It was a beautiful early September evening in the rugged mountains of Idaho, and 23-year-old Tina Lind, of Grangeville, was enjoying her very first season hunting with a bow. She and her boyfriend, Ryan, had spotted a good five-point bull out in a clear cut – and chasing cows. They decided to go after him.

“After getting set up, we let out a bugle and the bull screamed back at us. I could hear him racking his horns around in the brush, but it didn’t sound like he was coming any closer. We moved in on him, got set up again, and let out another bugle. The bull came running right in. At that point, my adrenalin was really pumping. The animal stopped perfectly broadside at thirty yards…I drew back…buried my sight pin behind his shoulder…and squeezed the trigger of the release. I heard a solid hit, and the bull ran for about fifty yards before falling over. I was ecstatic!” exclaims Lind.

Taking a nice bull with a bow, during her very first archery elk hunt, was surely a memory that Tina Lind will most likely remember for the rest of her live. She and Ryan gave the elk thirty minutes before walking over to where they had heard it go down.

“As we walked up to the bull, my eyes welled up with tears – what a beautiful animal,” Tina remembers thinking to herself.

After admiring the five-point bull and taking a few photos for a few minutes, the pair rolled up their sleeves and got right down to the work at hand…field dressing and quartering the bull to insure a great winter meat supply. Ryan took care of the field dressing, and after he had reached in, cut the windpipe with an extremely sharp hunting knife, he pulled out the lungs to show Tina where her four-bladed broadhead had passed through, to produce such a clean and quick harvest of the 500-pound elk. They immediately noticed unusual looking liquid filled pockets that had formed on the lungs. Neither of them had ever seen anything like them before. The first thought that went through their minds was…were they tumors? Was it cancer?

The pair did the right thing. They put the lungs into a plastic bag, and took them to a local Idaho Department of Fish and Game office. There, a biologist said he believed them to be hydatid cysts, caused by the elk ingesting grasses and other forage that had held the microscopic eggs of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm – a parasite that is now being widely spread by an excessive number of wolves now roaming the Northern Rockies. And those wolves are now spreading billions of those eggs across the landscape of this region every year, creating a health hazard for most other wildlife, livestock, pets and even humans.

“Ryan and I had only heard of this once or twice before, but thought it was just a virus that effected only the wolves, not ungulates or even humans. We had no idea how hazardous to one’s health this disease could be. Needless to say, we now have several packs of latex gloves in our packs to protect ourselves while field dressing, and will check over all the organs every time we harvest an animal. I am still super excited over the bull I harvested, however, every time I go to cook the meat, I will be reminded of the vicious disease that these ‘introduced’ wolves are spreading throughout our state,” remarks successful bow hunter Tina Lind.

The photos of the lungs have been circulated on a number of Facebook pages and on several internet websites. A number of resulting comments have criticized whoever handled these lungs with their bare hands. But, is there really any danger in handling lungs or other internal organs of game that are covered with such cysts? LOBO WATCH went to one of the world’s most respected authorities on the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm and on cystic hydatid disease for some answers. That individual is Dr. Valerius Geist, PhD., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Calgary.

“The cysts contain thousands of tiny tapeworm heads floating in a liquid supporting them. I have lived for some 50 years with the understanding that in elk, deer, moose, caribou, etc., neither the cyst’s liquid, nor the tapeworm heads are anything to worry about. They cannot infect you, even if you swallow them – and who would? To a human patient, who carries these cysts, it’s of course a very different matter. Should the cyst burst (internally), then the liquid will generate a severe allergic reaction. Anaphylactic shock may be the consequence. And that can kill the patient on the spot,” advises Dr. Geist.

As for eating the meat of any game harvested that may have hydatid cysts on the lungs, liver or other organs, he points out, “Native people have been eating hydatid infected moose, caribou and deer forever. The meat is safe.”<<<To Read the Rest and See Photographs, Click Here>>>

This is a great example of a news(?) organization with tons of resources and yet it exemplifies lazy journalism. Not one bit of effort was put into obtaining facts in this story – only to repeat the same old rhetoric, much of it being scientifically refuted. This is the same thing that takes place in the print media. One person, often bought and paid for by environmentalists, which is much the case in this report, repeats his or her unscientific drivel and the same biased media laps it up and simply repeats it without seeking a different opinion, say nothing about seeking actual facts.

