What some consider the world’s most difficult puzzles to solve, are those where large written documents are essentially shredded and the participants must put all the shredded pieces back together again. The Department of Interior’s third stab at removing gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while not capable of standing up to the world’s most complicated puzzles, appears to be much more complicated than it needs to be, leaving me wondering if this is the intent in order to leave room for costly and time consuming lawsuits. Sigh!

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

According to this article, the federal program that used trapping of nuisance wolves, resulting in their much deserved deaths, will end at the end of this month. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone living with their eyes open. You can read the article to find out what people are saying about the program – who’s for it and against it, etc.

I would like to point something out that very few people know about. In this news article is says:

But with a moratorium on earmarks in Washington, there’s no money assigned to the program after fiscal 2011 ends Friday, when wolf trappers will cease operations.

I find it quite odd, to say the least, that because there is supposedly no funding to trap and kill wolves and as such the program must end, and yet, the administration of the Endangered Species Act has not been funded for several decades and yet it seems to be still in operation.

Do we have some kind of a double standard going on here? What, in our Federal Government? Come on, man!

Tom Remington

Activism posing as wildlife science is setting the proverbial table, that once adorned with the finest of china and exquisite appointments will result in a giant leap toward ending most trapping in large portions of the United States. How can this be?

Environmentalists in this country, spurred on by the powers behind the United Nations and Agenda 21, want you off the land. They don’t want you to own land. One of the ways they intend to make that happen is to eliminate all the reasons you would want to own land and/or take advantage of the natural resources the land has to offer, as well as your preferred means of making a living. These delirious individuals think that you and I have no right to these resources and they would rather they rot than for humans to consume any of them.

Endangered species and implementation of the tyrannical Endangered Species Act is a tool used by these environmentalist groups to accomplish their goals. The agendas vary at prescribed levels but as it pertains to animals, their ambition is to end hunting, trapping, fishing, ranching, livestock ownership, pet ownership, use of any animal for any purpose. Ultimately the mission is to get you off your land.

Drover’s Cattle Network tells us that at the Taking Action for Animals Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 15-18, and Farm Animal Rights Movement’s Animal Rights 2011 Conference (AR 2011) two weeks later on July 21-25 in Los Angeles, attendees were encouraged to work toward the goal of ending ranching and other things.

Securing rights for farm animals and the promotion of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle to the mainstream public were hot topics at both meetings. Attendees were given tips on how to utilize social media, create “undercover” videos and craft effective messages to share their views with others. Speakers and exhibitors also encouraged aspiring activists to hold demonstrations, signature drives for ballot initiatives and leafleting campaigns.

The largest activist groups attended and sponsored both meetings, although messaging differed between audiences. Nathan Runkle, Executive Director of Mercy For Animals, Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing, and Gene Baur, President of Farm Sanctuary, spoke at both meetings. They encouraged a more aggressive, physical approach to eliminating animal agriculture at AR 2011. (Emphasis added)

But this is only one method of achieving dictatorial Marxism as it pertains to our rights and privileges. I have learned that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has given the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, as well as the New Mexico State Game Commission, notice that intends to file a lawsuit to ban the use of leg-hold traps in that state in order to protect the Mexican gray wolf, an introduced, Non-Essential Experimental population of a subspecies of gray wolf. CBD declares that the allowance of such traps violates the “take” provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

CBD would like for all of us to focus our attention on not only whether use of the traps is a violation of the ESA, but also on whether on not any Mexican gray wolves that incidentally get caught in trappers’ traps is limiting efforts to restore the wolf. Trust me. This is all a distraction from the ultimate goals. Assuredly CBD is playing the games they have learned to manage in order to steal taxpayers money through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and pad their coffers, but their agenda runs much deeper than a handful of gray wolves in New Mexico.

In Maine, environmentalists were successful in banning the size of leg-hold traps in designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. Lynx are another animal that is readily abundant in Northern North America but environmentalists have seized on the opportunity to promote their agendas by using the lynx as a tool to limit or ban trapping in Maine. The size reduction of traps was a result of a settlement reached between the state and the environmentalist groups. A lawsuit had demanded the end to all trapping in Maine to protect the lynx.

