During the last attempt to delist wolves, a lawsuit, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, was awarded to the plaintiffs that failed at removing gray wolves from federal protection. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that he was going to place protection of the wolves back under the ESA until such time as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), i.e. Department of Interior, could show how they had the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves, or any other species, for the purpose of delisting that same species.

Shortly after that ruling, I wrote that Friedman’s decision was not at all based on scientific evidence and that the Judge had no legitimate reason to return wolves to protection other than the fact that as a judge, he could.

For what it’s worth, the Solicitor for the Department of Interior, on December 12, 2008, issued an official opinion as to how the USFWS has authority under the ESA to create a DPS in order to delist a species.

In the most recent proposal to delist wolves, the USFWS briefly explains their authority:

Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act, and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service’s program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Our authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding Minnesota) to identify a Western Great Lakes DPS and determine that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act’s protections is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that authority were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the Act’s text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and policy objectives.

The information presented to support the USFWS’ authority to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species within that DPS is not new information. The same information existed in 2008 and yet somehow the USFWS in Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, couldn’t sufficiently explain to Judge Paul Friedman where it got it’s authority; another example of ineptitude or corruption in representing the people in the court of law.

This is but one issue that could possibly derail an attempt to delist gray wolves. If lawsuits, which are as sure to happen as the sun rising in the morning, are intended to stop the delisting, will the explanations given in this proposal satisfy Judge Friedman’s query as to where USFWS gets its authority?

Unfortunately, this proposal to delist is further complicated by adding to it a determination by the USFWS not to recognize another species of wolf cohabiting in the same DPS. Why was it necessary to do this? Why couldn’t the USFWS made a separate announcement or proposal that it did not feel that sufficient scientific evidence existed to determine the existence of another species of wolf(eastern wolf)?

As complex as proposals to delist a species can get, why would the USFWS choose to clutter up this delisting with information pertaining to separate petitions? Efforts like this leave people like me wondering if the real intention of the USFWS is to derail the delisting for personal agendas, etc.

While I and others place our attention of things like whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the courts to explain their authority to create DPS’s for delisting, and whether or not a proposal cluttered with explanations aimed at nefarious petitions and claims of the existence of a brand new species of wolf, in the end all that will matter is what one judge thinks.

Sportsmen in the WGL region shouldn’t spend too much time just yet honing their wolf hunting and trapping skills.

Tom Remington

FORECASTING: WOLVES as of 14 April 2011

Today, there is:

1. An agreement between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and selected radical “environmental”/animal “rights” organizations to appear “reasonable” about “delisting” wolves in selected states and “returning” wolf management to state governments.

NOTE: The USFWS and these radicals are scared stiff that the ongoing and growing budget war in Washington, DC will have the Endangered Species Act suddenly mentioned in the same breath and sentence as “NPR Funding” and “Planned Parenthood Funding”. Also, “delisting” and “returned” management to states will both remain subject to USFWS oversight (numbers, areas, methods of control, etc.) driven by radical lawsuits and federal bureaucratic self-interest.

2. State laws being considered in western states to prohibit state expenditures and support for wolf work as long as federal control remains in place while considering state defiance of federal wolf mandates.

3. Federal legislation in the form of a budget amendment to “delist” wolves in a few named western states and a proposed legislative “delisting” of wolves that has languished as federal Senators and Representatives treat “delisting” much like play-dough as they dodge and weave about budgets, debt, taxes, and “cuts” in anticipation of an upcoming election that threatens more of them that at any time in my experience. NOTE: Anyone not understanding that these same federal legislators and bureaucrats (see #1) will reverse any of this “Band-Aid” (their perception) legislation or budget amendment trickery as soon as the danger of ESA defunding or amendment passes and big game hunters begin watching NBA “games”: well, they don’t understand what they are up against’

4. An activist judge interjecting himself into all of the above as he plays the part of savior of the environmental extremist legislation of the 1970’s.