Until this kind of blathering is met with facts and exposed for the lousy, biased faux journalism it is, actual science will continued to be shoved into a back, dark corner someplace. Unbeknownst to the majority of Americans, they end up being the big losers in all of this.

The below photos are gruesome but importantly relevant to residents and hunters in the Northern Rocky Mountain region, as well as all regions of this country where wild canines exist. These photos were taken of the lungs from an elk that was recently killed during an elk hunt, archery I believe, somewhere just northeast of Lewiston. A layman’s examination of the photos certainly leads one to believe this bull elk’s lungs are densely infected with tumors, probably hydatid cysts, a condition that occurs when elk and other ungulates, as well as humans, become infected through ingestion of the tiny echinococcus granulosus eggs.

Once discovered by the hunter who harvested the elk, the lungs were taken to a nearby Idaho Fish and Game office. The person was told the lungs would be sent to a lab for testing. Results are not yet available.

It was discovered approximately 5 years ago that around 60% of all gray wolves tested in the Northern Rocky Mountain area carried tapeworms indicating the existence of echinococcus granulosus. Wolves and other canines, wild and domestic, that are infected, drop there worm-laced feces on the ground where the tiny spore-like eggs are transmitted to such things as grazing animals, animals or humans passing by that may disturb the scat, etc. These eggs, often thousands of them, can end up in water supplies, berry patches, and be brought home by unleashed dogs and pets. From here the eggs can easily be transmitted to humans and inadvertently ingested in sometimes unimaginable ways. The threat is serious.

There are officially recorded cases in Idaho of humans with hydatid cysts in their organs. Treatment is difficult at best and sometimes deadly to humans. Detection is difficult compounded with the fact that doctors are seldom looking for this disease. Often it is not discovered until some kind of heavy blow to a persons abdomen ruptures a cyst causing great pain. A rupture of this kind could cause an allergic reaction, an anaphylactic shock, that could be deadly. Removal of the cysts is difficult faced with the same threats of rupturing a cyst causing the further spread of hundreds or thousands of eggs.

I have read inaccurate accounts from people that these cysts do not pose any kind of threat to our wildlife and in particular ungulates like deer, elk and moose. Certainly, upon examination of these photos, can one expect that this bull elk has the lung capacity in his wild habitat to escape danger from large predators such as mountain lions and wolves?

The questions that we are seeing and hearing from hunters and citizens observing these photos, tell us that it appears people have become aware of the existence of this disease. It also tells us we need to do a better job of educating the public of the dangers, how they can reduce those dangers and what precautions need to be taken in handling the meat and what to do with the offal. This is where state government should stop stonewalling this phenomenon and get with the program. It might save a life or two.

This website contains numerous articles on hydatid disease, echinococcus granulosus, facts, tips, and just about all the information you need to know. Please follow this link and begin a research into a better understanding of this dreaded disease.

Thank you goes out to a reader who emailed me the photos and to the hunter that took the elk and photos and is willing to share that information.

A press release today announces that Idaho U.S. Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, along with U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador are proposing a bill in Congress that will amend the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to help prevent what happened to Jeremy Hill from happening again. (You can read the entire press release at the end of this article.)

Jeremy Hill was charged by the Idaho U.S. Attorney for illegally killing a federally protected grizzly bear. Hill claims self defense and/or defense of his children. The U.S. Attorney thought otherwise. A plea bargain was reached and Hill agreed to pay a fine.

The Idaho delegation is proposing a change to the ESA that, according to their press release (below) is worded in this fashion: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . the provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any grizzly bear by an individual who demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual carried out the taking as a result of 1) self-defense; 2) defense of another individual; or 3) a reasonable belief of imminent danger posed by the grizzly bear to any individual.”

In fairness, the release should have included what the ESA says now: “Section 11, (a)(3): “(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.”

Senator Crapo states: “Passage of this legislation will send that message, loud and clear.” Seriously? Would somebody tell me please what in this “clear” and “loud” message, ensures that nothing like what happened to Jeremy Hill happens again. Not only is this rewording not an amendment of any kind, they are not even addressing the real issue here.

The current wording of the ESA places the onus on the individual to show the government he or she was acting in self defense or the defense of others and protecting them from bodily harm. The new “amendment”, places the onus on the individual to prove to the government that he or she was acting in self defense or the defense of others for protection. Is there any difference between a “reasonable belief” and a “good faith belief”? If the idea of changing the words “good faith belief” with “reasonable belief” of imminent danger will, in your mind, do the trick, weigh it against what the U.S. Attorney said in the Jeremy Hill case.