We are witness to several attempts nationwide by animal rights activists and environmentalists to limit or end trapping and hunting, and that march will continue. However, several moves recently by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) plays directly into the hands of these Marxist organizations.

Few outdoor sportsmen anymore believe that the USFWS is looking out for their interests at all. As a matter of fact many believe they are bought and paid for by the environmentalists and readily submit to their evil ways.

If the CBD is successful in banning leg-hold traps in New Mexico, consider the precedent this will set and the possible domino effect that may result. Before we can examine the domino effect, please understand the following.

The USFWS is currently attempting for the second time to get gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) region removed from the Endangered Species Act list. Aside from the fact that nothing has been done to change the reasons why Judge Paul Friedman denied the delisting, the USFWS is plowing ahead with a second attempt. Why would they do that? It’s anybody’s guess how this will turn out. The problem stems from the USFWS buckling to the agenda driven environmentalists spreading propaganda masquerading as science and they are considering the declaration of a brand new subspecies of gray wolf, calling it the eastern wolf. On top of that, they say both species are sharing the same habitat. Think about that for a moment but in the meantime…….

Magically as well as illegally, the USFWS decided that gray wolves didn’t inhabit much of the eastern United States. Instead it was the “eastern” wolf, now a subspecies of the gray wolf.

I say magically, because many actual scientists don’t buy into the trumped up BS that there is another species of wolf. It’s all political and a great and powerful tool ready at the hand of the environmentalists. One would swear that this is exactly as the USFWS intended it to be. (Attempting to delist the gray wolf while discovering a new species of wolf would effectively render the delisting a moot effort.)

I say illegally because the courts had ordered the USFWS to return to the 1973 maps that determined that gray wolves were officially listed as an endangered species in 47 of 48 lower states, excepting Minnesota, whose population of existing wolves were declared “threatened”. Two judges have told us that the USFWS does not have the authority to draw boundary lines to create a “Distinct Population Segment” of any species in order that that species be removed from the ESA list. That was Judge Paul Friedman and Judge Donald Molloy. Judge Donald Molloy returned gray wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming back to the ESA list because he determined that species don’t recognize boundaries and therefore you couldn’t delist wolves in Idaho and Montana and leave Wyoming out.

Never determined in any of this is that if both judges are correct then how can there be anything different than all 48 states have endangered wolves or no states have endangered wolves? On the same level, if the USFWS doesn’t have authority to create boundaries to determine “Distinct Population Segments” then how can the USFWS then randomly decide to remove the gray wolf from the ESA in the eastern third of the nation and then decide to create another “Distinct Population Segment” of endangered eastern wolves? Inquiring minds want to know. Is the USFWS selectively heeding some court rulings while turning a blind eye to others?

(Note: The USFWS also declared mountain lions “extinct” in much of the eastern half of the country. How can they legally do this? Judge Molloy and Friedman say they can’t.)

But, I am getting off subject. Imagine if you will that the USFWS is successful in their continued effort to fabricate a new species of wolf and then is successful in placing that wolf on the ESA list within that portion of the U.S. so designated as critical habitat.

Consider also that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) wins their lawsuit to ban leg-hold traps in New Mexico citing it as a violation of the “take” provision of the ESA. Is there a better than even chance that same success in court would be sought after for all of the “eastern wolf” habitat? Why not?

The state of Maine has already buckled under the pressures from the environmentalists to ban snaring, a very effective way to control coyotes that are destroying the deer herd. In addition they settled a compromise effort to reduce the size of the leg-hold traps to no larger jaw spread than 5 3/8 inches in hopes to reduce “incidental takes” of Canada lynx. Now, imagine what will become of what’s left of the deer herd and other important ecosystem creatures, if environmentalists can ban all leg-hold traps in order to protect a wolf. And before someone makes the absurd statement that hunters can hunt coyotes, then tell me how does a hunter differentiate between an “eastern wolf”, of which nobody has ever seen before and an eastern coyote, proven to be a hybrid of coyote, domestic dog and gray wolf?

