note in this picture (you may have to click to enlarge a bit) in the background darkness, to the left of the small tree near the opening where the battle took place, is what appears to be a third set of coyote eyes. I was not able to spot more than three coyotes at anytime in the photos, the third being eyes.

At 11:04 the next morning (daylight) vultures are seen having a feed. The final picture in this series shows the owner of the trail camera, holding what was left of that 10-point buck when he returned to the site of his trail camera and retrieved the photos. I also do not know how long after Aug. 2nd that he retrieved his pictures.

I guess money can be saved by scrapping any notions of conducting studies to determine if coyotes or hybrids are attacking larger prey, as these photos clearly show it to be fact and the process and length of time to get the job done.

Now I need to ask readers. Does this buck in this picture look like “only the weak and sickly” of the species as is claimed by the ignorant as the only prey coyotes and wolves take?

Tom Remington

*Editor’s Note* Below is a short article I received from Dave Miller of Maine. Dave occasionally contributes articles to the Black Bear Blog and has done a series on wildlife diseases. In this account witnessed and recorded by Mr. Miller, it is important to note the focal point of Miller’s account; not that coyotes do what coyotes do and kill prey but that all too often the focus of predators, such as coyotes, is more directed at such things as deer or other “game” animals. It is almost never discussed that predators, such as coyotes and wolves, kill just about any kind of species of animal for food and fun. When these predator populations grow too large, unnecessary destruction can occur to sensitive ecosystems.

A Woodland Incident
by Dave Miller

Two days ago as I was driving on the Bowtown Road near Basin Mountain, Pierce Pond TWP [Maine] a friend and I found an unusual incident had occurred. A Great Blue Heron had been caught and killed by three coyotes. The tale of what had happened was in the snow, as no other vehicle had yet driven on the road.
For about a mile we observed three sets of coyote tracks in the road, then all of a sudden one had taken off with a burst of speed, bounding through the snow. Up ahead we saw feathers and blood in the snow. As we drove up to the spot the size of attack lead us to assume it was likely a turkey, but as we looked at the feathers it was evident they were not of a turkey. They were slate gray and part of a wing including two large and long connected bones confirmed that it was not a turkey. It appeared to possibly be that of a Great Blue Heron. The attack took place in a flooded area on the left side of the road. A few hundred yards up the road we discovered the head and part of the neck of the Great Blue Heron. It was possible our arrival had scared off the coyotes as all the sign was fresh.
It is evident that the coyote not only has damaged our deer herd and snowshoe hare populations, but is taking many other species of wildlife that we all love.

Dave Miller

Let me first get out of the way my need to comment on “yet another task force”. OMG, the man or whomever, that invented task forces should be relegated to task force purgatory. Insanity is repeating the same procedure over and over again, each time hoping for a different result.

However, the giddy puerility of “yet another task force” aside, this anointed assembly is made up of a “group of guides, sporting camp and outdoor business owners, DIF&W staff, and leaders of sportsmen’s organizations”. It was accepted as fact by the task force that there has been a reduction in hunting license sales by non resident hunters. Phew! Now why? I’ll be curious to see if this task force actually attempts to make a determination based on facts and figures, comparisons, etc. or by just what collectively they “think” are some problems.

This was reported by George Smith, former executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and now community activist and writer/blogger.

Smith writes:

Recognizing that Maine has a problem attracting nonresident hunters, the legislature enacted a bill proposed by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine authorizing a “Task Force to Examine the Decline in the Number of Nonresident Hunters.”

Smith, a relentless pounder of the bully Sunday hunting pulpit, gets in a couple of jabs to the midsection in blaming part of the problem on non residents not being able to hunt on “residents only” deer hunting. I think it’s called residents only for a reason. First there was no opening day for resident Maine deer hunters and so, one was created. The Maine Legislature didn’t kick out the non residents on that day. No, they added another day, another Saturday, for Maine residents. However, it’s up to the mighty task force to determine if this shortchanging of one day of hunting forces non residents to hunt elsewhere.

Also touched on by Smith was the sour grapes of non resident hunters who can’t get a moose permit when they want one. I suggest they go cry on the shoulders of those Maine residents who have been applying for over 20 years, since the moose lottery began, and haven’t been drawn yet. And someone wants to blame the unfairness of the moose lottery as reason why license sales might be down?

What did strike me as a bit odd is what Smith wrote about the cost of hunting in Maine for non residents. He writes:

I was pleased to see that the task force recognizes that the costs of hunting in Maine are a problem, from gas to licenses. Some task force members believe we charge nonresidents too much. Oh boy, they are treading on very dangerous legislative turf there!

All I can say about the price of gasoline is that it is quite expensive in parts of northern Maine and I’m sure other places as well, but I’m not sure how big a deterrent it is. However how much the State charges non residents for a hunting license I’m not sure is really an issue.

What I did was spend a little bit of time compiling a list of 17 states that offer deer hunting and how much the license fees are. Let me explain my perspective. I was born and raised in Maine. Essentially lived there near 50 years before moving to Florida where I am currently a legal resident. I own property in Maine that includes a camp where I spend part of the summers.