Obviously Attorney Wendy Olson had no notion to think that Hill and his family were ever in any kind of “imminent” danger because she charged him with failure to notify a federal officer to come and deal with a nuisance bear. She believed Hill should have first gotten a permit before he killed the bear. I think there’s a far cry difference between a nuisance grizzly bear and one that is perceived by a father of several children to be of “imminent” danger.

This amendment still places the responsibility solely on the back of the individual, through preponderance of evidence that there was reasonable threat. This is supposed to be a country of the people and by the people, then why not amend the ESA and force the government to prove, through preponderance of evidence, that a person was NOT in imminent danger?

But the press release couldn’t get the facts right and fails miserably to address the real problem. Those reading this release, who haven’t followed closely every action of this case, are led to believe Jeremy Hill got off Scott-free. The release states: “On September 8, the U.S. Attorney dropped all charges against Mr. Hill, after he agreed to pay a fine.”

The U.S. Attorney did NOT, I repeat did NOT drop all charges against Jeremy Hill. Tell me. Are there Americans living today in this country who think that the government can just levee a fine against you for no reason at all? Hill was blackmailed and extorted for $1,000 dollars by the U.S. Attorney. Charges weren’t dropped. The only thing that changed was a plea deal to avoid going to court. This is wrong. This is what really happened and yet the Idaho delegation doesn’t even address it. As a matter of fact they fail in presenting what really happened.

The tragedy here is that Hill was an innocent man. No jury on this planet would have convicted him. The Idaho U.S. Attorney was flat out wrong and existing laws could have easily proven that. What’s wrong with the ESA and the legal system in general is that people like U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson are given the authority to extort American citizens like Jeremy Hill because out of fear they know they will buckle.

The Idaho delegation attempted to address the issue of what is “reasonable belief of imminent danger” believing this somehow will protect the next person from the wicked powers of the government. And yet they blundered in first not recognizing Hill’s actual plight and secondly not creating an amendment that would protect Hill and others in the future from being of victim of government extortion.

This case and all other cases in the future, with or without this proposed amendment, will still simply leave the interpretation of what is perceived by a person as a threat, up to a U.S. Attorney and possibly the courts.

As Bill Cosby wrote in his latest book: Come on people! We can do better than this!

Tom Remington

Idaho Delegation Press Release

GRIZZLY LEGISLATION PROTECTS ACTS OF SELF-DEFENSE

Idaho Delegation introduces bill to improve ESA

Washington, D.C. – Ambiguities in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have prompted Idaho’s Congressional Delegation to introduce legislation clarifying the rights of individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones from grizzly bear attacks. Idaho Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Congressman Raúl Labrador say the legislation would amend the ESA to permit actions carried out against grizzly bears in self-defense situations.

The Delegation members note that these proposed changes to the law would be a drastic improvement over the current ESA regulations protecting the grizzly bear, which make it possible, but extremely difficult to legally take a grizzly bear in an act of self-defense or defense of another human. The new legislation states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . the provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any grizzly bear by an individual who demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual carried out the taking as a result of 1) self-defense; 2) defense of another individual; or 3) a reasonable belief of imminent danger posed by the grizzly bear to any individual.”

On August 8, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for Idaho charged an Idaho man, Jeremy Hill, with a violation of the ESA for killing a grizzly bear on his property near Porthill, Idaho, in defense of himself and his family. The government’s decision to charge and prosecute Mr. Hill sparked an outcry from countless Idahoans, local elected officials in north Idaho, and the Idaho Congressional Delegation. On September 8, the U.S. Attorney dropped all charges against Mr. Hill, after he agreed to pay a fine.

In introducing their legislation, Crapo, Risch and Labrador note that the ESA was rightly established to protect threatened and endangered species, but that Congress never intended to do so at the expense of basic public safety and the ability to protect oneself or others in the face of danger.

“We are introducing focused, common-sense ESA reforms limited to dangerous grizzly bear encounters to ensure that this unfortunate situation depriving an individual of his or her rights never happens again,” Crapo said. “Like Mr. Hill, all Americans need to know that they can protect themselves and their families when confronted with a seemingly imminent grizzly attack. Passage of this legislation will send that message, loud and clear.”