Tom Remington

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.

While visiting with my brother this summer, he was forever waving one hand in front of my face and saying, “Watch the hand! Watch the hand!”, intending to convey that while the other hand was behind his back doing something sinister, all my attention was on his waving hand.

Government politicians, along with slimy judges and corrupt fish and game departments are constantly waving a hand in front of your face while preparing the other hand to stab you in the back or kick you in the groin. This is what’s going on with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’s double-dealing hand waving about the proposal to delist gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes.

Watch the hand! Watch the hand!

Isn’t the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) special? They care about the citizens’ desires in that region to help offer some relief from overblown gray wolf populations that they are saying they intend to delist (remove from federal protection of the Endangered Species Act) the gray wolves because they have fully recovered. I emboldened that last bit to draw your attention as I will follow up on this momentarily.

While you’re watching the one hand of USFWS the other is cheating and scheming on two fronts…. at least. Perhaps you are unaware of one or both of these.

Appearing to give a rats left ear about you, the USFWS says they want to delist wolves, while at the same time, with a hand behind their backs, they magically produce a second species of wolf, i.e. the eastern wolf. Before I go any further, let me ask readers this question. For as long as the corrupt USFWS has been trying to delist wolves in the Northern Rockies, why did it take an illegal act of Congress to achieve that goal? Continue!

Any fool knows that not even experts can look at a wolf and tell you what kind it is. Heck, most can’t even tell the difference between a wolf and a coyote. So, to cover the back end of the USFWS, who are trying to be friends with sane people and not lose the financial support of their environmentalist insane friends, they whipped up a new wolf species, knowing full well doing such would not allow for any kind of population control of Western Great Lakes gray wolves. This is the plan, in case you are not aware.

Employment of the gray wolf as a destructive tool of the environmentalist, progressive movement hasn’t run its useful course as of yet. The rules change constantly.

With this blackhearted chess move by the USFWS, nothing will change. What can change? How are fish and game biologists and authorities, let alone hunters and trappers, going to be able to go about “managing” delisted gray wolves when they are sharing space with the Disneyesque eastern wolf?

To refresh your memories, this maneuver also came about right after there was the serious threat of Congressional legislation that would remove “gray” wolves from administration efforts of the Endangered Species Act. What better way to counter a law targeted for “gray” wolves than to change the species and give it a different name.

If this isn’t enough, consider the fact that this kind of deceitful crap has been going on in politics since the first time the word ever appeared in the English language. There once was a day when these criminals did a better job of hiding their evil ways. Today, either people have gotten smarter or the crooks in Washington have gotten dumber (I’ll accept somewhere in the middle).

The USFWS says that the gray wolves have recovered. According to the U.S. Sportman’s Alliance, the same USFWS claims they don’t know how many gray wolves there are or eastern wolves living in shared quarters in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment region.

The FWS has issued proposed regulations (for a third time) to remove the WGL population of gray wolves from the endangered species list. Since the WGL wolf numbers exceed recovery goals by 600 to 1,000 percent, delisting is fully warranted. But the proposed delisting rule includes a nasty surprise: it says there are two separate wolf species in the WGL region – gray wolves (Canis lupus) and eastern wolves (Canis lycaon). The FWS does not know how many of each roam the region, but still believes gray wolves are recovered.

Can you not see the shell game going on here. This is intellectual, as well as, scientific rubbish and an insult on the intelligence of some of the dumbest people around (please take this as a light-hearted joke to make a point).

I’m reminded of a true story about my nephew when he was just about 3-4 years old. He was having a difficult day and didn’t want to eat his lunch. His father instructed him that he was not going to get down from the table until he had finished his lunch. I was visiting at the time, so my brother and I removed ourselves from the kitchen and went to sit in the living room. In a short bit, my nephew enters the room with wide eyes and childlike dishonesty and exclaims, “Dad! I’m all done eating my lunch……but don’t go look, Okay?”

