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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Editor’s Note: The following is a press release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I might remind readers that information contained in press releases do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of this editor or this blog.)

MISSOULA, Mont.–Yesterday, August 3, 2011, will go down as one of the better days in a decade-long battle for science-based wolf management.

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation leaders are encouraged by progress on two fronts.

A federal judge upheld Congress’ recent delisting of wolves in Idaho, Montana and other parts of the West. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced an agreement on wolf management plans in Wyoming.

Both developments help clear the way for state management hunts needed to control burgeoning wolf populations. In some areas, elk calf survival rates are now too low to sustain herds for the future.

“We’re encouraged by these positive steps toward managing wolves as part of overall conservation objectives,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This is forward movement in our fight to make sure that all states, from the Pacific Northwest to the Great Lakes, have the authority to manage fully recovered species like wolves.”

“Real on-the-ground science is the big winner in all of this, as there is no doubt that wolves are recovered and should be managed like all other wildlife. To date, no one has shown science to dispute this fact,” he added.

Allen thanked sportsmen and conservationists for their patience through the endless lawsuits that have kept America’s historically successful system of wildlife management stymied in courts.

But he also cautioned, “Until the wolf problem is fixed permanently, we’re likely to see appeals, more legal antics and frivolous lawsuits by extremist groups who literally make their living by suing the federal government–and creating crises where there are none, for the purpose of raising funds.”

Allen said RMEF will remain diligent as plaintiffs consider taking their case to higher courts. RMEF also will continue to urge lawmakers for nationwide delisting measures, and advocate for updating and modernizing delisting language within the Endangered Species Act.

Should we be surprised or not? Judge Donald Molloy ruled in the case citing separation of powers when the U.S. Congress attached a rider to the Federal Budget Bill that attempted to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act list. The judge upheld the action of Congress.

Recently I wrote that Judge Molloy would rule against the rider as it would fit his agenda to save wolves, as all previous actions, regardless of the United States Constitution, science or the administration of the Endangered Species Act, have been about saving wolves.

But now the somewhat shadowy images are becoming better defined, the outer lines sharper and more precise. Molloy’s intent is the destruction of the United States Constitution.

Molloy says:

The way in which Congress acted in trying to achieve a debatable policy change by attaching a rider to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 is a tearing away, an undermining and a disrespect for the fundamental idea of the rule of law.

This statement is true as far as how I see things. As much as I want to put an end to this insane debate on wolves, destruction of the Constitution and a continued blurring of powers separation is not the way to get the job done. Molloy further states that past rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals requires him to interpret the rider as not violating the separation of powers.

So it becomes clear here that Judge Molloy, even though he acknowledges that he understands what the “rule of law” is, feels forced to uphold this unconstitutional act because of previous rulings. Are we now at a point in our judicial system where two wrongs make a right?

His Honor repeats again:

In my view, the 9th Circuit’s deference to Congress threatens the Separation of Powers; nonspecific magic words should not sweep aside constitutional concerns.

Then, if Judge Molloy actually believes this statement, why did he rule against the U.S. Constitution? It’s because he is a progressive. Progressives apply the Constitution as it becomes necessary to promote their agendas and disregard it when it fails their narrative. From the mouth of one of the biggest progressives this country ever knew, Franklin Roosevelt said this:

The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.

This statement is seen by many as a wonderful thing. Only a person with a true understanding of what drove Roosevelt and an appreciation and respect for the United States Constitution would know these words are not a good thing. The Constitution was the guiding masterpiece for America. Claiming it is “marvelously elastic” means that it can be twisted to mean whatever we want it to.

How wrong is it that a judge would place precedence that he seems to state is contrary to the Constitution, over that document?

While most people focused on Judge Molloy’s activism to “save wolves”, few had a notion that his real goal is the destruction of the Constitution. It is now clear. We shall soon find out just how deeply this destruction runs as there is certain to be an appeal. An appeal to the very court that Judge Molloy claims forced his hand.

The wolf lovers are upset. Ironically, they have much of themselves to blame for the mess they find themselves in. By their own hands they have worked to destroy the rule of law in this country, including but not limited to the manipulation and abuse of the Endangered Species Act, intentional piling on of petitions and lawsuits to overwhelm the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Justice, along with their own progressive attitudes.

A reader of this blog left a comment in regard to Molloy’s ruling last night.

The lunatics are sure to be going insane, but they have no one to blame but themselves, for decades they have done everything they could possibly do to destroy the COTUS [Constitution of the United States], and now they have their panties in a bind because they were on the side of the COTUS this time. These idiots are the ones who have created these precedence through their unconstitutional laws, suits and rulings. I guess the old saying “live by the sword, die by the sword” comes to mind.

Ironic isn’t it really. But let’s put aside the debate on wolves long enough to understand what is going on right before our very eyes. Wolves be damned, elk by damned, hunting be damned! What is there of this country once the Constitution is finished? Progressives think they would like nothing more than a rewrite or just the elimination of that document. Then what? Sodom and Gomorrah?

For those fighting the battle to control wolves, please don’t consider this a great victory.

Going about business in a usual fashion, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game finalized and approved rules for the upcoming fall wolf hunt…….which consequentially will not happen as I predict Judge Donald Molloy has predetermined that even before he heard arguments in recent lawsuit.

However, the rules, some of which are certain to tightly snug the undies up of the environmentalist whack nuts, are interesting. They may sound aggressive but in reality will have little affect on the wolf packs. As an example, there are no quotas on the number of wolves that can be killed in several of the areas where wolves are destroying game populations. The reality is not many wolves will be killed because of their innate ability to steer clear of their own predators. In addition, with continued restrictions on how wolves can be hunted, interest will drop off to nearly nothing. A wolf is not a “big game trophy” animal to hunt. It’s a varmint. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is a waste of time to discuss what the wolf hunt might or might not be until Molloy finishes doing what he believes he is destined to do. Nothing changes. Nothing will change. Molloy will rule and wolves will return to protection once again. That is the way it is intended to be. Perhaps once again those seeking control of wolves will run to the U.S. Congress for help and once again they will come away realizing Congress is a dysfunctional mutant Frankenstein that only creates problems rather than solving them, while focusing on their own greed and self-interest.