“Everyone who followed Mr. Hill’s case understood that he was not hunting a grizzly bear. He was protecting his family, which he truly believed was in harm’s way,” said Risch. “This legislation will allow an individual to act in self-defense without having to mount a costly defense for their actions, if done appropriately. This is a common-sense change that needs to be passed.”

“Our success with increasing the grizzly population has now collided with the common-sense right of self-defense when encountering these and other predators in the course of normal life,” Labrador said. “This legislation will amend the Endangered Species Act to ensure that future, unavoidable confrontations between man and beast do not end with the federal government placing the protection of the animal before the safety of people.”

The grizzly bear legislation will be referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which Crapo is a member; and the House Natural Resources Committee, of which Labrador is a member.

According to the Idaho Fish and Game website, at the rate wolves are being slaughtered since the commencement of the wolf hunt, if nothing changes in methodology and equipment allowed to hunt with, it should be about 233 years, 4 months, 8 days and 13 hours before wolves go extinct in the Rocky Mountains area……..that is, according to my “modeling”.

Tom Remington

Exposing the Wolf Reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park

For more information on this film, visit this site:

*Scroll for Updates*

The Idaho U.S. Attorney’s office released a statement with their explanation of why they extorted $1,000.00 from Jeremy Hill. Hill, originally charged by the same U.S. Attorney’s office with unlawfully killing a grizzly bear, made the decision to pay the fine instead of facing a court proceeding, the time, expense and stress it would cause him and his family. This, of course, is the action the U.S. Attorney’s office was hoping for. This is nothing short of blackmail and extortion.

However, one has to wonder if what drives the Federal Government these days is a struggle for power, personal agendas within certain departments, ignorance or just overall corruption. Perhaps all of the above.

Consider the following issues:

We know that the Endangered Species Act is not the supreme law of the land when it comes to dealing with endangered species. Unfortunately, history shows us that this has not been the case, as we have discovered in this most recent display of tyrannical Government overreach into the rights of a person to protect himself and his family.

Lost also through history is the intent behind the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The intent of the ESA was not to protect threatened species at all costs, including the life threatening situation that faced the Jeremy Hill family, but to do what was reasonable to preserve our resources FOR THE PEOPLE…F-O-R T-H-E P-E-O-P-L-E. This is the human element in which the progressives in this country, which includes environmentalists, animal rights, animal welfare and anti-hunting groups, wish to bring to extinction.

Can we not ask ourselves one very simple question? If man placed no value on these resources for their own uses, then why create a giant piece of legislation to protect it? Protect it for what purpose?

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Idaho stated that Mr. Hill was “ticketed” and fined $1,000 because of laws that he broke. Cited were “violation of one of regulations authorized by the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(G) (stemming from his violation of 50 CFR §§17.40(b)(1)(i)(C)(1) and (2)).”

1538(a)(1)(G) states: “(G) violate any regulation pertaining to such species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife listed pursuant to section 1533 of this title and promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to authority provided by this chapter.”

That tells us nothing. Section 1533 is all about what determines an endangered species. So, evidently, without getting too specific yet, the Feds determined that Jeremy Hill broke a law. But which one?

50 CFR §§17.40(b)(1)(i)(C)(1) and (2) tells us that Mr. Hill is guilty of failing to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order that they come and deal with nuisance or troublesome grizzly bears.

The U.S. Attorney’s office stated the following about what it determined from the investigation:

During the course of their investigation, state and federal wildlife officials were unable to establish the location of Mr. Hill’s children when the three grizzly bears were first sighted in the yard, about forty yards from the Hill home. Mr. Hill informed law enforcement that he last saw his children outside playing basketball in front of their home, but that he did not know where his children were when he saw the three grizzly bears near his pig pen. He stated that he was concerned for his children’s welfare. By the time Mr. Hill fired the final shot, he was aware that all of his children and his wife were inside of their house.(emphasis added)

Even though the ESA states in Section 11, (a)(3): “(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.”, the U.S. Attorney decided she knew what happened that day even though her own investigation reveals “officials were unable to establish”. Her “preponderance” calls Hill a liar.

Preponderance of evidence, as is required in the ESA, means that there must be strong evidence that Mr. Hill killed this bear to protect his children. What is it exactly that the U.S. Attorney is seeking in this case?

The ESA, Section 11(a)(3) is there in order to help establish the fact that no animal, regardless of the extent to which some agenda-driven freaks wish to protect it, can be used against a person claiming to be protecting themselves, their family and property. It’s function is also so that no despotic attorney, senator, governor, judge or president can levee a fine against an innocent man for the sole reason of killing a bear in self defense.