5. Federal predator control activities’ and budgets are being cutback and are probably becoming vulnerable to elimination as wolves expand their range and numbers, cougars are spreading and “worshipped” (the correct term), coyotes have spread throughout the Lower 48 states, and federal anti-gun activists are working to write and ratify a UN Treaty to ban and confiscate all Americans’ guns and ammunition.

6. State fish and wildlife agencies are “in the pocket” of federal bureaucracies. For example, when I write about wolf problems in Minnesota I am deluged by local fish and wildlife professionals about how there are no wolf problems here: while last year alone federal trappers killed 192 “problem” wolves (for killing livestock and dogs), Minnesota moose herds are disappearing, and deer hunters in wolf country take fewer and fewer deer. When cougars show up in Minnesota (as in Iowa) the state reminds us that “they are protected and ‘native species’ that we should appreciate”. Ditto, Wisconsin where large-wolfpack pictures are held by state agencies for 6 months to be released to the media at the height of the union radicals’ seizure of the state capital; where the state begins an #800 for dog hunters to call about wolf problem areas; and where the deer harvest is down 30% in wolf areas. Yet each state continues to claim fewer wolves than are actually present while assuring the public that “delisting is right around the corner” and everything will be fine as soon as that happens.

In summary, there are positive things underway as public outrage and deadly threats to both human safety and private property grow like a wildfire. There are also very negative things spreading like a plague from wolf expansions, wolf habituation to human environments, and growing wolf danger to rural children and women to the threat of gun prohibitions and the disappearance of predator management by government and hunters and trappers.

In this environment, I honestly pray (because of the lives of innocents that are slated to die from this wolf/predator “worship” debacle being perpetrated by a government charged with “domestic Tranquility” and “the general Welfare”), that any of these current attempts to resolve this national calamity are successful. Under our system of government, the Local government (County and Sheriffs) should be the deciders about whether or not and how many and where wolves, cougars, coyotes, and bears are to be tolerated or allowed in and around the community – No matter who (federal, tycoon, etc.) owns land within the communities’ boundaries. State governments exist to preserve such lawful exercise of local community desires, community values, and community economic health demand. The federal government has NO authority or business forcing any of these dangerous predatory animals on any state or local community.

In my opinion, anything short of either repealing or amending The Endangered Species Act to eliminate: 1. Government taking without compensation, 2. ANY federal government authority to “restore ‘Native Ecosystems’ or ‘Native Species” (for instance wolves worldwide are so abundant and destructive, i.e. Un-endangered worldwide, as to invoke worldwide wonder at the stupidity of Americans allowing wolf introductions, and 3. Any authority for federal bureaucrats to conduct any species restoration activities in any state without state concurrence and specific US Congressional Budget Authority and Authorization. Anything short of these three things or the simple repeal of the ESA only invites future abuses heaped upon these abuses as political conditions permit.

The best analogy here is to think of the ESA as Prohibition. Do-gooders with high-sounding rhetoric obtained passage of the ESA in 1973 just like similar progressives obtained passage of a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” in 1919. Just as the ESA has destroyed rural American communities, Prohibition destroyed urban communities. Just as the ESA corrupted state fish and wildlife agencies, Prohibition corrupted city governments from Police Departments to City Hall. Just as the ESA seemed to call forth a pack of radical organizations and bureaucrats manipulating the ESA for radical agendas, Prohibition similarly brought forth from the immigrant ghettos the Italian Cosa Nostra families and their death-dealing practices to manipulate Prohibition along with bureaucrats for their own nefarious and deadly interests. Just as anti-ESA fervor has grown over wolf abuses nationwide, so too did outrage at all the shootings and prostitution and control of once-legitimate businesses created by gangster families spawned by Prohibition seem to defy solution. Just as the ESA seems immune to being “touched” much less repealed or seriously amended; consider what our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents must have thought about the chances to (Repeal a Constitutional Amendment?). Consider also, that Prohibition was repealed (1933) as public outrage was mounting AND the nation was in the throes of economic collapse and a new President was just elected. Remember all this as we cut federal programs, cut spending, and all pontificate about “restoring The Economy” as we approach a Presidential election.