Government has us right where they want us. We the people fear the government. They have stolen from us our liberties. We cower to their threats because we see that we have no other recourse. If it isn’t wolves, it’s something else. I pray that people’s eyes will be opened to the truth. Truth is the only answer.

Tom Remington

MISSOULA, Mont.–A new forest stewardship project in Idaho is showcasing a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation national program built to deliver conservation while boosting local economies.

Acting as a nonprofit partner with the Salmon-Challis National Forest, RMEF is overseeing a project to thin overgrown forest, improve habitat for elk and other wildlife, and reduce wildfire risk on 570 acres in the Hughes Creek area of Salmon, Idaho.

RMEF’s job is ensuring that conservation objectives are met and subcontracting with local companies to do the actual work.

For payment, subcontractors trade some of their services in exchange for goods–namely, the wood products harvested as part of the stewardship project. Forest Service funding as well as grants from other sources, such as the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, cover the balance.

In addition to restoring the forest to a more natural condition, “One of the best things about the Forest’s arrangement with RMEF is the contracting process is more flexible and can take into account values that include, but are not limited to, price. Our community and local Forest Service need people in this valley who are capable and willing to work in the woods at a decent living wage. Hughes Creek is an effort to fix a system that felt broken to a lot of us,” said Gina Knudson of Salmon Valley Stewardship.

Knudson is part of the Lemhi County Forest Restoration Group, a collaboration of governments, industries, conservationists and homeowners concerned about the health of local forests. Together they designed the Hughes Creek Fuels Reduction Project.

Dale Kerkvliet of RMEF said, “The grassroots instigation and the continued support and active involvement of these partners has been contagious. Our shared vision is utilizing local talent and resources to make this watershed more resilient to wildfire–and more accommodating to elk.”

Habitat conditions in Hughes Creek have diminished over time in the absence of fire. Conifers have encroached into meadows and noxious weeds have become established. Forest thinning followed by prescribe burning will improve forage quantity and quality.

Similar conditions and potential remedies may be found all across the 194,000-acre North Fork Ranger District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. In 2010, forest officials entered into a 10-year agreement with RMEF to oversee forest stewardship projects. The Hughes Creek project is the first to get underway.

RMEF’s Habitat Stewardship Services program, under the direction of Kerkvliet, is developing similar agreements and projects with other federal agencies and local communities across the West. Montana and Wyoming also have seen early successes.

In 2003, Congress authorized the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to enter into stewardship contracts and agreements with groups like RMEF, “to achieve land management goals for the national forests that meet local and rural community needs.”

The “community needs” part of the objective is especially meaningful for Dave Melton of Bighorn Outfitters, one of the local subs awarded a contract in the Hughes Creek project.

He explained, “I’m sure glad to be able to bid on work here in Lemhi County and keep our crew here in town. Otherwise, they may have to leave home to find work in North Dakota like many others have already done in these though times.”

For more information about this project, visit the URL below:

http://www.salmonvalley.org/HughesCreek.html.

For more about the RMEF Habitat Stewardship Services program, visit the URL below:

http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HowWeConserve/Stewardship/Services/

*Editor’s Note* – The following is an article from The Outdoorsman, Bulletin #44 for June 2011. It is republished here by permission of the author.

Read the Truth about Hydatid Disease in Humans

By George Dovel

On Page 3 of the January 2005 Outdoorsman, I described how Hydatid disease in tapeworm eggs spread by wolves causes cysts to form in the internal organs of moose, elk, caribou, deer and humans. I published the following photo of two Hydatid cysts in moose lungs and wrote that in Alaska, more than 300 cases of Hydatid disease in humans had been reported during the 35 years from 1955-1990.

That article described how both Alaska and Canadian F&G agencies publish warnings urging trappers and hunters to wear rubber gloves and protective clothing when skinning or handling a wolf carcass. They also warn dog owners not to let their dogs eat internal organs, to prevent ingesting the cysts (which contain thousands of larvae) and the dog then becomes a host for the tapeworm.

Bangs Lied About Impact of Wolf Parasites

The article pointed out that concerns from APHIS and CDC about the spread of this disease resulting from the importation of wild canines from areas where it exists have been ignored by wolf biologists. It also referred to Pg. 1-20 of the 1993 Draft Wolf Environmental Impact Statement to Congress that stated, “Wolf recovery is unlikely to have any measurable impact on disease or parasite transmission.”

A dozen years earlier, Ed Bangs, who either wrote or approved everything in that Wolf EIS, authored an FWS research report in which he similarly denied the impact of wolf predation on an Alaska moose population.
He knew that Alaska and Canadian wildlife agencies were issuing warnings about the spread of hydatid disease by wolves yet he ignored it. He also ignored expert testimony from several people, including Will Graves and world-renowned parasitologist Dr. Delane Kritsky about the spread of Hydatid and other diseases by wolves, when he published the same lie again in the final Wolf EIS in 1994.

Thousands of Worms per Wolf Hidden From Public

Nearly a year after that issue was circulated, Idaho and Montana State F&G agencies began to quietly count and record the number of hydatid worms found in the lower intestine of dead wolves from each state. William Foreyt, a Wash. State University parasitologist, and veterinarians Mark Drew from Idaho and Mark Atkinson and Deborah McCauley from Montana, conducted the study.

The 10-page September 2006 (FY 2006) IDFG Wildlife Health Laboratory (WHL) Report included only the following sentence about IDFG’s discovery of hydatid disease in mule deer, elk and a mountain goat during necropsy (post mortem) examinations of various species:

“In addition, 1 mountain goat and several mule deer and elk were found to have hydatid cysts in the lungs (Echinococcus granulosa), likely with wolves as the definitive host of this previously unrecognized parasite in the state.”