We are supposed to think and act like the 3-4 year old children the U.S. Government thinks we are. Okay, okay! I’ll ask the question. If the USFWS doesn’t know how many gray wolves there are and how many eastern wolves there are, how in the hell do they know whether the gray wolves have recovered?

Oh, wait. Follow me on this. That’s their backup plan. Knowing that the environmentalists will file lawsuits, this will give them perhaps enough ammunition to win their case that wolves can’t be recovered if USFWS doesn’t know how many there are. Get it?

(Note: And we haven’t even begun to discuss how this will all play out in Judge Paul Freidman’s court. Remember, he was the judge that last ruled in the WGL wolf delisting lawsuit, stating that the USFWS didn’t have the authority to create Distinct Population Segments.)

Bill Horn, who is U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) Director of Federal Affairs, and is a former Assistant Secretary of the Interior in charge of the USFWS and Endangered Species Act, calls this move by the USFWS as a “treat deal”. USSA also makes this statement: “Why the FWS has taken this two species proposal step, contrary to the best scientific evidence, remains unknown.”

And within the very same paragraph, their own Bill Horn answers it.

“This trick deal allows the Administration to tell the Western Great Lakes states and hunters that it favors delisting, while winking and nodding to its activist pals that delisting is set up to fail,” said Horn.

It shouldn’t be a surprise to the USSA as to why the USFWS took this approach. What hasn’t made itself clear yet, at least in my mind, is what the USFWS is up to when it declared the mountain lion extinct in the East followed up immediately by its announcement that there now exists an “eastern wolf” species.

Stay tuned and wake up!

Tom Remington

From the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance:

(Columbus, OH) – The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (USSAF) and a group of state sportsmen’s organizations have submitted comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for returning recovered wolf populations in the Western Great Lakes region to state management. Western Great Lakes wolves are currently on the Endangered Species List (ESA). This is the latest in the long-running saga of the USSAF’s support of scientific wildlife management.

In April, the Service announced a proposal to remove Western Great Lakes region wolves from ESA protection. This move would allow wolves in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to be controlled by state wildlife managers.

USSAF’s comments to the Service highlight two major reasons for delisting this population.

First, the comments point out that wolves in the region have far exceeded recovery goals. Second, USSAF’s comments address a critical scientific issue created by the Service when it also announced that it may recognize a second species of wolves in the Western Great Lakes region. An incorrect finding that two species of wolves exist in the region would open the delisting to a challenge by the anti-hunting lobby seeking to prevent the return of wolves in the region to state management.

USSAF’s comments are supported by the affidavit of wildlife and wolf genetics expert Dr. Lisette Waits. Dr. Waits’ comments highlight wolf genetic studies and other scientific facts showing there are not two separate wolf species in the Western Great Lakes region and thus, the Service should not recognize a second species.

Joining USSAF in its comments are the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Dairyland Committee of Safari Club International Chapters of Wisconsin, Whitetails of Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Firearms Owners, Rangers, Clubs, and Educators, Inc.

“For years, science has shown that these wolves have far exceeded recovery goals,” said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president of government affairs. “Additionally, we hope that the Service will look at the prevailing scientific facts that show only one wolf population exists within the Western Great Lakes region and it will avoid letting the antis use this unsupported claim as another roadblock to rightfully returning wolves to state management.”

Previous efforts to delist recovered wolf populations have been reversed as a result of lawsuits filed by animal rights groups. In those cases, the reversals dealt with technical issues and did not question or overturn findings that wolves have met recovery goals.

Click here to view a complete copy of USSAF’s comments.

Perhaps one could say that it’s a bit too late to be trying to conduct a transition study to learn about the movements of deer in a varying landscape when there are so many wolves, the collared deer are getting killed off by wolves faster than they can keep up.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (MDHA), and Turn In Poachers (TIP) have announced the winner of the 18th annual Deer Hunter Ethics Award. This year, the Hunter Ethics award was presented to a local outdoorsman and businessman from the Red River Valley. Craig Baker of Xtreme Trophy Properties in Hawley, MN was honored on April 29th at a local MDHA Banquet. The Smokey Hills Chapter of MDHA welcomed their area members to the Frazee Event Center for their annual banquet. Joe Cannella , Development Director of MDHA and Doug Bermel, President of Turn In Poachers were in attendance to present the award to Craig.