If Prohibition had somehow been revoked only in New York and Illinois what would have happened? If anti-booze ladies were able to “agree” with ATF to allow only wine and beer in California and Florida, what would have happened? If as the Depression continued, ATF was still chasing bootleggers and arresting bar patrons, what would people have done? Just as we are still investigating, arresting, and imprisoning the Cosa Nostra gangster families spawned 90 years ago in the 1920’s, so too will we be dealing with these pagan environmental/animal rights radicals years from now. Giving them a federal law (as would have maintaining all or some of federal Prohibition have meant to the Mafia) to keep manipulating for their own perverse ends would have been stupid.

Finally, when the rubber hits the road and people begin to be maimed and killed by GI (government-introduced) wolves; the future will be fraught with enormous problems:

1. Government wolf control programs will be either non-existent or so reduced and so staffed that experience and ability to control problem wolves will be unable to respond.

2. Methods of control from aircraft use by civilians (Airborne Hunting Act prohibitions); chemicals (EPA regulations and secondary effect fairy-tales); and denning i.e. killing pups using gas, etc. are “inhumane” and possibly conflicting with the Animal Welfare Act (1976) to trapping (vulnerable to prohibition on “federal lands as proposed under Pres. Clinton); forced (by local governments) wolf controls on federal lands and lands held by wolf “lovers” and on the millions of federal acres sealed off to access by Wilderness and Roadless Declarations and other federal land closures and transportation easements will take much work to sort out.

3. Reduced federal and state budgets are unlikely to have funding to engage in widespread and persistent predator control. Ranchers are no longer large enough components of rural communities to finance widespread control activities, hunters will be reluctant to finance controls, and urban environmentalists and animal rights advocates will be putting stumbling blocks before control efforts at every opportunity. Resulting depressed land values and tax base will simply contribute to the downward rural living spiral.

4. Young men (rural and especially urban) are being “taught” anti-gun, anti-hunting and anti-trapping values in schools and in the media. “Calling”, shooting, trapping, and otherwise killing predators for sport will be and is becoming non-existent.

5. State agencies are no longer staffed by employees both knowledgeable of and capable of managing and controlling predators either by government employees or sport hunters. Additionally, many, if not most of the current state fish and wildlife agency workforce, like their federal counterparts, are diametrically and emotionally committed to protect these predators no matter the cost in human lives, property or political orders.

6. The average state budget in the US recently passed the 50% mark wherein more than 50% of the state budget comes from the federal government. Overcoming this sad fact in the milieu of federal/state bureaucracies intertwined with radical agendas (TNC, HSUS, PETA, Wilderness, NRDC, CBD, etc.) and decades of government hiring and promoting anti-management employees is daunting, if not impossible, to say the least.

7. Hunters, ranchers, and other rural residents directly affected by deadly predators have failed to recognize the threat of anti-fur protests and the decline of the fur market. When there is no use for wolf fur or coyote hides or bear skins, etc. there is little or no incentive for rural men to trap, shoot, or otherwise spend the time training dogs or developing the necessary skills and techniques, and then hunting, trapping, and processing such animals – where and when community values dictate to meet community needs. When such men no longer exist in rural communities, either government or private control programs entail costs too high to do any more than localized and intermittent controls that actually could prove to be worse than no control (by creating islands of few predators that simply serve to attract surrounding and over-populated predators to areas with less competition).

No one knows the future. I see both good news and bad news ahead but I have hope that honesty and truth will win out. Working together, making new allies, and understanding what our goal is and what stands in our way is what will bring victory if we build on the momentum we see growing all around. The real work lies ahead.

Jim Beers

14 April 2011

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net

We reported [here] that the US Fish and Wildlife Service intends to delist Rocky Mountain wolves again, probably at the end of the month. The delisting will include all Rocky Mountain wolves except those in Wyoming.

The rationale for excluding Wyoming is that they have not written an adequate state wolf management plan. From USFWS “talking points”: <<<Read the rest >>>

Tom Remington

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

According to the article, the USFWS was forced into doing this because of three court rulings. Those rulings, along with returning the wolf to federal protection, also force the USFWS to eliminate any Distinct Population Segments they created within the states listed, in order to delist the wolves. It was the ruling of Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. federal court that said the USFWS did not have the authority to create these DPSs.