The report stated: “Wolf necropsies indicated the presence of lice,” but made no mention of their finding E. granulosus eggs in the wolf feces or their finding tens of thousands of adult worms in many wolf intestines. It also mentioned examining fecal samples from 10 live wolves that were captured, but again there was no mention of the existence of the eggs that resulted in the deer, elk and a goat being infected with hydatid disease.
In other words, the inference was that Idaho big game animals were already infected with hydatid disease caused by other predators that were already here before the “nonessential experimental” wolves were brought in.

Annual Reports Did Not “Connect the Dots”

But whether or not that was the main reason for not reporting the massive spread of hydatid disease by wolves, the deception continued. The FY 2007 WHL Report stated: “Wolf necropsies indicated the continued presence of lice (Trichodectes canis) and tape worm (Echinococcus), previously detected last year in Idaho. Wolves are most likely the definitive host of this previously unrecognized parasite in the state”. (emphasis added)

The FY 2008 WHL Report said exactly the same thing but neither report mentioned the hydatid cysts found in the mountain goat and in deer and elk beginning in 2006. All three of these reports were signed by IDFG officials, including two veterinarians, and sent by F&G Directors to the feds, but massive infestations were kept from the public until Tom Remington discovered the researchers’ final report in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases on Dec. 13, 2009.

When the Dec. 2009 Outdoorsman published the truth about the cover-up of the wolves’ spread of disease in Idaho and Montana, plus facts about hydatid disease and wolves by Dr. Valerius Geist, the tapeworm counters published a few facts mixed with half-truths and even several absurd lies to try to discredit our information.

First Absurd Lie Published by Mainstream Media

In newspaper articles in both Idaho and Montana, the study’s lead author, Parasitologist Foreyt, claimed, “You’d have to eat the eggs in the feces, not just inhale them, in order for the tapeworm to take root (in humans).” If that were true, how did tens of thousands of deer and elk get the disease?

If you believe they caught it from eating wolf feces, please don’t read any further. This is a perfect example of the “dumbing down of America” that explains why most people no longer question the agenda-driven “reporting” they read in their newspaper or watch on TV.

Not even one letter-to-the-editor was printed in the Idaho or Montana newspapers questioning this so-called “expert’s” absurd claim that humans have to eat wolf feces to become infected. This apparently prompted Panhandle Region Supervisor Chip Corsi to publish the following directive to Regional IDFG employees:

“Based on Mark’s assessments (attached), human health risk is quite low, provided you avoid consuming things like canid [canine] feces and uncooked organs; and I think suggests Dovel’s interpretation is more than a bit sensationalized.”

Drew’s Documents only Address Eggs Still in Feces

Corsi was referencing several documents prepared by tapeworm counter/veterinarian Mark Drew, which were promptly cited by the urban media as additional information from a so-called “expert” to denounce the facts published in The Outdoorsman (see “Who’s afraid of the big bad tapeworm” by environmental activist Rocky Barker in the Jan. 28, 2010 Idaho Statesman).

Barker copied the propaganda in Drew’s papers, which apparently attempted to provide a flimsy alibi for the States’ failure to warn its citizens of the billions of hydatid tapeworm eggs it had allowed to be deposited over the landscape where citizens live, work and recreate. In response to the question, “How do I prevent getting infected with this parasite if I am a hunter, trapper or outdoor enthusiast?” Drew wrote, “The potential for human exposure to E. granulosus eggs in wolf feces or fecal contaminated hides is relatively low.”

He suggested wearing latex or rubber gloves when skinning a wolf or coyote or when handling feces from wolves or dogs, washing your hands after handling feces, and said all wild game meat should be butchered as soon as possible after killing. He warned that all wild game should be cooked thoroughly and cautioned that uncooked meat or organs of deer, elk, moose, etc. should not be fed to dogs.

But landowners who have spent years attempting to control weeds, parasites and diseases that are transported over distances of a mile or more by wind, water, birds animals, beetles, flies and other insects, expressed outrage that Drew only addressed danger to humans while the eggs are still in the feces. He made no mention of the fact that eating unwashed wild foods such as asparagus, mushrooms and berries or drinking water that is not in the immediate vicinity of the feces are still sources of infection in people.

The Second Lie – “Sylvatic Infection Is Not Severe”

Drew implied such precautions are really not that important with his false claim: “The human infection with the northern biotype of E. granulosus is relatively benign.” In a Jan. 16, 2010 Lewiston Tribune article that mentioned the Dec. 2009 Outdoorsman and Dr. Geist’s comments, Foreyt added, “The news media have overblown this – that it is going to affect people and animals and it really is not. If this wildlife strain ever does affect people, they usually don’t produce any serious problems.” Drew added that people diagnosed with the disease can be treated with medication.

These dangerous myths, promoted for about half a century by Parasitologist Robert Rausch, were based on treatment of elderly Eskimos who had no symptoms but whose hydatid cysts were accidentally discovered during chest X-Rays to detect early TB. Most of those Eskimos, with no symptoms of disease, were treated without surgery.

But more recently, university medical teams from Winnipeg and Edmonton pointed out the failure of the older reviews cited by Rausch to include patients who were actually suffering from Sylvatic Hydatid disease – rather than only those fortunate enough to have survived supposed cyst rupture or calcification in their lungs.

With an impressive number of case histories from 1987-97 and 1991-2001, these Canadian doctors found no difference between either the severity or the complex treatment of sylvatic vs. domestic versions of the disease. (see Pages 4 & 5 of the Jan. 2010 Outdoorsman).