The annual Deer Hunter Ethics Award honors deer hunters who have exhibited conduct during the 2010 season that can serve as an example of admirable hunting practices, according to MDHA. The award is designed to bring the spotlight to those who positively represent the sport of deer hunting through their thoughtfulness, actions, and genuine concern for their fellow outdoorsmen.

Nominations were submitted from around Minnesota through letters or e-mails explaining the actions of the nominees and why those persons were worthy of this recognition. Both youth and adults were eligible for this annual award, but all nominees were required to be Minnesota residents. The ethical incidents for which hunters were nominated must have occurred during any of the 2010 Minnesota deer hunting seasons. (archery, firearm or muzzleloader)

Craig showed genuine concern for his neighbors and exemplified ethical hunting practices during the opening weekend of the Minnesota firearms season. As the recipient of the 2010 Ethical Hunter Award, Craig received a framed MDHA print, gift package, and a complimentary MDHA membership. Banquet organizers and sponsorship groups also thanked the dozens of people who took time to forward nominations for this award.

Below is Joe Cannella (left) of Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, presenting Craig Baker with the Deer Hunter Ethics Award.

Click Image to Enlarge

Pictured below are Craig Baker (left), Joe Cannella and seated is Doug Bermal of Turn In Poachers

Click Image to Enlarge

*Editor’s Note:* Upon a request from Mrs. Bartell, I am posting the following synopsis of what transpired at a recent community meeting in Challis, Idaho. The meeting featured representatives of the Western Predator Control Association, who spoke about a tape worm, Echinococcus Granulosus, which causes hydatid disease, a very serious cystic disease that is difficult and expensive to treat and can be fatal to humans. There is reference in the below article about a woman who recently had hydatid cysts removed from her liver. While I have no reason to doubt the information provided by the woman’s husband at this meeting, efforts are underway as I write to pull together as much official information in this case as this is extremely serious. There is little need to spread panic among the citizenry, however, now that it appears that humans are beginning to contract this disease, serious steps will need to be taken. This is a sobering public safety issue.

Dear Mrs. Bartell,

Here belatedly is a brief synopsis you requested of the presentation given in Challis Idaho, by the Western Predator Control Association. I seem to always sit straighter in my chair when I know I am writing something for a retired school teacher, but please bear with my faults as I try my best to give you an overview of the meeting. On April 30th Dr. Clay Dethlefsen and Dr. Jack Ward , both representing the Montana based Western Predator Control Association (WPCA) gave the residents of Custer County an update of their research on the canine strain tapeworm Echincoccus granulosus and the resulting complications of Hydatid Disease that results from cysts that form around the parasite as it invades different organs of the ungulate or human body. The disease is dangerous to the host for many reasons, organ function can be impaired, cysts may burst causing lethal shock, and rapid growth of cysts can displace organs causing physical complications. The surgical remedies for removing the cysts are extremely dangerous and costly. Dr. Dethlefsen, President and Executive director of the Association, gave the majority of the presentation with Dr. Jack Ward the Medical Director of the Association being called upon to share his expertise from a long career in the field of Ungulate Pathology. From the opening of the meeting on, Dr. Dethlefsen made it very clear that the focus of their presentation was not about eliminating wolves but was totally focused on their research attempts to produce data that would give Counties in the western states a real handle on the extent of the Echincoccus granulosus infestation geographically, and the level of infestation of all species that may have contracted this parasite from the Canadian Gray Wolf. Several disease vectors were discussed, including canine fecal contamination, mechanical spread of the disease by birds such as magpies, ravens and eagles, and new to most of us, the spread of the disease by insects such as wasps. Dr. Dethlefsen indicated that fecal contamination of our water systems from spring time sheet flow (runoff) through canine fecal material would be a major health issue for us to consider. Health officials in both the countries of Turkey and Romania claim a large percentage of cases of Hydatid Disease infections in their human populations comes from contaminated water supplies. A four phase Eradication Program was discussed that was presented very simply as an effort that would be carried out at a county level until the threat of Hydatid Disease was removed. The plan seemed to have its origination from several countries where the effort was successful in controlling the disease. Those countries were Tasmania, Australia, and Turkey . The Plan followed this order:
1. Preparation Phase
2. Attack Phase
3. Consolidation Phase
4. Maintenance Phase