Where does that leave us in dealing with endangered species then? Certainly if the courts ruled that the USFWS can’t create smaller DPSs, then it would only seem logical that they don’t have the authority to create any DPSs, expand or modify existing DPSs. Friedman’s ruling also would have to bring into question as to whether any existing Distinct Population Segments are legal.

I’m am having difficulty accessing the Final Rule on this at the registry. All I have for information on this right now is what I found at my friends over at WISE. I’ll report more on this and provide a copy of the Final Rule once I’m able to get my hands on it.

Tom Remington

1/2/2008 12:04:38 PM A man wielding a knife was arrested inside a campaign headquarters of Democratic presidential front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton in Decorah, Iowa, police said Wednesday.

Christopher James Faris, 42, of Decorah was arrested Monday evening and charged with carrying weapons and with third-degree harassment. Faris was in the Winneshiek County jail on Wednesday, held on a $5,000 bond, The Associated Press reported.

There’s little to go on here but I sure do have a couple of questions or fifty. The term “wielding” is used in the opening paragraph to describe what this man was doing with a knife (described as a hunting knife). Wield, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means in this case, 1. to handle a weapon. 2. To exercise or exert power or influence.

The article makes little sense actually, perhaps because it is riddled with terminology meant to scare the hell out of people instead of tell what actually happen. First of all, why was it a hunting knife? Was it because this took place in Iowa? We don’t know.

Second, the article first states he was “wielding” a knife but later says nothing happened.

”He just came into the headquarters, just mainly staff was there. There were no comments made about Hillary Clinton at all or nothing like that,” Courtney said. “It was a short episode. He left even before the officers arrived.”

So, what happened? What did he do? Who is this guy? This might explain some of it.

“He’s one of these guys we’ve dealt with before in town here. We’re aware of his behaviors.”

More questions then. What is his past record? Because it seems this guy was holding the knife in his hand it became a weapon? And as such he was charged with third-degree harassment?

The police chief said he had no details on what the knife was only that someone had described it as a hunting knife.

It doesn’t matter whose campaign headquarters this guy might have gone into, the questions would still be here. A quick trip around the Internet to see what the chatter is and I’m finding more than a reasonable amount of talk of another “staged” event at a Clinton campaign headquarters – just prior to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary where the last Clinton campaign headquarters was allegedly going to be blown up.

If this guy’s a whack job get him off the street. I want to know what the knife was he was carrying or supposedly carrying in his hand. The police said he didn’t do anything with it. He was just there.

If this is a staged event, perhaps a second one, then let’s get the other whack job off the streets.

Tom Remington

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) 1 of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) 1 of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) 1 of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

There are no official reports out yet but the Michigan DNR is saying that Michigan sold about the same number of hunting licenses as in the past. They also are reporting that deer harvest rates were up by about 6% in the Upper Peninsula, down 6% in the upper lower peninsula and down 7% in the lower lower peninsula.

Other unofficial reports statewide seems to indicate that hunter participation was low everywhere. A couple weeks ago, Eric Sharp, outdoor writer for the Detroit Free Press, asked where all the hunters were. DNR officials are perplexed and don’t seem to have any rational explanation for that.

Meanwhile, over in Iowa, the Department of Natural Resources is considering an emergency statewide deer hunt because harvest numbers have been so low. To this point in the season, hunters have taken 34,000 fewer deer than was projected. If the commission approves the emergency hunt, it will be statewide and any hunters with unfilled tags will be able to fill them with antlerless deer only.

Iowa officials blame poor weather for the lousy success rate.

Tom Remington

Not all of Iowa would be open to hunting and trapping of the cat. It would be limited to 21 of Iowa’s 99 counties. Those 21 counties are primarily in the southern part of the state where bobcat populations are the highest.

As part of the process, there will be a public hearing in Des Moines on May 30, 2007.

Tom Remington