Instead of using these published reviews of actual medical cases involving the sylvatic tapeworm, the tapeworm counters chose to use the flawed reviews from the 1950s and 1960s as their source of information on the impact of the Northern wild Hydatid strain on humans. In fact 30% of their published reference data was written by Robert Rausch who also verified the identity of the tapeworms for them.

If medical doctors ignored facts to resurrect flawed theories the way many wildlife officials are doing, it would doubtless result in a much shorter lifespan. The following disputed claims published by the tapeworm counters in the October 2009 issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases are designed to make citizens and their elected officials believe there is not a significant health hazard from the tapeworms:

“The human infection produced by the northern biotype is relatively benign”; “Because the northern biotype has low pathogenicity in humans, the human health hazard potential is not as important as the domestic biotype, which has more serious ramifications in humans”; “In humans, the cysts are primarily in the lungs, and the cysts often have poorly developed cyst walls, few or no protoscoleces, and often the infections resolve via rupture and expulsion.” (emphasis added)

Few Treated Hydatid Disease Cases Are Reported

Even in places where reporting treatment of human Hydatid disease is required by law, only a small percentage of the humans treated are actually reported. For example a five-year study of hospital records in just the Australian State of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory from 1987-1992, found that 321 separate patients were treated for hydatid disease but only 17* were reported! (* despite a mandatory reporting requirement until 2001)

In the U.S. and Canada, anyone who claims to know how many people were treated for the disease in recent years – much less claiming to know the ratio of lung to liver cysts in untreated patients – is not telling the truth. A recent composite of reported cases showed liver-63%, lung-25%, muscle-5%, bone-3%, kidney-2%, brain-1% and spleen-1%.

Recent Sylvatic Hydatid Disease in Alaska Humans

In 1999 in Alaska, only two cases of hydatid disease were reported, both apparently resulting from the Northern Sylvatic biotype, yet both were described as “life threatening”. They were discussed in detail in the Jan. 2010 Outdoorsman, and are briefly re-mentioned here.

The first patient, a 51-year-old Caucasian woman with no symptoms, was misdiagnosed as having a simple liver cyst that was felt during a routine physical exam and confirmed with ultrasound. She was sent home without treatment but three months later, she suddenly became sick and died three days later, reportedly from a leaking hydatid cyst that was never diagnosed while she was alive.

The second 1999 Alaska patient, a 17-year-old Native woman, experienced an extended period of painful illness, high fever and surgical treatment of two sylvatic* hydatid liver cysts. After a 30-day hospital stay, including transfer to a larger hospital for observation, she took two daily 400 mg doses of albendazole (wormer) for another 12 months and was then pronounced free of symptoms.
(* The sylvatic infection was confirmed by subsequent genetic testing of the cyst material in an Australian facility)

In Feb. 2010, after I published so many case histories of patients treated in Canadian hospitals for serious sylvatic hydatid cyst infections in the Jan. 2010 Outdoorsman, the barrage of propaganda in the media ceased. But there was no attempt by the tapeworm counters, state F&G officials, several elected officials or the media to correct any of the widespread misinformation.

New F&G Excuse to Hide the Truth

Following my publication a month ago of the Outdoorsman article by the lady whose hydatid cyst was not diagnosed for two years despite life-threatening complications, at least one IDFG official is now trying to claim there is very little danger of human infection because heat and low humidity kill the eggs once they are released from the pile of wolf scat. But that appears to be simply another example of trying to invent an excuse to cover up the potential of human infection over large areas in the two states.

Page 178 of the 2008 OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) Manual stipulates a minimum water temperature of 185 degrees F to kill E. granulosus eggs, or a minimum dry temperature of 158 degrees F for at least 12 hours. It says that chemicals will not kill all of the eggs and decontamination of laboratories requires a constant 86 degree F temperature with 40% or less relative humidity for at least 48 hours.

Because of lower morning temperatures and higher humidity, no place in Idaho or Montana where such records are recorded ever meets those specifications. With the extreme wolf densities in many areas resulting in a 90% infection rate and up to tens of thousands of tapeworms in each wolf, a continued supply of infective eggs is assured.

Factual Information from Bona Fide Experts

Hydatid disease was recently declared eradicated in Tasmania because strict control of the sole definitive host (domestic dogs) and the intermediate host (sheep) was finally achieved after 40 years of effort. But bona fide experts in mainland Australia say it can never be eradicated there because a sylvatic (wild) strain of infection continues, with wild dogs and dingoes as the definitive host blanketing the landscape with eggs – and their wild prey, kangaroos and wallabies, eating the eggs and developing cysts, which continues to perpetuate the disease cycle.

According to the 2007 Primefact 475 publication titled, Hydatids – you, too, can be affected, “This makes the eradication of the tapeworm impossible, and the wildlife cycle of increasing importance in human infections, especially in areas bordering National Parks where control of wild dogs/dingoes is difficult, and in suburban areas fringing regional towns.”

The updated Australian publication also explains, “At one time it was thought that the strains in the domestic life cycle and the sylvatic life cycle were distinct, but it now appears that they are genetically the same.” These experts, who have managed to finally eradicate hydatid disease in both Tasmania and New Zealand during the last decade, realize that without the ability to eradicate the sylvatic disease in the wild canids, their effort to eradicate it in mainland sheep and dogs can never be successful.

Unfortunately, the hydatid disease problems described in the Australian mainland parallel the situation in Idaho and Montana. That is probably why Idaho’s world-renowned parasitologist, Dr. DeLane Kritsky, wrote, “The only way that the parasite will be eliminated from our area is elimination of the wolf” (see page 16 of Feb-April 2010 Outdoorsman).

Australia Published Facts – Not Unsupported Theories

Because the early reviews of hydatid disease in Alaska and Canada dealt with the sylvatic (wild) strain, the lung cysts they assumed had ruptured at some earlier time without ill effects (in the elderly Eskimos they X-Rayed) may have simply died. The very same thing happens in some cysts in intermediate hosts from the dog-sheep strain in Australia, but unlike their early Alaska counterparts they reported facts – not assumptions – as follows:

“As the [intermediate host] animal gets older, some of the cysts die and form scars. Often, dead cysts become filled with caseous (cheesy) material, or they become calcified, but the outer laminated layers can still be distinguished microscopically.”