Dr. Dethlefsen repeated again that the focus of Western Predator Control was to produce Data that would enable Western States to accurately determine the degree of contamination of their ecosystems at the county level and at three demographic interfaces, those being Wilderness, Urban, and Residential. The point was clearly made that the Eradication Plan would be carried out most stringently at the Urban and Residential interfaces and that the “Protocols” were VERY EXPENSIVE!!!!!

At this juncture ,the rather disturbing issue of “Pet Protocols” was brought up. Since the country of Turkey was most advanced in designing regulations for treatment of domestic animals including cats and dogs, in this aspect, Dr. Dethlefsen reviewed what was required for our cats and dogs. The animals must be kenneled during the duration of the Protocol, their feces would need to be collected and destroyed to prevent re-infestation and the kennel area would need to be properly sanitized upon completion of the drug treatments. The drug Praziquantel was used and administered three times at two week intervals at an estimated cost of fifty to sixty dollars per treatment per animal (This is what Ed Bangs SHOULD have done with his wolves but did nothing!!!!!) This would put the cost of the drug treatment alone at over $150.00 per animal with the added expense of the kenneling. In Turkey the disease is considered so dangerous both health wise and economically that the treatments are funded by the government. The meeting then turned to the issue of the Scope of the Eradication Program. At this point both Dr. Ward and Dr. Dethlefsen concurred that all “sister” counties MUST be involved in the same control efforts if there is to be a successful elimination of Echincoccus granulosus. This would include sister counties across state lines. Dr. Dethlesen covered some aspects of sampling of canines, ungulates, and avian species that volunteers could do in lieu of training that WPCA would be giving for those people in each county that were interested in helping out with sampling. A very interesting issue came up at this point , Dr. Dethlefsen made the statement that it was just as important to find out with the sampling effort what areas had NOT been infested YET as it was those areas that were infested. He reiterated that by finding “clean areas” we could determine where the parasite was being carried from and we could put great emphasis on keeping those areas “clean” and pursuing the infestation where it was occurring.