As judge and juror, the U.S. Attorney’s office determined that because they couldn’t establish the exact location of Hill’s kids at the time he pulled the trigger the first time, he was guilty of poaching a grizzly bear. Settling the case and charging Hill $1,000 is a quick way to escape the certain wrath of the people and the clear understanding that no jury in America would convict this man.

The Attorney claims the fine was for failing to call the USFWS and get a permit to take care of a nuisance bear. There should be overwhelming outrage by the people of Idaho and citizens of America that we see before us an appointed official of the United States Government clearly defying the laws in which she has sworn to uphold. This has to end.

I understand Mr. Hill’s desire to end this nightmare for the sake of his family but that shouldn’t mean we should forget about what happened. This action by the United States Government is dictatorial, tyrannical and yes criminal. We should all be outraged!

Michelle Malkin reacts to the dismissal of charges and the fine.

It is a damned shame that the feds extracted a fine from him in these hard economic times and made an example of him

It’s worse than that Michelle…….much worse!

Tom Remington

The Federal Government agreed to drop criminal charges against Jeremy Hill, who faced charges for shooting a grizzly bear on his own property he perceived as a danger to his children playing in the yard. However……………..

I’m not in a position to second guess the decision of Jeremy Hill in this case. Hill’s statement says, “I received a federal civil ticket and have paid the $1,000 fine to avoid putting my family through the emotional strain and the cost of a trial.” What Mr. Hill did was his business.

On the other hand, the real criminals won. The corrupt and criminal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service extorted $1,000 out of the Hills for shooting a grizzly bear he had every right to kill. This is government tyranny, a criminal enterprise focused on fear and intimidation. It needs to be addressed head on and not allowed to continue.

This is just one more reason the state of Idaho should toss these tyrannical bastards out and never look back.

When will this ever end?

Tom Remington

It’s a bloody joke! Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg, and Sen. Jon Tester are each claiming credit for “solving Montana’s wolf dilemma”. This is akin to sticking a finger in the “dijk” (dike or levee) and declaring the leak has been stopped. Oh, please!

This is nothing short of typical political grandstanding all intended to garner votes. The people still suffer and “putting wolf management back in the hands of the states” is not going to have any remedy for a “wolf dilemma”. But we’ll let the children battle it out as to who really wants to take credit for doing nothing and probably in the long run creating a bigger quandary.

The one person of these two I will give the most credit to is Rep. Rehberg. He first cosponsored and then sponsored his own bill that would have simply taken gray wolves off the list of species that could ever be considered for Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection. However, that bill stalled and nobody is asking why.

The article linked to above states, “Rehberg’s proposal [HB 509, a bill to remove the wolf from ESA consideration] has gone nowhere in the House.” Actually, that’s not exactly true. Rehberg’s bill had 52 cosponsors and action was underway to bring more Congressmen on board with this bill. However, special interest and agenda-driven groups began working behind the scenes to derail this effort. This derailment effort came from some very unusual places.

Some people have been led to believe that their Congressional representatives really want something done about the gray wolves. The extent of their concerns mostly surrounds their efforts to get reelected. If it requires concocting some unconstitutional rider bill to get some votes, so be it. I’m sorry if you don’t believe that but that’s your problem and not mine. Keep voting for these same types of people.

This latest “I’m telling momma” display of integrity pretty much seals the deal for me, not that I really needed any convincing.

I have said it before. The Endangered Species Act is the most draconian law on the books today. It has been used, abused, mangled, manipulated, twisted, leveraged and used for just about everything EXCEPT saving legitimate species that might need help.

There isn’t a Congress alive that would agree to alter the Endangered Species Act so bravely as to exempt a species from it. That’s the real reason Rehberg’s bill got stomped on before a vote could come to the House Floor. Consider the precedence this would set and the power brokering abilities that would be snatched from the jaws of corrupt, selfish, greedy, careless politicians. And we haven’t even talked about the environmentalist belly crawlers.

The ESA has been so severely perverted, mostly through the courts, dishonest lawyers and ignorant judges and lawyers, that it is believed to be the supreme law of the land. And thus all existing laws protecting the rights of citizens have been completely ignored.

Many are guilty of this distortion of truth and as such have discovered its powerful uses. For that reason few want to disturb their golden goose. Why do you think Rehberg’s bill “has gone nowhere in the House”?

Tom Remington