Then instead of speculating this phenomenon meant that the Australian dog-sheep strain of hydatid disease is also “more benign” and has “low pathogenicity” in humans, as Rausch has done with the wolf-moose strain, the Australians reported the facts:

“Hydatids in humans is a serious disease…the formation of cysts in the body is always dangerous and their surgical removal is never straightforward. A major concern during surgery to remove cysts is that brood capsules can float free within the cyst. If a cyst ruptures, the brood capsules can spread through the body and secondary cysts can grow wherever they come to rest. This contributes to the high level of recurrence (37.5% of patients). Deaths from hydatid disease still occur both before and after surgery.”

Incomplete Information Puts Citizens at Risk

Unfortunately for residents of Idaho and Montana who live, work or recreate in the outdoors beyond the confines of the cities, their state government officials are pretending the only significant risk to them of catching hydatid disease is either from handling wolf feces or wolf carcasses, or not properly supervising what their dog eats or rolls in. For those who fail to monitor what their dogs and other pets eat, they are told to wash their hands after handling the animals and worm them with Praziquantel every six weeks.

Although six weeks is reportedly about how long it takes for most E. granulosus tapeworms to reach maturity in the intestine of a dog or wolf, the pet owners are not told that the wormer may not last beyond the initial worming day. Also it does not kill any eggs that may exist in the gravid section of the tapeworms, or those that exist in the intestine or in the animal’s coat, and it is these eggs which cause the disease in humans and other intermediate hosts.

Dog owners are not told to stake their dog on bare ground when worming and for a significant period after worming – and then to pour kerosene on that ground and burn it to kill the eggs. Nor are they warned that allowing access to lawns, vegetable gardens, water sources, etc. to dogs, raccoons and other animals with the eggs on their coats will provide another source of contamination for humans even in their homes (see warnings from Dr. Geist).

Otter’s Promise to Kill Wolves Nets Poor Results

Despite Idaho Gov. Otter’s promise to significantly reduce the number of wolves impacting big game since conditional management of wolves was returned on May 5th, only five Lolo Zone wolves have been killed by a USDA Wildlife Services helicopter gunner team, a sixth was shot by an IDFG officer and none were killed by the designated outfitters and their guides. A seventh wolf was shot in Elk City by local Sheriff’s Deputies (see photo).

State Agencies Protect Wolves – Not Citizens

Despite expert testimony warning MT Legislators of the serious impact hydatid disease spread by wolves will have on humans, opposition by MTFWP and other state agencies criticizing the cost defeated legislation to protect Montana citizens. When similar legislation (HB 343) passed overwhelmingly in Idaho, Gov. Otter’s refusal to declare a wolf disaster plus his failure to use the necessary tools to halt the spread of disease has had the same result.

Instead of protecting the health and welfare of private citizens and their constitutional right to enjoy their livestock, pets and other private property, the governors and their bureaucratic agencies continue to protect wolves and the diseases they spread. Pretending that sport hunting and trapping seasons advocated by biologists will resolve the problem is just another excuse to implement their destructive agenda with less public resistance.

Citizens Forced to Protect Themselves from Disease

Private citizens, and county governments that realize what is taking place are being forced to educate and protect themselves from the disaster that is being forced on them by both federal and state bureaucrats. The following photographs may help you understand the parasite that is infecting humans, and the long-term massive changes that take place once its eggs enter the human body:

Except in snow or extreme cold which preserves the eggs, wolf feces are disturbed by assorted creatures, including humans riding horses or ATVs on the trails. Lightweight and invisible to the naked eye, they are soon spread across the landscape settling on both vegetation and water* where some are ingested by the intermediate hosts.
(* Surveys indicate that contamination of water may be the second highest source of human infection in some areas.)

Danger! – Do Not Puncture Cysts

Once the eggs are ingested by humans the stomach juices dissolve the protective membrane (“eggshell”) and the tiny hooked embryos “hatch” and soon bore through the intestinal wall into veins or lymphatics. If in the veins, they encounter the liver first where some began to grow into a cyst, but others travel on to the lungs or other organs.

Development of the cyst, including its size and rate of growth is dependent upon the type and age of the host and many other factors including the organ it is in. One of the 17 Northern sylvatic liver cysts reported by the Winnipeg hospital reached a diameter of 10-1/4 inches in an 18-year-old woman before it became life-threatening.

A single fertile cyst may contain millions of “grains” of “hydatid sand” which are actually juvenile worms waiting for a canine to eat them so they can attach to its gut and grow to adults. But if the cyst is accidentally punctured whether by a doctor, someone examining a dead body, or a butcher cutting up the meat, the cyst fluid may spurt into their eye or mouth and create new cysts without the stomach or eggs being involved.

Hundreds of mature E. granulosus tapeworms, averaging about 1/8? in length, attached to the lower intestine of a dog.

For doctors and others who want accurate, truthful medical facts concerning hydatid disease, the U.S. Military has provided the latest version of the 1,700-page medical journal, “The Imaging of Tropical Diseases,” free at: http://tmcr.usuhs.mil/tmcr/chapter3/intro.htm Then click on “next page” to continue. WARNING!! Do not accept as factual any statement from any state Wildlife Vet or F&G official or other State bureaucrat (Ag., Health & Welfare).

Oh, for crying out loud! Does the editorial staff of the Idaho Statesman really think they know what it is that they call “good science“? They are calling on, “Idaho officials to show that they can make judicious decisions that ensure a balance between wolf and big-game populations.” At the same time they declare that making those “judicious decisions”, is “good science and good politics”, and ask for more of it.