Sadly another case of “deliberate incompetence” on the part of Ed Bangs came up when a question was fielded regarding the types of “care” given the Canadian Gray Wolves before they were released into our states. Dr. Dethlefsen stated that NO significance was given to the Echincoccus issue as a health threat to humans in the introduction areas and as a consequence the only treatments given the wolves for both the hard and soft releases were for THE HEALTH OF THE WOLVES!!!!! Everyone in the audience realized instantly that we had been allowed to believe that the wolves had been screened and treated for any threat to humans from diseases they were carrying , but in reality NOTHING had been done in this regard!!! The audience at this point was very visibly angered!! At this time a man from the audience stood up and faced the room and remarked that to Ed Bangs and Company the tapeworm was a non-issue, but to his family it was an extremely devastating disease, since his wife had just had a Hydatid cyst removed from her liver. He stated that the family was hoping and praying that there were no more cysts that the doctors had missed. The gentleman remarked that his part of the cost for his wife’s surgery was 63,000 dollars!
Question and answer time came next, with both Drs. Dethlefsen and Ward fielding the questions. An outfitter asked why Canada was not having a problem with Hydatid disease and if cougars and bears were also carriers? Dr. Dethlefsen responded that Canada was having a problem with Hydatid Disease at the present but that it was hard to extract the data from them because there was a lockdown on Canadian medical stats and he was not sure why. He responded to the second question that bear and cougar did not appear to be a significant carrier of the disease and that indeed in Asia there was a porcine strain of Echincoccus that bears carried but that it was not an issue here in North America. The conclusion of that question and answer was that the sampling being done would be very revealing as to which species in our ecosystems were the greatest carriers of the tapeworm and that when the data was in, Western States could take appropriate actions, but the actions must be science driven. An overhead was used during this time that showed the sampling data that WPCA had generated so far in testing Wolves from Ravalli County , Montana, from Lemhi and Custer Counties in Idaho, and from areas in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. The level of infestation was from 62% to 84% with the samples generally well distributed over the sampling areas. Clearly our counties in Idaho have a very serious problem to deal with since a 2006 report on Echincoccus in the north central part of Idaho showed over 60% of wolves as carriers of this tapeworm. Senator Jeff Siddoway asked some very pertinent questions, and then concluded that Dr. Dethlefsen was telling us that the only way to deal with wolves as the main carrier of Echincoccus granulosus was for Idaho to kill ALL the Canadian Gray Wolves. Again Dr. Dethlefsen was very firm in replying that he did not tell us that, but was showing us that we had a POTENTIAL health disaster to get prepared for and that WPCA could help by revealing to the counties where the carriers were and had come from. At this point Mrs. Bartell, yours truly, asked a question I had been waiting a long time to ask of somebody with the background to give us an authoritative answer. I asked Dr. Clay how the Echincoccus tapeworm traveled thru the hosts body and if could become systemic to a point that the tissues or meat of the carcass was contaminated. I think his shocking answer finally got through to our local cattle producers who have had their heads in the sand. He answered that upon ingestion of shed eggs from the gravid section of the tapeworm, the eggs hatch and mature and some migrate thru the intestinal wall and usually get into the blood stream. From the blood stream the worm can end up in several organs, such as the liver,lungs, or brain. Other viable worms can end up in the capillary buds thus contaminating the tissues of the carcass!!!!! Dr. Dethlefsen stopped for a few seconds to let the impact of this sink in. He then continued by stating that if the Hydatid Disease is found in either wild or domestic ungulates the days of asking , “How do you want your steak done?” are over!!!!!! The meat if eaten MUST be WELL COOKED!!! That was as close to a rancher’s wakeup call as I ever think I will ever hear!

In closing, Dr. Dethlefsen advised us to look into designing local ordinances, to study our State C Constitutions and local ordinances that are already in place for controlling infectious diseases. Also briefly discussed at the meetings end was the abuse of NEPA mandates which dictate by law that “HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY BE CONSIDERED AS WELL AS ECONOMIC IMPACTS BEFORE A SPECIES IS PROTECTED OR RELEASED IN AN AREA OF CONCERN”.

Mrs Bartell, I know I am leaving something out but this will give you an idea of what was covered at this informative meeting. I believe we are going to start up a WPCA chapter in Custer County and I know that Lemhi County already has. We hopefully will start to sample as soon as possible. Tell folks they can Google up Western Predator Control Association or WPCA to check out this group for themselves.

Tim Kemery

It wasn’t even 2 months into Barack Obama’s presidency when he declared, “Today, I’ve signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations,”. The U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance (USSA) today is beginning to think Obama’s “restored” scientific process has conjured up a fictitious new specie of wolf.

The USSA was one of the organizations spending valuable money attempting to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to once again make an attempt to delist wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. Their hopes heightened when they learned the Feds planned to publish a Final Rule declaring the wolf recovered, only to be crushed to hear in the same press release that a new specie of wolf was discovered.

Bill Horn, Director of Federal Affairs for USSA, writes:

Consultations with wolf experts persuades us that the convenient discovery of this new “species” is scientifically bogus. Finding this new species of wolves is like declaring that different races of humans are different species. We’re all Homo sapiens and the wolves in the Great Lakes (and adjacent Canada) are Canis lupus.

Last September I warned that wolves would never be delisted in the Western Great Lakes area. What’s laughable in many respects is that I figured it would just end up back in court with still no solution to a problem that has no solution. It may still end up in court but for now the Feds have found a new and mysterious wolf that should tie this up for at least 10 more years.

To the USSA and all the other sportsman’s groups, I say, put your money away and spend it on something that stands a snowball’s chance in hell of doing something good for outdoor sportsmen.

Tom Remington