I have however, been going with friends to the same hunting camp in western Maine for nearly 40 years. That’s a tradition that’s virtually impossible to give up. So, I cough up my $114.00 (this year) for a non resident license to hunt deer. I can tell you right up front that if I didn’t have the tradition of the Maine hunting camp experience, I would NOT spend a dime on a license to hunt deer there because…….well, there are no deer left to hunt. Spin it all you want and tell me how many deer there are in southern and parts of central Maine, but my preferred hunting territory (very few hunters and no fear of running into someone’s back yard) has no deer. It used to. This is the reason I would NOT buy a Maine non resident hunting license. I would shop elsewhere and discover where I might be able to better spend my money where the odds of a successful harvest are better.

I don’t find the cost as a deterrent when compared to a lot of other states. What I did was listed 17 states, including Maine, where I might consider hunting deer in sometime. I then priced out the cost of a license. The list below may not be completely accurate. It may not include agent fees and at times it was difficult to come up with a set price because some states play unbelievable games with permits and tags and zones, etc. You need an expert guide and a lawyer just to keep that part of it straight.

So, here’s my unofficial list. Take a look and compare and then you decide whether Maine charges non residents too much money for a deer hunting license.

Maine – $114.00
N.H. – $103.00
VT – $100.00
NY – $140.00
PA – $101.70
NJ – $135.50
VA – $111.00 for license plus $65.00 for deer permit
NC – $60.00 for license plus $60.00 for deer permit
SC – $125.00 for license plus $100.00 for deer permit
GA – $100.00 for license plus $195.00 for deer permit
TX – $315.00
ID – $154.75 for license plus $301.75 for deer permit ($456.50 for elk tag)
MT – $537.00 (deer) $757.00 (elk)
CO – $331.00
UT – $65.00 for license plus $88.00 – $563.00 for deer permit (permit price varies by species and zone hunted, etc.)
MI – $138.00
WI – $160.00

I don’t know if I want to thank or slap the reader who sent me this link. I mean honestly? Is this how sportsmen want their license fees used. Or forget that! Is this how we want our tax dollars spent? As my good friend stated in the email; I guess if you’re in Florida you BETTER have you license with you.

Yesterday in an article I wrote, I asked Maine hunters if they were satisfied with the information they were getting from the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife about what was taking place to rebuild a much depleted whitetail deer herd. After all, sportsmen were promised improved information access and communication.

In that article I asked 12 questions, wanting to know if hunters knew the answers to those questions. A reader sent me an email having listed all twelve questions out in an orderly fashion, so it got me to thinking.

These twelve questions aren’t necessarily attributed only to Maine. It could be your state.

Here are the twelve questions hunters want answered on a regular basis:

1. Do you know what the current estimated deer population is in Maine?

2. Do you know what the total deer mortality rate is per year?

3. Do you know what the adult male, adult female and yearling mortality rates are each year?

4. Do you know what the fawn recruitment for Maine is?

5. Do you know at what level it needs to be just to sustain a population?

6. Do you know what the mortality rate is for vehicle deaths?

7. Do you know what data MDIFW biologists collect at tagging stations?

8. Do they test for any diseases and if so what?

9. Do they test for age of deer?

10. Do you know what the age structure is for Maine’s deer?

11. Do you know why age structure is vitally important?

12. Why can’t we have all this information made easily available to us?

More troubling news coming out today of disease-ridden wolves in the Elk City, Idaho area. Of seven wolves killed, necropsies where performed on five of them. The two not studied were due to circumstances that prohibit a necropsy.

Unfortunately, four of the five wolves carried the tapeworm echinococcus granulosus and in two of those cases, the wolves’ intestines were heavily infested. George Dovel, editor of The Outdoors offered the following comment:

It is worth noting that of the four lower intestines examined by WSU’s William Foreyt from four wolves taken in or near Elk City in Idaho GMU 15, which also includes the Idaho County Seat of Grangeville, all contained a significant quantity of E. Granulosus tapeworms. According to the following letters/reports from Foreyt, one contained several hundred, a second contained 4,000+ and the other two contained 10,000+ each. Both the large and small intestine were missing from a fifth wolf carcass shot on June 26th.

Back in 2006, studies in which the Idaho Fish and Game Department covered up, showed that 2/3 of the wolves tested at that time were infested with E.G. tapeworms.

Click on this link and download a copy of the necropsy results. I’ve also provide a Google map that might help show readers the region around Elk City. On the map, Elk City is the red balloon.

View Larger Map

Tom Remington

Over the weekend, a friend emailed my a link to an article about constitutional amendments to protect hunting that I found to be interesting but dreadfully shallow in content and lacking in anything grounded in reality.

The foundation of the piece seemed to be about why there was a need for states to enact constitutional amendments in order to guarantee citizens of their states the right to hunt, fish and trap. Not only does the author not grasp the reality of what outdoor sportsmen are facing, some of the outdoor sportsmen themselves seem to be living in a vacuum.