First of all, the Idaho Statesman knows nothing about “managing” wolves or wildlife for that matter. They seem to base their assessment of wolf management on politics or court rulings they agree with. To them this is “good science”?

Secondly, while parading the claim that achieving a balance of wolves and big-game animal populations is “good science”, what is that claim based on? Oh, yeah. Sorry! Good Science!!

Toby Bridges explained just the other day about all the decisions that have been made concerning wolf introduction and management as being “junk science”. Does junk science then become good science because we want to agree with it? Or is it not junk science because government paid officials state it as so? Bridges relates:

Science is a wonderful tool when it is used for the right reasons. But when it is used to lie and deceive, to cover up what’s really happening, and to support a radical agenda, perhaps it should be handled as a criminal offense.

Was it “good science” when scientists told the people, in order to sell their fraud, that 100 wolves in each of three states was enough to recover the population? Does the editorial staff at the Idaho Statesman now believe the “good science” does not include wolf hunts because it fits a narrative? Has the staff also abandoned all hope for “good science” because due to excessive and frivolous lawsuits, we are now subjected to the intervention by Congress?

Just what the hell is “good science”? Yeah, yeah! I know it’s that magical balance between “managing” wolves and having enough big-game animals to sell enough hunting licenses to keep the cash flow going.

The Idaho Statesman can’t even get the court rulings straight, showing they fail at basic knowledge of the topic they are trying to form opinions on. They state:

State leaders have argued, some 15 years after the release of 35 wolves in Central Idaho, that this population can no longer be considered “endangered.” They barely acknowledged that neighboring Wyoming had failed to come up with a responsible plan for maintaining a sustainable population— which is why Molloy put the northern Rockies’ wolves back under federal protection.

Two big and incorrect issues here to dispute. The editorial staff claims Wyoming “failed to come up with a responsible plan for maintaining a sustainable [wolf] population-”. Which is an outright false statement. Wyoming did and has all along had a plan to maintain wolves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved that plan and then only AFTER pressure from environmentalists, did they renege on Wyoming’s plan. Court rulings have cleared any confusion about this and shame on the Idaho Statesman for its failure to know this and/or point this out. While eager to chastise those who “barely acknowledged” their perceived Wyoming problems, they are guilty of presenting incorrect information barely acknowledging the truth of the matter.

The second piece of bad information is the Statesman’s claim that Judge Donald Molloy returned wolves to the Endangered Species Act list because Wyoming didn’t have a responsible wolf plan. Again, absolutely not true. If the Idaho Statesman did its job, or perhaps chose to publish facts instead of unsubstantiated claims, and read all court rulings pertaining to the delisting processes of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, they and their readers would understand that Judge Molloy returned wolves to protection because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to remove wolves from federal protection in Idaho and Montana and not in Wyoming, stating that it was his interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that you cannot delist wildlife species based on state boundaries.

While all this information continues to infest the media outlets worldwide, rotting the brains of readers only interested in believing what they read, they all have it wrong. The laws that guide the Endangered Species Act have been broken, twisted, manipulated, abused and administered using Toby Bridges’ “junk science” and yes, it amounts to what Robert Fanning, founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, calls “scientific fraud”.

The Endangered Species Act, which is the instrument used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to introduce gray wolves and manage those populations during and after recovery, clearly states what criteria is to be used in the implementation of the Act.

Section 8A(c)(1)&(2) – Scientific Authority Function, reads as follows:

FUNCTIONS.—(1) The Secretary shall do all things necessary and appropriate to carry out the functions of the Scientific Authority under the Convention.
(2) The Secretary shall base the determinations and advice given by him under Article IV of the Convention with respect to wildlife upon the best available biological information derived from professionally accepted wildlife management practices; but is not required to make, or require any State to make, estimates of population size in making such determinations or giving such advice.(emphasis added)

Not only does the Endangered Species Act not read ANYWHERE in it that “good science” is needed to find balances between wildlife and politics, it also does not say that implementation of the Act must be based on social demands. Got that? It clearly refers to “best available biological information”.

It does NOT say: good science; best science provided by government scientists; science provided by the Center for Biological Diversity; science given by Ed Bangs or Dr. David Mech; science provided by well-paid environmentalists’ lawyers; science created by Judge Donald Molloy or any other judge or court; science based on computer modeling; and a myriad of other scientific, non scientific, junk science or any other available propaganda sources, including rogue Congressional bills designed to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

The Act demands the “best available biological information”. This must come from all sources and not be limited to just government sponsored information sources or have all decisions and authority given to one person or one group of persons. The Act does not make that stipulation. There are no restrictions as to where the “best available biological information” must come from. For the administrator of the Act, and the Scientific Authority, who happens to be the Secretary of Interior, fails in his duties to utilize the “best available biological information”, he or she should be called on a failure of duties and made public. Continued failures should result in firing the person from that position.

In addition, the Courts fail miserably when their own rulings are based on limited “available biological information” because they either refuse to consider “all and best” available science in rendering decisions or worse yet, they rule with complete disregard of this part of the Endangered Species Act.

To utilize the term “good science” is nothing more than calling for the support of “junk science”, social demands and politics in attempting to determine how to manage gray wolves. It is all of these things that has mired us in the wolf wars of which it appears even dirty and underhanded, good-ole-boy politics will not render any solution.

There is one thing for certain. If the Idaho Statesman really wanted to do something about finding a solution to this problem, the first thing they can do is stop publishing false information and making claims in which they know nothing about. They should take the time to read the Endangered Species Act to first understand what laws are supposed to govern this event, in addition to actually reading and understanding what the court rulings actually say. Then and only then can they be taken as a legitimate source of information and editorial opinions based on facts.

We ache to move on!

Tom Remington

Guest blog by Toby Bridges
Republished with permission from the author.
The original article can be found at Lobo Watch.

July 2011

It is now very apparent that when plans were first being made to bring wolves back into the Northern Rockies, knowledgeable “wolf scientists” must have been extremely rare – and extremely far and few in between. When one takes the time to mull over the so-called Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan, and especially the long and drawn out 1994 Environmental Impact Statement filed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, drafted before the first wolves were released into the Greater Yellowstone Area in 1995, and compares the “facts” within those two documents with what we now know has happened and continues to happen, it becomes very clear that the chosen experts knew little if anything about wolves.

In those days, the team of wildlife biologists, managers, ecologists and environmentalists pushing to “reintroduce” wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem and throughout the Northern Rockies definitively established that to achieve a recovered wolf population it would take 100 wolves, with a minimum of 10 breeding pairs, in each of three states – Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. And that goal was achieved in 2002. At that time, according to the “Recovery Plan” and the 1994 EIS, management was supposed to have been turned over to the state wildlife agencies. But, it was not.

Although the team of “scientists” and “wildlife biologists” who drafted both of these official documents signed off on the recovery goal numbers well before the first wolves were released, intervening environmental groups, including the Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity, began filing lawsuits to prevent wolf management hunts. And this is even though the wildlife agencies of these states had voluntarily planned to insure a minimum of at least 15 breeding pairs in each state. And that battle continues to this very day.

By the time wolves had reached the agreed upon recovery goal in 2002, it was already evident that those scientists who drafted the plan and EIS had missed their predictions, their claims and their promises to a concerned public by a country mile. Hunting is not just a recreation in the Northern Rockies, it is a way of life, with many families relying heavily on the harvest of elk, deer and other big game to supplement how they keep their family fed. It is also big business. In fact, in Montana alone hunting is an annual $230-million-plus boost to the state’s economy. And well before the first 17 wolves were released into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, Congress proclaimed that the planned project was to “not hurt hunting”, to “not hurt ranching”, and that the release of wolves in the Northern Rockies was not to threaten any other endangered species – i.e. the grizzly bear.

Wolf impact on other wildlife resources was realized by 2002. One of the first elk herds to be severely impacted by wolf depredation was the Northern Yellowstone elk herd. In 1995-96, when the first wolves were released, that herd numbered between 19,000 and 20,000 – and as wolf numbers quickly grew in and around the park, elk numbers dwindled quickly. That summer when wolves reached their recovery numbers, this herd was already down to 12,000. Currently, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd numbers right at 4,000 animals.

The so-called wolf experts who contrived the Recovery Plan claimed that the average wolf would kill around 14 big game animals yearly. Subsequent research, observing what was actually happening once the wolves had far surpassed the recovery goals, established that the average wolf was killing between 20 and 30 big game animals annually – for sustenance. Likewise, they were killing nearly the same number – simply for the sport of killing, eating nothing. That meant the average wolf was killing between 40 and 60 animals each and every year. The “scientists” who drafted the plan failed to even address what is now referred to as “sport killing” or “surplus killing”.

These same wolf specialists also failed to address other aspects of wolf impact that just may prove to have an even greater impact on elk, moose, deer and other big game populations – and that is the stress the wolves put on pregnant females. With the reintroduction of the wolf into the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, the spring calf to cow ratio has nose dived. In many areas where the survival rate was once 30 to 50 calves per 100 cows, it is now down into the single digits – 6 to 9 per 100 cows. Elk biologists realize that it takes at least 30 to 35 calves per 100 cows to sustain a hunted elk herd. Just to sustain itself without being hunted, a herd must realize an 18- to 20-percent calf survival.

Wolves, mountain lions and grizzlies all account for a high rate of calf loss during late spring and early summer calving. However, where wolves very likely make the biggest impact on the calf-to-cow ratio is through the winter, prior to calving time. Wolves put continual pressure on its prey base during the lean months of December, January, February and March. Constantly kept on the move, there is little time for elk to fatten up for the harshest weather of the year. And as cow elk become heavier with a calf fetus inside, the stress of that constant pursuit is now causing a high number to abort the fetus. And this is an impact factor that our wolf “scientists” either purposely ignored, or were not knowledgeable enough about wolves to even realize.

Another oversight was just how this would affect the overall health of big game herds, especially elk. When USFWS brought in the first Canadian wolves into the Yellowstone area, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd averaged 4 to 5 years of age. Due to the excessive loss of calf recruitment, the herd has gotten much older on the average – now between 8 and 9 years of age. Many cows are now reaching an age where reproduction becomes biologically impossible.

Math is an integral part of science, the part which can be most easily manipulated. That can now be witnessed with the “guesstimated” wolf populations that now roam the upper two-thirds of Idaho, all along the western half of Montana and in the northwest quadrant of Wyoming – and which are now moving into Washington, Oregon and Utah. Our experts claim the region is now home to around 1,700 wolves – even though the wildlife agencies in these states do not have the technology or the manpower to accurately assess. The hundreds of thousands of sportsmen who spend most of the year in the outdoors say that number wouldn’t even account for half the wolves in the Northern Rockies. And one of the most respected wolf scientists in the world, Dr. L. David Mech, of Minnesota, tends to agree with them.

Mech was deposed as an expert witness for the 2008 wolf delisting hearings, and in his declaration he established that even with natural death losses, and wolves culled by hunters and animal control officers, the Northern Rockies wolf population was, then, more than 3,000. Today, the number is more like 4,000 – with as many as 1,500 to 1,600 in Montana alone. Still, the wolf specialists with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks continue to downplay the wolf numbers, claiming there are “at least” 566. Next door in Idaho, wildlife managers also tout a number far below the real number, generally claiming 800 to 900.

The “science” Dr. Mech presents that scares the daylights out of those who continually push for more wolves is the level of reduction it’s going to take in order to stop the destruction of other wildlife populations. In that same declaration, he stated that to just stop the growth rate of depredation could mean eliminating upwards of 50-percent of all wolves in the Northern Rockies. To pull big game populations out of what is referred to as a “predator pit” situation would require culling 70-percent or more of existing wolves.