The article begins, “The idea of enshrining hunting and fishing rights in state constitutions is sweeping the country even though supporters and hunters themselves acknowledge that no one is trying to in pry rifles from their hands.” I wish the author had decided to get out a bit more and talk with those of us fully aware of the billions of dollars being spent every day by environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, fishing and trapping.

One “hunter” from Nebraska, interviewed for the article states: “I haven’t seen anyone on a local level holding up signs in front of the public area saying we’re a bunch of evil-doers.”

I have never seen anyone openly walking about the United States of America holding up signs that say, “End all our Rights Now” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t being done. We have had more government intrusion in our lives in the past 3 years and with it comes a stripping away of our God-given rights but it doesn’t take picket signs to make it happen. It requires ignorance, denial and sitting quietly by letting it happen.

PETA attempts to deflect away from any search for truth by delving into seeming absurdity stating that if states allow amendments to protect hunting, then, “why not a right to shop and golf?” Sounds silly but right now I am not aware of anyone trying to stop shopping and golf directly but don’t bet your future that it won’t happen sooner than you think.

Constitutional amendments for individual states can become a very beneficial thing if written properly and carried out in a serious fashion. There really are no disadvantages to having such an amendment, unless you are one of those who want to end hunting.

Constitutional amendments to protect hunting must at a minimum contain the words that citizens of that state are guaranteed the right to hunt, fish and trap. It must be recognized as a heritage worth protecting. In addition, wording must be such that the amendment forces the fish and game department to manage its fish and game resources for surplus harvest opportunities for its citizens. I would also strongly urge wording in which the state supports the North American Game Management model and that it would even go as far as to state that “natural regulation” is a fallacy and will not be considered a part of any wildlife management tool until overwhelming science proves otherwise. This, of course, would never happen, so let’s just leave it out.

Once an amendment is passed, it will accomplish some, much or all of the following:

1. It will limit the actions of environmentalists and animal rights groups to file countless lawsuits all aimed at ending and/or limiting hunting, fishing and trapping opportunity. History is quite clear in this. States with constitutional amendments see far fewer senseless lawsuits than those without.

2. A constitutional amendment forces fish and game departments to manage game species for surplus management. This is a problem all across America. Money paid by license holders is being used for non game programs while allowing management of game species such as deer, moose and elk to suffer terribly. Fish and game departments must be accountable for their actions if they are unable to uphold the mandate of a constitutional amendment to manage for surplus harvest.

3. A forcing of the way in which fish and game departments manage will accomplish many things. For one, it will automatically change the dynamic make up of the leadership staff all the way down the line to the lowliest of state employees. A head of any fish and game department, knowing he or she must abide by the amendment, will surround himself with staff who can accomplish that goal or run the risk of being fired.

In addition, if the wording of any amendment discredited the term and use of “natural regulation”, then those biologists who have wrongfully espoused to such nonsense will have difficulty finding a job. This could have a cascading affect all the way back to the colleges potential biologists attend. If graduates can’t get hired because they are being taught garbage, perhaps it will force the colleges to change what they teach. Idealistic? Perhaps but it will certainly have its effects.

4. A constitutional amendment, in my opinion, would help to restore the reason why we have managed fish and game. If you investigate nearly every fish and game department’s programs across this nation, you will, no doubt, see that each state manages its “wildlife” according to the pressures of societal demands. No, I’m not kidding. What used to be a hidden agenda is now very much in the open. Fish and game departments readily admit that much of their management decisions are based on what the demands are by our society, for example: wildlife viewing, car accidents, human/wildlife encounters, property destruction, etc. With each passing year, the societal demands increase and change. Where’s the science behind all this?

While it’s easy to understand the concern for reducing say, deer populations because too many people are dying from collisions, it seems difficult for people to understand why we should have unhealthy levels of wolves so more people can view them. Makes little sense.

So, with a fish and game department with a different mandated direction in which it must manage its wildlife, the domino effect could be far reaching.

5. A constitutional amendment would give stronger reasons why anti hunting activists should not have a seat on any fish and game commission. Their agendas become more exposed and their efforts at incrementally stripping away hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities is that much more difficult.

6. With a constitutional amendment, the message is sent loud and clear by the citizens that they support and recognize hunting, trapping and fishing as part of their heritage. As such it makes it that much harder for anti gun activists and all efforts toward limiting which animals can be harvested or the methods in which those animals can be harvested, to accomplish.

Instead of people, including journalists and hunters, sitting around saying we don’t need a constitutional amendment to protect our hunting heritage, I suggest a bit more eye opening exercises and a better understanding how things have changed over the years that has brought us to this point.

As an example, the same friend who sent me the link to the above mentioned article, also reminded me of the countless number of states that have found it necessary to enact anti hunter harassment legislation. Here is only one such example from Maine. If nobody wants to shut down hunting, then why is there a need for legislation to protect hunters who go into the field? To me, these are very big picket signs. I suppose one just needs to open their eyes.

Tom Remington

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