Plaguing the science of the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project even more is the wolf which USFWS chose to transplant from north-central Alberta, Canada as the replacement wolf for the “reintroduction”. It is not the same subspecies as the wolf that was native to the region. Prior to the importation of those non-indigenous Canadian wolves (Canis lupus occidentalis) , the native wolf of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming was a smaller subspecies (Canis lupus irremotus) . Many residents of the region have stated there were still several small pockets of the native wolf in remote areas when USFWS began bringing in the larger and more aggressive non-native Canadian wolves – and that those native wolves were soon eliminated by the invasive species.

Sportsmen are now seriously questioning how USFWS chose to bring in an entirely different wolf to repopulate one of the richest wildlife ecosystems in the U.S. They tend to feel that bringing in that subspecies would be no different than if the agency arbitrarily chose to truck a few thousand pronghorns from the plains of Wyoming down to Mexico to supplement the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, or to help out the endangered Florida Keys Deer by transplanting noticeably larger whitetails from the Midwest. Then there are Idaho’s extremely endangered woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), will USFWS come to their rescue and transplant Central barren ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) from the Canadian Arctic? Is this science…or playing God?

More and more, people who live in the Northern Rockies are accusing USFWS of actually violating the Endangered Species Act by introducing, not reintroducing, a wolf subspecies that never lived in the region. And that those non-endangered Canadian wolves have destroyed any chances of ever truly re-establishing a population of the native wolf. The manner in which USFWS, with the encouragement of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Defenders of Wildlife, pushed for such an accelerated recovery project of wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park has many residents suspecting their agenda has much more to it than re-establishing a wolf population. More now claim it is all a part of the spurious “Wildlands Project” (now called the Wildlands Network) and the United Nation’s “Agenda 21″ – with goals to greatly reduce human utilization of rural lands.

Recently, one prominent NASA scientist, James Hansen, was accused of illegally accepting more than $1.2-million from well funded environmental groups to support their “Stop Global Warming” agendas. The manner in which some state wildlife agency biologists now seem to be favoring the “let nature balance itself agenda” has many sportsmen, who are the primary financial supporters of these agencies, wondering if the “selling out” problem has now come much closer to home. In the same light, many overly radical environmental professors who are teaching our future wildlife scientists are now under public scrutiny.

A new area of wolf-related science that is just now surfacing is the threat of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm – which close to 70-percent of all wolves tested in the Northern Rockies now carry – and spread widely during their long ranging hunts. Every pile of scat left by these wolves could deposit thousands of the tapeworm eggs, which can result in cystic hydatid disease in elk, moose, deer, livestock – and even humans. The eggs of this parasite can cause health and life threatening cysts on the lungs, the liver and on the brain. Once contracted, detection of hydatid disease could take years. Having the cysts surgically removed presents a new danger. They are filled with a cloudy liquid, filled with tiny tapeworm heads, and should one burst, either during surgery or on its own, leads to a severe allergic reaction, called anaphylatic shock – and possibly death. When a cyst does burst, it can spawn the growth of multiple new cysts, making surgery a tricky procedure.

As wolf numbers continue to grow in the Northern Rockies, so will the chances of contracting the disease. It already has many outdoor oriented people afraid to enjoy harvesting and eating wild berries and mushrooms, which could be covered with microscopic tapeworm eggs. Several cases in humans have now been reported, and a growing number of hunters are finding the cysts on the lungs and livers of elk, deer and moose harvested.

Science is a wonderful tool when it is used for the right reasons. But when it is used to lie and deceive, to cover up what’s really happening, and to support a radical agenda, perhaps it should be handled as a criminal offense. Montana resident Robert Fanning, the founder and C.E.O. of the group known as the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd refers to the science used throughout the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project as “scientific fraud!”

The evidence says he’s right. – Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH

Note: Robert Fanning is one of many who feel that the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project is the greatest wildlife disaster of our lifetimes, and definitely not a conservation success story. He believes those who are responsible should be held accountable. He points out that Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd has carefully preserved it’s standing to sue and expose this criminal scientific fraud.

*Scroll for Update*

On July 9, 2011, Dr. Charles Kay will be a guest speaker at a “Free Barbecue Dinner” event in City Park in Salmon, Idaho, sponsored by Idaho for Wildlife. It appears that as posters were being distributed and emails exchanged and whatever methods were employed to pass the word of the event, the communication broke down and some people began thinking that Idaho for Wildlife was some radical animal rights group.

Dr. Kay’s address on the 9th will deal with the problems associated with attempts at wolf recovery, mostly in dealing with the truth that wolves have long since been recovered and now the problems are associated with what to do with too many wolves. In attempts to clear up any misconception that Idaho for Wildlife is some animal rights group and that Dr. Kay perpetuates this nonsense, he has offered the following statement:

“In the final analysis, wolf recovery has nothing to do with wolves. Instead, it is all about the elimination of livestock grazing/ranching and the banning of hunting. Just look at the stated agendas of the groups that sued to keep wolves under federal protection.

“There are two AND ONLY TWO solutions to livestock depredations by wolves. Get rid of the livestock or get rid of the wolves. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Ranchers need to understand that ALL non-lethal methods eventually fail and are not a permanent solution.”——–Dr. Charles E. Kay!

*Update*

We have updated the Dr. Kay event location to the following:

·Location: Lemhi County Fairgrounds
Address: Fairgrounds Rd off of Hwy 93N, Salmon, Idaho

Date: Saturday, July 9th
Time: Free Barbecue dinner at 4:30, Dr. Kay Speech at 6:00

Directions: At the intersection of Courthouse Drive and U.S. Highway 93 North; leaving Salmon on U.S. Highway 93 North you will travel 3.5 miles. Turn left onto Diamond Creek Road. The Lemhi County Fairgrounds main entrance is located to the left

For a map: