The RMEF grants total $42,700 and affect Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Elko, Lyon, Nye, Washoe and White Pine counties.

One project has statewide interest, affecting teachers and students across Nevada.

“Like much of the West, Nevada is seeing elk-grazing areas slowly disappear beneath encroaching pinyon and juniper. Our grants this year will help restore some of that habitat to a more natural condition,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Our grants also are supporting a conservation easement that will permanently protect a piece of habitat crucial to the elk herd northeast of Wells.”

He added, “All together, the habitat improvement projects that RMEF is funding this year could add at least 2,649 acres to the 275,870 acres that we’ve previously helped to conserve or enhance for wildlife in Nevada.”

Nationally, RMEF hopes to impact about 100,000 acres in 2011 to reach the 6 million acre lifetime mark in lands conserved or enhanced for elk and other wildlife.

Allen thanked RMEF volunteers and fundraiser attendees for building the organization’s grant coffers in Nevada, saying, “Because of their amazing passion and generous support, a major conservation milestone is within reach.”

RMEF grants will help fund the following 2011 projects, listed by county:

Carson City–Provide sponsorship for Western Nevada Youth Calf Camp event to introduce families to outdoor recreation and conservation (also affects Washoe, Lyon, Douglas and Churchill counties).

Elko County–Secure conservation easement on 645 acres of habitat northeast of Wells. Property contains forage and water crucial to the region’s elk herd. Property also is home to mule deer, antelope, sage grouse and other wildlife.

Nye County–Remove entanglement threat to elk and other wildlife by taking down dilapidated interior fencing and repairing perimeter fencing on 651-acre Warner Ranch area of Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Statewide–Provide sponsorship for the 2011 Great Basin Teachers Workshop to help elementary, middle and high school educators reach more than 5,000 students with more effective lessons on renewable resources, wildlife and conservation.

White Pine County–Remove encroaching pinyon/juniper from 1,400 acres of elk foraging areas in Duck Creek Basin within the Schell Creek Mountain Range of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

Conservation projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies. RMEF staff and volunteers select education projects to receive grants.

Partners for 2011 projects in Nevada include Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and other organizations.

Since 1984, RMEF and its partners have completed 190 different conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Nevada with a combined value of more than $15.1 million.

(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.

It was the Nevada Game Commission that demanded the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) kill predators and grow mule deer and other game. In The Outdoorsman article below, you will see that it was the director of NDOW, Ken Mayer, who refused to obey that order and put a halt to the Commissions plans. The editor of The Outdoorsman, George Dovel, explains the whole story and the disturbing politics behind it all, including rotten politicking by the new governor of Nevada.(TR)

Mule Deer Working Group Supports Feeding Deer to Predators Instead of Restoring Healthy Herds

By George Dovel

In December of 2010, Nevada’s Board of Wildlife Commissioners decided Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) biologists must take the necessary biological steps to restore and maintain mule deer populations as a condition of continued employment. See Outdoorsman No. 41 Pages 10-11 for details.

Like their counterparts in other western states, NDOW wildlife managers have ignored science and state law in order to implement the radical 1991 “Wildlands” agenda adopted by the United Nations in 1992, and promoted by assorted national and international interests. Their goal of “Re-wildling” North America – by replacing rural humans with protected large carnivores and “native” plants in a vast system of “Core Areas” and “Wildlife Corridors” – is already being implemented.

NDOW Director Refused to Obey Commission
As happened earlier in Idaho and in other western states, when a majority of Nevada Wildlife Commissioners directed NDOW to implement predator control in depleted mule deer herds during the past two years, the Director and his biologists refused to do it. Early in 2010 USDA Wildlife Services control agents explained they could not control predators when the state agency that normally gave them direction refused to agree to it.

In November of 2010, after repeatedly refusing to follow Commission direction to control mountain lions and coyotes in selected areas where they were decimating mule deer herds, NDOW Director Ken Mayor was fired by outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons. But once Nevada?s new Governor, Brian Sandoval, was sworn in, he re-hired Mayer as Acting Director and made no secret of his intention not to reappoint Commissioners whose terms expire in June.

Those Commissioners have already solicited applicants for the Director position and are providing Sandoval with three names from which the law says he may hire one. But if Mayer is not one of the three, Sandoval is expected to re-hire him after the Commission terms expire.

With Acting Director Mayer influencing the new governor and his legal counsel, the Commission lost the opportunity to acquire additional funding that was needed to restore a healthy predator-prey balance in areas where mule deer exist in a predator pit.

NDOW Director Solicits Help from MDWG
Then in an effort to completely discredit the Commissioners he was refusing to obey, Mayer sent the Commission Findings to WAFWA* Mule Deer Working Group Chairman Jim Heffelfinger, a biologist with Arizona Game and Fish Department. Heffelfinger responded with a letter he signed, plus four unsigned pages titled, “Comments from the WAFWA Mule Deer Working Group regarding the findings of the Mule Deer Restoration Committee of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners.”

(* Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

Instead of responding to any statement in the “Findings of the Committee” with biological facts, the amateurish response brags about how many mule deer biologists from 23 (WAFWA) member states or provinces have been involved in the Working Group since it was formed 14 years ago. It also brags about the multiple publications it has issued and claims it “is considered one of the most respected and productive working groups ever sponsored by WAFWA.”

It neglects to tell the Nevada Commission that the mule deer biologists who provided all of this “expertise” are the same biologists who supervised the destruction of healthy mule deer herds they inherited in the 1980s. It also neglects to mention that every state that has followed their advice during the past 14 years has experienced an accelerated decline in mule deer populations and harvests.

MDWG Stopped Short of Exposing Its Real Agenda
Although the MDWG response criticizes several proposed solutions in the “Committee’s Findings”, it remains quiet about its major findings, (e.g. that NDOW is currently structured to focus on observational biology and research – not to act on the results of the research and correct the biological problems). And the Committee?s recommended solution (to restructure NDOW to re-focus on the biology of game production) was also not mentioned by the MDWG because doing so would expose its real agenda.

As you will soon learn, that agenda has nothing to do with restoring mule deer – and everything to do with trying to re-create “native” ecosystems according to a fanatical belief that has no basis in fact. If you doubt that, I challenge you to read “the rest of the story.”

MDWG Blames Mule Deer Decline on Human Development, Greenhouse Gases
The several hundred pages in the assorted publications referenced by Heffelfinger in his letter to Nevada Commission Chairman Raine display the same message. That is – human-caused habitat destruction and global warming (referred to more recently as “climate change”) are the causes of the mule deer decline.

In their 2009 87-page “Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer Intermountain West Ecoregion” (one of seven ecoregions), NDOW Biologist Mike Cox is a major author. On page 24 it admitted: “conservation and predator control dramatically reduced deer mortality (Leopold et al. 1947).”

Yet on page 66 it quoted Wallmo in 1981, “In my view, the only generalization needed to account for the mule deer decline throughout the West is that practically every identified trend in land use and plant succession on the deer ranges is detrimental to deer. Hunting pressure and predators might be controlled, and favorable weather conditions could permit temporary recovery, but deer numbers ultimately are limited by habitat quality and quantity.”

Aldo Leopold was talking about the first half of the 20th Century when he was a leader in the historical restoration of game populations, using predator control and reduced hunting seasons as the major tools. Wallmo was expressing a personal opinion that was already disproved by a dozen long-term studies using the same two tools following the second game decline in the 20th Century.

MDWG Offers Excuses to Ignore Research
Yet none of those highly publicized studies are even mentioned in the MDWG literature except for studies in Alaska (Gasaway and Boertje) and Canada (Bergerud). Although these extensive studies concluded, beyond any reasonable doubt, that predators – not habitat – prevented recovery of declining game herds, WAFWA claims they are not relevant for two reasons:

1. Although the prey species studied were all members of the deer family, black-tailed or mule deer were not the major species studied.
2. They said the Alaskan and Canadian research occurred in “natural” ecosystems where they say predators “behave differently” than they do in systems that have been altered by humans like those encountered in the lower 48 states.

Whether the MDWG information was published in 2009 or 10 years earlier, the claim that ecosystems in Alaska and Canada were not influenced by humans is simply not true. The MDWG material contains frequent statements about predation that are either unsupported opinions or, in some cases, a misrepresentation of known facts.

For example, they offer a 16-page review of deer-predator relationships published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin in 2001, which claims that 10 of 12 western states, including Alaska and Idaho, reported they did not have predator reduction programs to benefit big game species. Yet Idaho’s ongoing bear and lion reduction during the late 1970s through mid 1980s to restore Clearwater Region elk populations, and Alaskan and Canadian wolf control programs to restore moose and caribou populations were a matter of public record during the review’s 1987 survey.

Predator Control, Short Seasons Restored Game
Regardless of what they were taught by college professors caught up in the anti-establishment revolution of the 1960s, every wildlife biologist has access to historical documents that provide facts. Game populations in the 11 contiguous western states and Alaska were over-harvested by both Native Americans and by the settlers who arrived in the latter part of the 19th century.

Compared to the number of present day hunters, a relative handful of people, equipped with primitive weapons and primitive forms of transportation by today’s standards, decimated the West’s game populations in a few short years. The hunter-conservationists who reversed the slaughter did not require decades of study and debate or expensive satellite tracking systems to implement a course of action.

They dramatically reduced the kill by predators with intense predator reduction programs, and imposed reduced hunting season lengths and bag limits to prevent excessive human take. They also banned commercial harvest of game species and mitigated the loss from occasional extreme winters in Northern states with timely emergency feeding in scattered critical areas.

And contrary to many biologists’ practice in the lower 48 states in recent years, they never allowed hunters to participate in an extra late season hunt to kill off the breeding stock because of drought or wildfire damage to forage, or early indications of a severe winter.

Yet the MDWG information wrongly claims that killing adult female mule deer in a special late season hunt before a severe winter is “compensatory” rather than “additive” by claiming the deer are going to die anyway. They conclude this will leave fewer deer to eat the limited forage and wrongly claim these remaining deer will then produce more replacement fawns.

If they took the time to read the Alaska studies, they might learn how ridiculous their statements sound to anyone with a basic knowledge of wild ruminant nutrition. Forcing deer to further deplete the fat reserves needed to survive a severe winter with an extended late season hunt guarantees fewer will survive and in even poorer condition.

Alaska Learned the Truth – and Published It
Long, either-sex seasons and multiple bag limits for deer in Idaho and Utah, and for moose and caribou in Alaska, resulted in record harvests during the 1950s and 1960s. Abnormally deep snow during the 1968-69, 1970-71 and 1971-72 winters in all three states triggered simultaneous declines in juvenile survival and adult populations.

With easy killing in the deep snow, predators increased those declines but biologists in all three states ignored biology and listened to earlier unsupported claims by Durward Allen and others that nature would balance itself. Later, in a 1985 National Wildlife magazine article, Allen’s former graduate student, David Mech, admitted he was responsible for the balance of nature myth that had all but destroyed the moose on Isle Royale and the once famous whitetail deer population in northeast Minnesota.

Boertje’s 20-year study in Alaska’s 6,564 square mile Unit 20A admitted they harvested more female moose than the number of replacement calves that survived, and said mortality from severe winters, hunting, and wolf predation were largely additive. And unlike biologists in Idaho and Utah, when the moose herd continued its decline to 2,500 in 1975, they reduced the number of wolves by 70-80% for five years and by 55-60% for two more years.

During the next 11 years, biologists did not kill wolves in 20A and the small number taken by hunters and trappers allowed the wolves to recover to a healthy level for the restored moose population. In 1984, there were 13,800 moose in the study area – 5.5 times as many as there were in 1975 – and hunters had harvested several thousand more caribou and moose than they could have without the temporary, but necessary, wolf reduction.

MDWG Offers More Excuses to Hide Its Agenda
The hundreds of pages provided by WAFWA’s MDWG biologists mention the claim by hunters and by a growing number of respected biologists that controlling predators is essential to restoring healthy mule deer populations. But instead of being honest and admitting they don?t believe in controlling predators, they either ignore the several dozen long-term studies published during the past 30 years supporting this action – or else provide flimsy excuses for dismissing the research and claim even more research is needed.

Their four most common excuses are: 1) research does not concentrate on mule or black-tailed deer or 2) research on those species is confined to islands; 3) research is limited to tiny areas too small to allow effective control; and 4) predator control is too costly to be cost-effective.

Vancouver Island, B.C., the location of several black-tailed deer research projects, is significantly larger than nine states in the U.S. A deer-predator study at the MDWG website reported, “Reid and Janz (1995) estimated that resident deer hunters on Vancouver Island received a $5.90 benefit for every $1.00 spent on wolf control.”

A 1986 Alaska Board of Game document may be even more revealing because the cost per wolf killed by airplane or helicopter appears quite expensive. From 1976-1984 Alaska biologists spent $824,200 to kill 1,313 wolves in the entire state, an average of $628 per wolf even then.

But based solely on the market value of $2.74 per pound for the extra 1.24 million pounds of wild meat that was harvested as a direct result of the wolf control, the direct benefit for meat production alone was $3.4 million. This 1-to-4 cost-to-benefit did not include the multiplier value of increased recreation and tourism providing income to merchants, pilots, guides, etc., or the increased wildlife viewing and photographic opportunities for everyone.

Despite these examples of the massive economic benefit from controlling wolves, a 2008 Reno Gazette-Journal interview of NDOW/MDWG Biologist Mike Cox included his quote: “We’re trying to find a (predator control) prescription that works, and if we can find that, we will use it in other parts of the state, So far we have not found anything that is going to work or that we won’t need to spend a half-million dollars for a small increase in the number of (deer) tags for that expenditure. In my book that is not an economically viable management tool.”

Yet without expressing any concern for the citizens who must pay the horrific cost of supporting their non-game agenda, Cox recently joined Western Governors in endorsing a $6 billion multi-state sagebrush-steppe habitat project that will not even slow the mule deer decline.

The MDWG claim that declining adult mule deer weights prove deer populations exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat ignores lengthy research by Creel, Winnie et al concluding that harassment by predators is the real culprit (see also “Predator Mediated Competition” and “Predation and the Ecology of Fear” by Dr. Charles Kay in Outdoorsman No. 40 & 41). The decades-long 3-Bar study described on the next page indicates the carrying capacity for mule deer is much higher than is claimed by biologists.

State Wildlife Biologists Experts at Deception
The elaborate deception engaged in constantly by state wildlife biologists reflects a disdain for the law, for the license buyers who pay their wages, and even for the Predator Policy established by their F&G Commission.

For example, Arizona’s Predator Management Team stated, “Predators and their prey cannot be managed separately.” And the Policy adopted by the Commission in 2000 states in part: “Mountain lion and coyote management may occur in, but is not limited to, the following circumstances: • Where wildlife populations are below management objectives and where there is evidence that predation may be a factor.” (emphasis added)

Yet MDWG Chairman Hebblewhite and former Chairman deVos brazenly ignored the Policy and let lions and coyotes decimate their mule deer population – pretending that habitat is always the problem. Read “Deer Predators and Drought” to see what they are covering up.

*Editor’s Note:* Deer, Predators and Drought will soon follow.

The newest issue of The Outdoorsman, No. 41, Sept-Dec. 2010, contains two starkly different articles that address the same issue – Utah’s Response to a Declining Deer Population, ppg. 8-9, and Nevada’s Response to a Declining Deer Population, Ppg. 10-11.

I will spare you all the details but I encourage you to open the link and read both articles. They are quite revealing. The Utah response was perhaps what too many of us sportsmen have come to expect from our fish and game departments.

Over the past five years, the Utah fish and game department spent $100 million dollars in response to a shrinking mule deer population. The result has been a reduction in deer of 63%. Very little was put into predator control. The recommended actions by the fish and game to stop the shrinking deer herd is to reduce the number of hunters allowed to hunt.

The three options provided by UDWR biologists to the Board to allegedly increase the number of mule deer bucks were schemes to reduce the total number of hunters by an additional 3,000, 7,000 or 13,000. Two of those schemes required the hunter to hunt in only one of 29 units rather than one of five larger Regions in the state.

Does this resemble your state’s fish and game management plans?

Let’s take a look at the other side of the coin for a moment and examine Nevada’s response. It’s bold and fresh and more closely resembles the days when fish and game took care of their bread and butter, the hunters, and managed game for harvest opportunities.

Upon recognition by the Nevada Mule Deer Restoration Committee of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners that the mule deer herd was “at or near its lowest point in the past century and is far below the stable population level that the habitat is clearly capable of maintaining”, the committee recommended actions. Within those recommended actions it examined the operational structure of the fish and game department. I completely fell in love with this observation.

NDOW is not currently in the business of wide-scale game production and has not been for
decades.

Current NDOW organization focuses on observational biology and research. Current bureaucratic practices within NDOW make it increasingly difficult to get any production-oriented project into practice. The same unnecessary bureaucratic quagmire creates an environment in which it is far easier for personnel to study a situation than it is for them to act to correct a biological problem. Political incentives exist to study, and not act upon the results of those studies. Federal monetary incentives reinforce this situation.

While many may expect government agencies such as Nevada Department of Wildlife to produce big game herds in the state of Nevada, those expectations are likely unrealistic due to the current bureaucratic quagmire and the fact that governmental agencies are generally not designed to produce.

“Dancin’! Dancin’! There’ll be dancin in the streets! My God, what I would give to have my fish and game department actually recognize this fact, say nothing about suggesting doing something about it. But, don’t fear. There’s more! Nevada Department of Wildlife recommends solutions that are sure to ruffle a whole bunch of feathers.

Such recommendations as: Setting goals to PRODUCE more deer; overhaul the fish and game structure so it can meet production goals; ELIMINATE positions that are paid by fish and game dollars that don’t contribute to producing fish and game – S-W-E-E-T!!!!; rewrite job descriptions in order that they focus on game production; retrain agency personnel to meet production goals and if they can’t perform, fire them; actually focus on areas where predation is up and deer numbers are down.

This is simply incredibly good! But wait, there’s more!

NDOW recognizes that predators are a problem. Not just mountain lions or coyotes but all predators. Here’s another statement that makes me swell with hope.

There is no evidence to show that predation is not a population limiting factor.

Take that! For all the rhetoric on predators we have listened to for decades that predators aren’t a problem with deer, NDOW says there isn’t any evidence to suggest it’s NOT!

And then NDOW recommends real solutions to dealing with predators: practice intensive predator control in real problem areas; allotment of game tags that aim to increase deer numbers and reduce predator numbers; use helicopters to take out predator populations destroying game animals; work with hunters and trappers to know where the problem areas are and deal with it; a proactive approach to predator control should be used and it should be ongoing, long after deer population restoration.

Can you imagine? But there you have it. You have one state that appears to admit there’s a deer shortage and their action is to limit the number of hunters. A neighboring state does everything it can FOR the hunter, to not only continue to allow the hunter to harvest game but increase those opportunities.

And above all, it is time that all state fish and game departments get back to managing game in a productive manner. We need to get away from this “Observation Game Management” in which monies are used to “study” and “research” wildlife, while doing nothing to solve problems other than tell hunters they can’t hunt anymore.

Hunters are expected to stand by while money is spent counting deer and then they tell us how much we can hunt.

Hip, hip hooray for Nevada!

If you would like to read the entire action plan of Nevada Division of Wildlife. Click this link!

Tom Remington

RMEF’s 2011 Great Elk Tour, themed “Great Elk Need Great Habitat,” is appearing across the U.S. at sports and outdoor shows, sporting goods retailers, Pro Bull Riders events and more. Tour schedules, photos and other details are updated frequently at www.greatelktour.org.

Sponsors include Danner, Federal, Hunter’s Specialties, Realtree, Sitka and Trijicon.

“Massive antlers are a product of age, genetics and habitat, but, unfortunately, quality habitat is disappearing all across elk country. Undermanaged forests, invasive weeds, new developments and subdivisions, land use changes and other factors are taking a toll,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We hope the Great Elk Tour helps remind people of the need to take better care the places where elk and other wildlife live.”

The 2011 tour features six monster bulls from five different states:

Arizona – Net score: 442-3/8 B&C typical – After several days of tracking this bull, locally nicknamed “Mr. Big” in the San Carlos area, hunter Dan Agnew finally got a shot following a half-mile run at 6,000 feet in 80-degree temperatures. Gross score: 454-6/8 B&C typical.

Arizona – Net score: 413-2/8 B&C non-typical – During the late 2008 rifle season, hunter Roger Dandy harvested this giant non-typical bull on public land. The bull stands as the 13th largest non-typical bull of all time. Gross score: 435-2/8 B&C typical.

Colorado – Net score: 410-3/8 B&C non-typical (approx.) – These Colorado sheds were the find of a lifetime and some of the biggest ever found in the state. The bull was later seen on game-trail cameras and many believe it is still in the area. Gross score: 422-5/8 B&C non-typical (approx.).

Montana – Net score: 388-6/8 B&C typical – Dave Bymaster harvested this bull on “Block Management” land in Montana on Oct. 30, 2008. It was the hunter’s first elk, taken after five arduous days of hunting. Gross score: 393-5/8 B&C typical.

Nevada – Net score: 415-0/8 B&C typical (approx.) – On July 31, 2009, Tyson Nelson found an elk shed while scouting for deer. The antler matched a shed found months earlier by another local resident, who graciously gave that antler to Nelson to complete the set. Gross score: XX B&C typical (approx.).

Wyoming – Net score: 407-0/8 B&C typical – Chris Renner harvested this massive non-typical bull on public land during the general hunting season. The bull ranks in the Top 10 ever taken in Wyoming. These massive antlers weigh approximately 42 pounds each. Gross score: 420-0/8 B&C typical.

According to the Reno Gazette Journal on 3 December “Nevada wildlife commissioners are scheduled today to discuss the possibility of adopting a regulation, at least temporarily, that would change the gray wolf’s official status from a protected game animal to an unprotected one — the same as coyotes and skunks, which can be shot at any time.”

Enter the federal interloper of the week. Bob Williams, Nevada supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service arguing that “It’s basically saying if you see a wolf, you can shoot it,” he said. “It’s the wrong message. It’s just the wrong thing to do.” “There will be an occasional wolf that comes into Nevada, and we shouldn’t be afraid of them”.

Oh, really? There are three very alarming aspects to this report that must not go unchallenged.

First, here we have an audacious federal field-marshal telling elected state officials that he considers his and his agencies’ federal moral values superior to state values, so therefore what the US Constitution clearly authorizes the state to regulate is, according to this federal official, “wrong”. Whether we quote the enviable and successful Constitutional jurisdiction of state governments over all wildlife within their borders that has served this country well for over 200 years; whether we consult all the Treaties and laws usurping this state authority (Migratory Birds, Marine Mammal “Protection” i.e. non-management, Federal land purchase, “Law” of the Sea, Wetland “Protection” i.e. private property seizure, “Native” species & ecosystem “Restoration”; and whether we review all the federal agencies’ brazenly written “regulations” and “rules (for the little they are worth legally) like Wilderness, Roadless, Access, Closures, Permits, Non-Management, Non-Use, redefining “navigable” waters, specious assertions about pollution and manufactured Armageddon fantasies like global warming, global cooling, desertification, Marine Sanctuaries, and myriad “Special” Regulations on everything from gun possession, logging, and grazing to class requirements for citizens to use public land: nowhere does the word “WRONG” appear.

“Wrong” as expressed here is mere tyrannical humbuggery. It simply expresses the personal preferences of federal overseers (over not only over our state government but thereby over us as well). I leave it to the reader to conclude their motives that truthfully have little or nothing to do with wildlife or the “pursuit of Happiness” of the residents of Nevada.

This is merely the moral posturing of those currently in power at the federal level. This sort of intimidation is akin to Nazi thugs telling some German Gauleiter, or some Soviet Commissar telling some occupied-country “leader” that something he is doing is “wrong”. As such this USFWS spokesman should have been sent packing by the state and his employing federal agency cautioned that state residents do not pay federal taxes to enable federal agencies and their employees to undercut or influence state Constitutional authority based on their own federal unconstitutional agendas. When such things are let “stand” they are merely precedents for further tyranny.

Imagine a UN official telling our federal government in Washington that our private property policies or our gun rights are “wrong”. While the current federal managers would likely shrug, any federal government worth its salt that did not send the UN official packing and tell the UN to keep its nose out of the US tent should not be tolerated.

Secondly, whether or not any state or local community has any or some certain abundance of wolves is constitutionally a state matter under state authority. The federal claim in this area is based on a perversion of a questionable federal law to begin with. Not only has the federal government falsely claimed the abundant-worldwide wolf to be an Endangered Species, the federal Endangered Species Act that was passed to “save” whales and eagles and flies has been perverted to authorizing the fantastic and non-scientific “restoration” of “native” ecosystems and species. This immeasurable and indefinable purpose is an unlimited claim by federal officials to claim unlimited budgets and staffs as well as implying and attempting to secure authority over all remaining private property and human activities not already under the federal heel of the EPA, federal land owners, and the associated non-government-organizations that own or ease properties in the millions of acres worth many, many billions of dollars.

Again, any federal officials or federal agency attempting to “steer” state government exercise of state Constitutional authority over any wildlife not under federal jurisdiction should not be tolerated. In fact, the most “Just” (as in rightful or appropriate) regulation of animals such as wolves or other deadly (to man) animals like cougars, grizzly bears, black bears, and coyotes should be based first and foremost on the desires of local communities like towns, cities, townships, and Counties. This is called the principle of subsidiarity or government that is based at the lowest level and is therefore the best for all humans and their “unalienable rights”. The most important responsibility of governments is the protection of human life. Nothing is further from this responsibility than for government to unjustly endanger human lives for any reason other than to save more human lives.

Third and last, any federal official that burbles that “”There will be an occasional wolf that comes into Nevada, and we shouldn’t be afraid of them” is a liar that should be fired on the spot! If the federal employer pushes that line, they and their employees should be barred from the state as a self-defined danger to the “peace and tranquility” of the state.

Current newspapers from Georgia and Alaska to Saskatchewan, Kazakhstan, and Russia detail the death and severe injury of numerous humans, especially children, women and unarmed men. History books, Will Graves’ “Wolves in Russia”, Stanley Young’s “Wolves in North America”, newspaper archives, and numberless reports from the likes of John James Audubon to Leo Tolstoy are replete with account after account of wolves killing and maiming humans for “reasons” too numerous to mention here.

Any “expert” or “scientist” or “naturalist” or “bureaucrat” or town drunk saying that “we shouldn’t be afraid of them” (i.e. wolves) is giving scandal (i.e. deceiving others to commit a deadly error in judgment) to those that mistakenly and naively believe them. If only one child or one woman hiker or one dog-walker dies as a result of believing this lie, the blame belongs on such liar and any sponsoring organization/employer spreading such a lie. Whatever way this blame for the inevitable human deaths is treated by our currently unpredictable courts, tolerating federal intervention into state intentions to avoid this unavoidable danger is laudable and the federal intentions to the contrary deserve both condemnation and defeat.

Human deaths are increasingly inevitable as wolves spread, big game herds are reduced, and most especially as burgeoning wolf populations become familiarized with or habituated to human habitations and human activities. Reasons are too numerous to mention here but everything from rabies, to need for food for pups, to winter hunger, and the 30 or more diseases and infections transmitted by wolves will magnify the inevitable human encounters from hunters to gardeners to a child taking out the garbage in the evening. There will be a rash of attacks soon and then there will be the steady incidence of sporadic attacks with periodic outbreaks of sustained attacks just as reported down through the ages of in places like India, Kazakhstan, Russia, Georgia and other wolf-havens today.

Why the same urban people that lock up their kids and call the police when some Doberman or Staffordshire terrier runs down the street believe this lie about not fearing a bigger dog (i.e. a “wolf” that is the same species as dogs and coyotes) that has never been domesticated and that can be desperately hungry, never gotten “shots”, and routinely kills animal many times bigger for both food and “fun” (to be anthropomorphic) is beyond comprehension.

Go get ‘em Nevada. We are truly “all Nevadans” with a stake in your bold confrontation on behalf of liberty.

Jim Beers
8 December 2010
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

The new RMEF funding, totaling $58,330, also includes an education project grant that will benefit schoolteachers and students in Nevada.

“We’re proud to continue our long tradition of funding outstanding conservation and education projects in Nevada, thanks to our volunteers across the state and their dedicated work in organizing and hosting banquets and other fundraisers over the past year,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Since 1984, our grants have helped complete 184 different projects in Nevada with a combined value of more than $14.8 million.”

This year’s RMEF grants will help fund the following projects:

Habitat Enhancement
In the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, RMEF grants will be used to help thin 1,500 acres of pinyon-juniper invasion in shrub habitat used as summer range by elk in the White Pine Mountains area; install two 1,800-gallon tanks, water collection devices and wildlife drinking mechanisms to improve two 640-acre sections of the White Pine/Grant-Quinn Range; and prescribe burn 1,000 acres and hand-thin 350 acres to remove conifer encroachment in sagebrush habitat in North Schell Creek area.

Conservation Education
RMEF is providing sponsorship for the Great Basin 2010 Teachers Workshop to help instructors and, by extension, students better understand the wildlife, biology, ecology, geology, archaeology and history of the region.

Another RMEF grant will be used to help with appraisal of a property being considered for acquisition, which would permanently protect habitat and open public access.

Habitat projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities. A committee of RMEF field staff and volunteers selects education projects.

Partners for 2010 projects in Nevada include the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada Department of Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service, other organizations, agencies and landowners.

“Generally speaking, elk populations are in great shape and hunters have much to look forward to across the West, as well as in several Midwestern and Eastern states,” said David Allen, president and CEO of the Elk Foundation. “A mild winter, much needed spring and summer moisture and our habitat conservation successes all factor into our optimism for the upcoming hunting season.”

This summer, RMEF passed the 5.8 million acre mark for habitat conserved or enhanced for elk and other wildlife.

Allen added, however, that wolves continue to be a growing concern in regions where the predators share habitat with elk and other big game herds. In some areas, elk calf survival rates are now insufficient to sustain herds for the future. The urgent need to control wolf populations is a localized wildlife management crisis now compounded by a recent court decision to return wolves to full federal protections under the Endangered Species Act. RMEF has asked Congress to intervene and grant management authority to the states.

Here’s a condensed look at elk data from state and provincial wildlife conservation agencies. To see these forecasts in their entirety, with links to respective elk regulations or other Web pages, visit www.rmef.org. For even more coverage, see the Sept./Oct. 2010 edition of the RMEF member magazine, Bugle. To join, call 800-CALL ELK.

Alaska
· Elk Population: Kodiak Archipelago (GMU 8), 650; Etolin (GMU 3), not available
· Bull/Cow Ratios: Not available
· Nonresidents: $85 hunting license plus $300 elk tag, and must hire a guide
· Hunter Success: GMU 8, 17 percent; GMU 3, 5 percent
While bulls in the lower 48 average 700 pounds, bulls in GMU 3′s South Etolin Wilderness in southeast Alaska can get up to 1,300. However, recent success rates hover at just 5 percent with an annual average of six bulls killed for the entire unit. Zarembo Island northwest of Etolin has remained closed to hunting since 2006 because of low elk numbers. For GMU 8 in southern Alaska, odds are considerably better at 17 percent. Area biologist Larry van Deale says some recent trophies would have made the record books had the hunters cared to enter them.

Alberta
· Elk Population: 33,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $255, must hire a guide
· Hunter Success: Not available
This province offers opportunities for fine elk hunting as herds expand east and south onto the prairies and parklands. As herds grow, managers establish more hunting opportunities–last year alone saw three new areas open to elk hunting. Some of the biggest bulls are in these new units. The northern-most units have hunts well into January, and landowners typically welcome responsible cow hunters with open arms. The best (and only) shot for a nonresident is to go through an outfitter, as they are allotted roughly 10 percent of draw tags.

Arizona
· Elk Population: 25,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 34/100
· Nonresidents: $121 hunting license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $595 elk permit
· Hunter Success: 30 percent
Even though the state claims 25,000 elk, its mesas and arroyos could be hiding upwards of 40,000, says Brian Wakeling, Arizona’s game branch chief. They conduct elk counts in August and September, and the thick tree cover makes it tough to get accurate counts with aerial surveys. Overlooked elk means better odds for hunters. Plus, with abundant moisture this winter and little winterkill, elk herds are flourishing. Last year saw little daylight rut activity with bulls bugling only by moonlight, which held bowhunter success to around 25 percent. Logic says those big bulls that survived merely got bigger for this season. Also note the agency’s goal to get bull/cow ratios down to 25/100 to create more hunter opportunity. Translation: more bull tags.

Arkansas
· Elk Population: 500
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
· Nonresidents: varies for private landowner tags and three auction tags
· Hunter Success: 42 percent
When Arkansas held its first elk-hunting season in 1998, hunter success was close to 100 percent. Now the elk are far wilier. Out-of-state hunters have a couple options: either buy an auction tag or contact a landowner for access. For the latter, hunters must receive written permission from the landowner to hunt their private property, and can only hunt there. Available tags remain the same as last year: 29 public-land tags (8 bull, 16 antlerless, 2 either-sex youth tags, plus 3 either-sex auction tags).

British Columbia
· Elk Population: 50,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
· Nonresidents: $189 hunting license plus $262.50 for elk permit. Must hire a guide.
· Hunter Success: Not available
This province boasts a thriving population of Rocky Mountain elk and some of the biggest Roosevelt’s bulls in the world, says Stephen MacIver, wildlife regulations officer. However, a hunter must first hurdle the odds of drawing a limited-entry tag. The odds are roughly 35:1. However, guides are allotted a percentage of the tags. Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast in the far west have strong populations of Roosevelt’s. For Rocky Mountain elk, your best bet would be the Kootenay region in the southeast, which boasts the province’s highest success rates. Another good option is the agricultural zones in the Peace River region.

California
· Elk Population: 1,500 Rocky Mountains, 6,000 Roosevelt’s, 3,900 tules
· Bull/Cow Ratios: 20/100 to 90/100
· Nonresidents: $145 hunting license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $1,173 elk permit
· Hunter Success: 75 percent
Conditions are ripe for a world’s record tule, says Joe Hobbs, California Fish and Game elk coordinator. On the East Park Reservoir Unit, good spring rains this year and a low harvest of old bulls last year have left the environment in top shape for antler growth. The bad news? Your odds of drawing a bull tag there are 1 in 350. On the Grizzly Island unit, odds are 1 in 1,000. Auction tags are a possibility, too, but if odds and auctions aren’t your thing, private landowners receive a limited number of tags, and some are available for sale. The Marble Mountains unit in the northwest has 35 bull tags, 10 antlerless and 5 late-season muzzleloader/archery either-sex tags.

Colorado
· Elk Population: 286,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 30/100
· Nonresidents: cow $354, any elk $544
· Hunter Success: 23 percent
Colorado is the land of plenty for elk and elk hunters but it isn’t currently known for producing behemoth bulls. That could be a different story this hunting season. The past two falls have been cursed with warm weather. In the northwest where many of the bigger bulls roam, elk migration didn’t even begin until after regular rifle seasons were over. Couple that with abundant spring and summer moisture producing high quality forage and the setup is perfect for more trophy bulls. The state’s more-than 200,000 elk hunters also will find that cow tags have gone up $100, the Division of Wildlife has recommended cutting 1,500 cow/either-sex rifle tags across the state, and over-the-counter archery licenses for units 54, 55 and 551 have been nixed. On the other hand, places where herds remain above objective, such as the Gunnison Basin, will see more rifle tags available.

Idaho
· Elk Population: 101,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 25/100
· Nonresidents: license $155, tag $417
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Since 2007, Idaho’s elk population has fallen by 24,000. And for the second year in a row, out-of-state tag revenues in the state have mirrored that trend. Hunters list wolves, the economy and nonresident tag prices as factors. This isn’t ideal for state wildlife coffers, but it could be ideal if you’re looking for elk hunting all to yourself. Wolves have hit elk populations hard in the classic elk country of the Lolo, Sawtooth and Selway areas, and the state has capped tags. Bull/cow and cow/calf ratios are in tough shape, and the statewide population could fall below 100,000 for the first time in decades. But the declines are by no means across the board. Elk populations are at or above objectives in 22 of 29 elk hunt zones. And a mild winter boosted cow and calf elk survival rates across most of the state. The Beaverhead, Lemhi, Island Park, Teton, Snake River, Palisades and Tex Creek zones all have healthy herds and offer the kind of elk hunting Idaho is famous for.

Kansas
· Elk Population: 250-275
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
· Nonresidents: Private landowner permits and one Commissioner’s Permit, usually sold at auction
· Hunter Success: 75 percent either sex, 50 anterless
Kansas now has unlimited over-the-counter either-sex elk tags. In certain counties across the state, namely those not adjacent to Fort Riley or Cimarron National Grasslands, any resident can purchase one, hook up with a landowner and hunt elk. Landowners in Hamilton County in western Kansas voiced concern over crop depredation, and biologists responded with the liberal permits. If you care to play the odds, enter the drawing for a once-in-a-lifetime tag. More than half the state’s elk reside on and around 100,000-acre Fort Riley, which allows hunting: 12 either-sex (up 4 from last year) and 15 antlerless permits.

Kentucky
· Elk Population: 10,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-40/100
· Nonresidents: $10 to apply, $365 for permit, $130 for hunting license
· Hunter Success: 80 percent
This year, the Bluegrass State’s wapiti hunt was so in-demand that applicants from all 50 states applied, plus the District of Columbia. That’s a great vote of confidence for the East’s biggest herd, but it means the odds of drawing got even longer for nonresidents: 1:200. For Kentuckians, you’re competing against 29,000 other hunters for 720 tags–far better odds at 1:42. Permit numbers in the state have been on a rollercoaster. Last year, permits rocketed up 50 percent to 1,000 tags. Hunters had 60 percent success on cows and 91 percent on bulls. So, managers reined in the number of permits this year back to 800 in hopes of beefing up the population.

Manitoba
· Elk Population: 6,500
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-45/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Elk are the “most desired species to hunt” among province residents, says Ken Rebizant, provincial big game manager. Traditional strongholds such as the Porcupine, Interlake and Duck Mountain regions are going to have elk, and big ones, but they’re tough draws, as the province has no over-the-counter tags. But, since bovine tuberculosis has impacted the Riding Mountain herd, provoking managers to reduce herd numbers, interest in that area has waned. That may be all a resident needs to finally draw an elk tag.

Michigan
· Elk Population: 780
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 70 percent
For years, the state has tried to get its elk numbers down to around 800 and now it seems managers have succeeded. The tendency for elk to wreak havoc on some ag operations in the northern lower peninsula had managers working hard to reduce the herd. Now that they’ve hit their mark, Michigan will offer 230 tags, 150 less than last year. This year, the state will offer 75 any-elk tags with 155 antlerless.

Minnesota
· Elk Population: 170
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 79 percent
This year, Minnesota will issue 11 once-in-a-lifetime tags for two separate seasons. Last year, 2,072 applicants put their name in for 30 permits. The state gives landowners 20 percent of the available tags. Last year, managers were able to work out a five-year management plan that calls for 30-38 elk in the Grygla herd, 20-30 animals in the Kittson Central herd and a currently undetermined number in the Caribou-Vita herd. Discussions are being held between the state DNR and Manitoba Conservation regarding population goals for the Caribou-Vita herd, which freely travels across the border.

Montana
· Elk Population: 150,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 5-25/100
· Nonresidents: $593
· Hunter Success: 22 percent
There are plenty of elk in many pockets of Big Sky country. In fact, Montana continues to boast the second highest elk population of any state by a margin of 30,000 animals. But some populations have plummeted in the past five years. The northern Yellowstone herd is down to 6,000 animals from 19,000 in 1996. Areas north of Yellowstone National Park have seen permits cut and over-the-counter tags change to a draw. Populations in the West Fork of the Bitterroot River and the lower Clark Fork River are 60 percent below objective with just 7 calves per 100 cows. All antlerless tags have been cut and bulls will be hard to come by. Elk populations are well below objectives throughout much of Region 1 in the northwest. Hunters will find elk widely dispersed and wary throughout their traditional ranges in the western third of the state where wolves howl. But the farther one goes east of the Continental Divide, the more elk appear. Most of the eastern portion of the state is 20 percent above population objectives.

Nebraska
· Elk Population: 2,400
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 80 percent bulls, 58 percent cows
The state’s elk herd is still growing consistently around 15-20 percent every year. As numbers grow, opportunities to hunt grow with them, but only if you’re a resident. This year, the state will issue 272 tags, up 40 from last year, with 98 bull and 174 cow permits. To promote strong landowner relations, one-third of those permits are available to private landowners in a drawing and are non-transferable.

Nevada
· Elk Population: 12,300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
· Nonresidents: $142 hunting license plus $1,200 tag
· Hunter Success: 44 percent
In the past two years, the state’s elk population has grown nearly 30 percent. Opportunities for hunters to chase them have followed suit. A few hundred tags more than last year will be issued this season for a total of 3,350. Ten percent of those tags go to nonresidents who are looking at pretty decent 1:44 odds to draw a bull tag. The quality of bulls in the harvest remains high with more than 67 percent of bulls reported being six points or better. The state’s Elk Management on Private Lands Program distributed 66 tags to property owners to do with as they wish. Estimated revenue generated from those tags topped nearly $500,000 for the landowners.

New Mexico
· Elk Population: 75,000-95,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 42/100
· Nonresidents: $27 nonrefundable fee to enter drawing, plus $562 standard bull tag or $787 quality bull tag
· Hunter Success: 30 percent
Out-of-staters looking to hunt here will find no over-the-counter tags. Those who didn’t draw may be able to contact a landowner for one of their tags (be ready to write a hefty check). The state has no bonus or preference point system. Residents get the bulk of the tags, 78 percent. The state’s units are broken into “quality” and “opportunity” hunts. The former will get you a better chance at bigger bulls, but odds are steep. The Gila area holds around 20,000 elk.

North Dakota
· Elk Population: 2,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: One auction tag available
· Hunter Success: 42 percent
Big news this year is the hunt inside Theodore Roosevelt National Park. With 950 elk, the park is looking to control elk populations, possibly killing 275 elk for the next five years to get the population at 100-400. For the rest of the state’s elk, things are pretty much status quo. Managers issued 561 tags–with 245 any-sex and 315 antlerless tags, the same as last year. Almost all hunting is now in the western Badlands.

Oklahoma
· Elk Population: 2,300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $306
· Hunter Success: Not available
The Sooner State’s elk population is holding steady and the number of permits to hunt public land still hovers around 330. Odds of pulling one of those tags are dismal, less than 1 percent. But, if you do draw, there are some truly fine Okie bulls. Nonresidents looking to hunt here might do best to purchase a tag and then find a landowner who wants elk out of his winter wheat. For cow hunts, seasons are extended well into December and January.

Oregon
· Elk Population: 120,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 15/100
· Nonresidents: license $140, tag $500
· Hunter Success: 13 percent
Due to budget constraints, biologists aren’t exactly sure how many elk they have as aerial surveys have been limited. But they think populations are stable. And, this year, managers plan to issue nearly 1,000 more permits than last season. Rocky Mountain elk dominate the east side of the Cascades while Roosevelt’s reign to the west. Most hunting in the steep and dark west is open to all comers with over-the-counter tags, while eastern Oregon is draw-only for rifle hunters. Bowhunters can hunt most of the east side with a general tag. Those eastern elk have some new neighbors, as a couple wolf packs have dispersed into the state from Idaho.

Pennsylvania
· Elk Population: 700
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 28/100
· Nonresidents: $250 for elk tag, $101 for general license
· Hunter Success: 94 percent bull, 73 percent cow
To be blunt, this state has been growing some absolute toads. In 2006, a hunter killed a 425-2/8 non-typical, while just last year a hunter killed a 423-6/8 non-typical. Both bulls were around 6 years old. Records remain to be shattered if a bull can tack on a few extra years. Managers are currently revising the state’s elk management plan to determine how many elk that habitat and society will support. In the meantime, 51 tags will again be issued this season, with 18 bull and 33 cow.

Saskatchewan
· Elk Population: 15,000-16,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 20 percent
Landowner tolerance for elk dictates seasons in this province. In the south where there is a lot of private farmland and the only predator carries a rifle, you’ll find ample antlerless quotas meant to get elk off the crops and into freezers. If you want a bull, this just might be your year. With so much open ag land, bulls are easy to spot. To help them gain a little antler weight, managers only allow them to be hunted every third year, which has produced some 400-inch monsters. Moose Mountain Provincial Park in the southeast corner is home to 1,400 elk and has seen numbers gaining strength in the past decade. This is a draw-only unit, open to either-sex hunting, and also has outstanding bulls.
For challenging over-the-counter hunts, the north-central and western regions offer forests and meadow fringes that hide elk along with plenty of their four-legged predators.

South Dakota
· Elk Population: 5,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 75/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 50 percent
The state’s largest herd in the Black Hills National Forest numbered as many as 5,000 animals back in 2003. Aggressive management knocked that number down to the current 3,000. But public attitudes have shifted and there is once again a cry for more elk and more hunting opportunity. To reach a goal of 4,000 in the Hills, managers have had to cut rifle tags again this year to 1,065–a drop of 300 from last year. Still, residents’ odds of hunting a bull in the Black Hills are a solid 1:10. If you pull a tag, make the most of it, as you have to wait nine years to apply again.

Tennessee
· Elk Population: 400
· Bull/Cow Ratio: Not available
· Nonresidents: $10 fee to enter drawing, $300 if drawn
· Hunter Success: 100 percent
“We want to grow this elk herd and add more hunters,” says Steve Bennett, elk restoration project coordinator. The herd seems to be cooperating. Last year, five lucky hunters participated in the state’s first sanctioned elk hunt, taking five elk, four on the first day. State wildlife managers hope to see the herd reach 2,000 animals within the next two decades.

Utah
· Elk Population: 68,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 15-80/100
· Nonresidents: $65 hunting license, plus $388 general tag, $795 limited-entry tag or $1,500 premium limited-entry tag
· Hunter Success: 17 percent
Statewide, hunters kill bulls that average around 6½ years, and Utah has seen good moisture this past winter and spring, keeping the hills green and lush. Translation: healthy brutes with big headgear. The most popular units include San Juan and Fillmore Pahvant but odds of drawing a limited-entry tag are tough. For residents, it’s 1:16. Nonresidents, 1:44. There are over-the-counter options, especially for archery hunters who are willing to hike into wilderness.

Washington
· Elk Population: 55,000-60,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 12-20/100 in most units
· Nonresidents: $432
· Hunter Success: 8 percent
Washington has more hunters per elk than any other state. Managers help control densities by making hunters choose either westside Roosevelt’s or eastside Rocky Mountain elk. Both hunters and elk are split about 50/50. Generally, herd numbers are stable this season but the Yakima herd has seen a drop in calf recruitment, thus special permits for both branch-antlered bulls and cows have been cut 30-40 percent. While it may take some time for the Yakima herd to rebound, the state has plenty of other hot spots like the classic elk country of the Blue Mountains. This area in the southeast corner has seen an increase in bull permits the last few years. The southwest also offers over-the-counter permits, especially on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest around Mt. St. Helens where managers are trying to knock down herd numbers. Wolves have established at least two confirmed packs on the eastside.

Wyoming
· Elk Population 120,000
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
· Nonresidents: $577 for permit, $288 for cow-calf permit, $1,057 for special permit
· Hunter Success: 43 percent
Certain places in Wyoming have seen significant impacts from wolves and other carnivores. Much of the Cody herd, near Yellowstone, is seeing poor calf-recruitment made worse by predation. Once a general hunting area, it is now a limited-entry draw. Areas around Jackson Hole and the Gros Ventre and Teton Wilderness Areas will see tightened seasons and antler-point restrictions to try and boost bull/cow and cow/calf ratios. Outside the northwest corner, the state’s elk populations are up 15,000 from last year and many units are far above objectives. The statewide objective is 80,000 elk. That’s 40,000 less than where the herd stands now. The state expects to have lots of leftover antlerless licenses. Aggressive seasons have been set in many places including the Snowy Range, Laramie Peak and Sierra Madre. Last year, the state shifted to a first-come/first-served online licensing system. Out-of-staters can now search for leftover licenses without having to wait in line (in Wyoming) for reduced and full-price tags. For those more interested in hunting bulls, the state allots 16 percent of its limited quota and general licenses to nonresidents.

Yukon Territory
· Elk Population: 250-300
· Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
· Residents only
· Hunter Success: 29 percent
This province, which boasts 70,000 moose and only 35,000 people, last year held its first official elk hunt in 25 years. Twenty-six hunters took an elk home for the freezer. While much of the Yukon’s northern boreal forest can’t support elk, the Takhini Valley to the
south along the Alaska highway, and Braeburn to the north along the Klondike Highway, are elk strongholds. A total of 63 permits will be distributed by lottery for Takhini. Up in Braeburn, six permits are available.

By James M. Beers, Retired Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Thank you for allowing me to testify before this Committee today. My name is James Beers and I retired from the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Wildlife Biologist in 1999 after 32 years as a Wetlands Biologist, Special
Agent, Congressional Fellow, Animal Damage Control Program Coordinator, Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System, Administrative Officer for the Endangered Species Program, and Wildlife Biologist
responsible for the Excise Taxes collected on arms and ammunition and that, by law, may only be used by state fish and wildlife agencies for Wildlife Restoration. I was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and for 25 years in Washington, DC. I once worked for the Utah Fish & Game and I have a BS in Wildlife Resources from Utah State University and an MA in Public Administration from the University of Northern Colorado.

Since my retirement in 1999 after testifying twice before the US House of Representatives, Natural Resources Committee about the theft by US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrators of $45M to $60M (as reported in a General Accounting Office (GAO) Audit Report to the US House Resources Committee) from the excise taxes on arms and ammunition earmarked by law for state fish and wildlife programs I have written and spoken extensively about wildlife management and conservation across the nation. The Introduction,
Protection, and Impacts of Federal Wolf Programs are perhaps the most controversial and wide-ranging such issues today. As a result, requests for my assistance, writing informative articles, suggesting what those being affected can do, and speaking requests over the past decade have caused me to spend a great deal of my time confronting this very intractable issue.

The wolves that are entering Oregon as we speak and that Oregonians have watched causing havoc in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for the past 15 years were released in Yellowstone Park in 1995. The capture, transportation, and release of those original wolves was paid for with excise tax dollars that were taken from Wildlife Restoration funds that were collected for and could only be used by state fish and wildlife agencies for authorized state wildlife restoration projects. The reason for this theft or diversion by US Fish and Wildlife Service Administrators as reported by GAO was that Congress had not agreed to fund the release with Appropriated funding so their illicit diversion was perpetrated secretly. Just last week I spoke about his matter at great length in Bozeman, Montana. There are other associated and legally questionable aspects of this wolf release and their subsequent spread that I covered in that presentation:

1. The illegal supplementing of the federal Budget with the (diverted?/stolen?) excise tax dollars.
2. The wolf introduction after Congress had not authorized funding the introduction.
3. The apparent failure by those importing the wolves into the US to complete the required paperwork (Form 3-177).
4. The total failure of federal documents to address or describe the impacts that wolves are having on human disease transmission, big game herds, hunting license revenue, domestic animal owners from ranchers to dog owners, rural economies, rural “tranquility”, costs to state governments, and human safety.
5. The role of Non-Government Organizations playing significant roles in the wolf program from verifying damages and assisting in operations to receiving federal funds while actively participating in federal elections lobbying and candidate opposition.
6. The unequal treatment of those being harmed by wolves by the federal wolf program overseers.
7. The failure of the USFWS to routinely audit state fish and wildlife programs for compliance every 5 years as required by the law authorizing the excise tax collection.
8. The very questionable firing of contract auditors hired to resume the required audits that found more than $100M in discrepancies in state programs halfway through the first cycle before being fired for “being behind schedule” and the disappearance of any follow-up or reporting of the discrepancies.
8. The current situation where in the US Department of the Interior Inspector General, that is responsible for USFWS oversight, is actually paid to conduct perfunctory state fish and wildlife audits BY USFWS.
9. The $2M-$3M being given , since the theft of the $45M to $60 M, to the 50 States’ Washington Lobby Organization BEFORE the excise taxes are apportioned to the state agencies based on the formula in the Act. While ostensibly for “multi-state” projects (nowhere mentioned in the Act) the lobby group, like those mentioned above under #5, has increased staffing and continued to engage in lobbying federal officials and institutions.
10. The scandalous fact that not one state ever asked for the stolen excise tax money to be replaced.

The mounting losses of big game herds, big game hunting opportunity, and state revenue from hunting license sales as a result of the rapidly expanding wolf packs are staggering:

The Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, reputedly the largest such herd in the world is on the verge of total collapse and extinction. After years as high as 30K and a long-term average of 19K, today the outfitters believe there are as few as only 2K while state employees claim 4-6K. Of those left, winter counts of calves show fewer that 4 or 5 per 100 cows and the vast majority of cows and bulls are 7 years old or older. Not only are there so few; those left are non-breeders and the future for license sales, rural communities, and hunting is not only grim, it is lost if drastic action is not taken.

A somewhat similar herd in Idaho, the Lolo herd, is likewise on the verge of disappearance. Permit applications that were historically well over those available now go begging at this late date. The latest report I have is only about 3K applicants for more than 11K permits. The hunters have begun to realize that the state is selling more than they should. While selling too many permits for the elk available when elk are abundant results in reduced herds, selling too many when the herd is disappearing simply wrings a few more dollars from hunters that will be disappointed anyway.

Wolf kill permits, while apparently numerous, are based on totally ineffective quotas. Wolves are increasing at more than 30%/year and they are not amenable to any accurate surveying. Everyone agrees that there
are too many at this time but state fish and wildlife agency estimates are increasingly dismissed as extreme undercounts by those being affected. Even though quota increases from100 to 400 sound good to those wishing to manage the wolf numbers, if as is likely Montana has 4K wolves and they want to maintain say 1K – you would have to try and kill about 70% per year for several years and then about 40 % per year to reach and maintain 1K wolves. Add to that ineffective survey numbers and you see the problem.

Another issue is killing the required numbers over time. Wolves are very smart and very adaptive. Hunting (even for the current 2-3% of formerly un-hunted, i.e. “dumb” wolves) is insufficient. Wolves learn quickly to
be more secretive and since they do not come to calls or bait, shooting them becomes more and more opportunistic and luck-driven. Between the prohibitions on traps and poisons and aerial hunting and the patchwork of public and much private lands that prohibit it, hunting is a very ineffective control tool.

While we could go on about livestock losses, human attacks to be expected, dog losses, and the general strife and stress that wolves are bringing to rural American communities and their economies, I will conclude with a snapshot of human disease issues that like so many others went unmentioned when wolves were being introduced to the Lower 48 states.

Wolves are very wide-ranging animals. They are not only fearless, they frequent human habitations with impunity and often concentrate on pastures or homesteads or big game wintering areas so that when they pick up an infection or disease, they will likely go to similar surroundings where similar animals or humans can be infected. It is not that they carry all these diseases, it is that when they do get a really bad one like anthrax or rabies or foot-and-mouth or chronic wasting disease – stopping the spread is almost impossible as when dogs and other wildlife carriers that don’t roam far and wide (nor travel in packs like bats sleeping together are very able to spread disease among themselves) are killed when there is a rabies or Mad Cow (BSE) outbreak. Consider the havoc, often documented in early America of rabid wolves that go for miles biting everything they encounter. Indian villages, trappers, homesteaders, and even forts with soldiers all have records of the terror and death rabid wolves were capable of imposing.

The following list of diseases carried by wolves, while not totally comprehensive, represents over 30 infections that have been credited to wolves. Those that can infect humans are followed by an (H), those that affect other animals are followed by an (OA).

1. Rabies (H) (OA)
2. Brucellosis (H) (OA) Hydatid Disease:
3. Echinococcus granulosis (H) (OA)
4. Echinococcus multilocularis (H) (OA)
5. Anthrax (H) (OA)
6. Encephalitis (H) (OA)
7. Great Lakes Fish Tapeworm (H) (OA)
8. Smallpox (H) (OA)
9. Mad Cow (BSE) (OA) (H)
10. Chronic Wasting Disease (OA) From Ticks Carried by wolves:
11. Anemia (H)
12. Dermatosis (H)
13. Tick paralysis (H)
14. Babesiosis (H)
15. Anaplasmosis (H)
16. Erlichia (H)
17. E. Coast Fever (H)
18. Relapsing Fever (H)
19. Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever (H)
20. Lyme Disease (H) From Fleas:
21. Plague (H)
22. Bubonic Plague (H)
23. Pneumonic Plague (H)
24. Flea-Borne Typhus (H)
25. Distemper (OA)
26. Neospora caninum (OA)
27. 2 Types of Mange (H) (OA)
28. GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep) (OA)
29. Foot-and -Mouth (OA)

Of the 29 diseases and infections listed, 24 affect humans and many of these are deadly. Whether it is a child ingesting tapeworm eggs from a ranch house floor rug or a jogging soccer Mom encountering wolves as a
schoolteacher did recently in Alaska that resulted in a horrible death, the fact that these human health hazards have been given short-shrift by wildlife agencies and their veterinarians is nothing short of scandalous.

How do you control wolves as vectors of these diseases when there is an outbreak? Who pays for control? What methods are permissible? Who is responsible? These sorts of questions need to be answered before you (the State Government) can determine where wolves are to be tolerated; in what numbers; and how these things are to be achieved ad infinitum. I am a strong believer that State Governments are the proper place for such decisions if the first and foremost purpose of government – “domestic Tranquility” and “the general Welfare” of the all the citizenry are to achieved and maintained.

Thank you and I am willing to answer any questions you might have.

James Beers
25 May 2010

This is what I hear all the time. Even our education factories teach our kids this inaccurate history. Few have ever heard of what it was really like. I know I have had many discussions with people about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I admit I was one of those who dreamed about how wonderful it must have been. What could be more exciting to a man who loved the outdoors than to be a member of the Lewis and Clark troop? This would provide a participant the opportunity to see the forests, the plains, the rivers, the valleys, the birds, deer, moose, elk, bison, mountain goats, wild sheep, tons of beaver, muskrat, mink, lynx, bobcat, mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, oh, my. What am I forgetting. I might have been in for a rude awakening had I been there.

Lewis and Clark mounted their expedition from around 1804-1806 and their journey was quite well documented. We know that they took along “professional” hunters and trappers to provide food for the members. Logs show Lewis and Clark spent much of their time trading with Indians for dogs to eat because there was no game.

During the years of 1825-1860, Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden, Milton Sublette, Joe Meek, John Fremont, Charles Preuss, Captain J. H. Simpson, and Howard Egan, explored all over the West, both on foot and horseback. They kept diaries and logs of their adventures and these accounts describe a much different picture of what it was really like before man moved into this region and settled.

Jedediah Smith is believed to be one of the first explorers of this region. In 1827, Smith and what was described as two of his best men, set out up the American River, through Central Nevada and ending up at Lake Lake, Utah. Smith’s log describes this trip accordingly.

After traveling 22 days from the east side of Mount Joseph, (Sierra Nevada’s) I struck the Southwest corner of the Great Salt Lake, traveling over a country completely barren and destitute of game. We frequently traveled without water, sometime for two days, over sandy deserts where there was no sign of vegetation and when we found water in some of the rocky hills we most generally found Indians who appeared the most miserable of the human race. When we arrived at the Salt Lake, we had but one horse and one mule remaining, which were so feeble and poor that they could scarcely carry the little camp equipage which I had along. The balance of my horses I was compelled to eat.

This expedition originally began with 14 men and 28 horses.

In 1828 Peter Skeen Ogden led an expedition into North Central Nevada. In an area that is now near Winnemucca, Nevada on the Humboldt River (Marys River), what was seen is described this way.

From clumps of sage on the hillsides, scrawny, brown-bodied men peered out upon their passage. Down in the Valley, now and again, the Indians scurried into the brush ahead of them. They were clothed, if at all, in twisted rabbit skins; They had no horses. They lived on seeds, and what wild fowl they could bring down. Ogden had never encountered a race of animals less entitled to the name of man.

The following year Ogden returned to the same area to do some trapping on the river. He describes the river as being very “unwholesome” and says the antelope, which during this time would be near the rivers are scarce. He declares, “woe to them who depend to them for support”.

In 1832 Milton Sublette led a group of trappers into the Marys River (Humboldt). There was no game and the trappers had to eat the beavers they had been trapping. His reports stated that there was not much for what wild animals there were to eat and that they were forced to eat wild parsnips, which poisoned them. The group had to leave this area and head north where they hoped to find something to eat.

Because of this it became necessary to at once abandon the river, and strike across the country towards the North, where after being four days with almost no food, and several weeks in the state of famine they reached the Snake River above the fishing Falls, they were forced, as they passed through the country, to subsist upon ants, crickets, parched moccasins, and the pudding made from the blood, taking a pint at a time from their almost famished animals.

Joe Meek recalls holding his bare hands in an anthill until they were covered with angry ants and then licking the ants off and eating them like a hungry animal.

Joe Walker later traveled through this same Marys River area and continued on into California near the Truckee River down the West Slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Having left Salt Lake and traveling 14 days into California, the expedition had not seen any game to eat and instead lived off horses they were compelled to kill to ward off starvation.

One man killed a deer, which he carried to camp on his back. The animal was dressed, cooked and eaten, … in less time than a hungry wolf would devour a lamb. This was the first game larger than a rabbit that they had killed since leaving the Salt Lake two months ago. For fourteen days they had lived on nothing but horseflesh …twenty four horses had died in crossing the mountain, and seventeen of these had been eaten.

1825 and 1826 found Ogden covering much of what we all know as Oregon today and not only did his group not find any game but the horses were starving because they couldn’t find even any decent grasses for the horse to feed on. It wasn’t just the explorers finding these wastelands. Ogden relates a story told of an Indian woman in Oregon.

The winter before had been so severe, she said, that her people had to resort to the bodies of relations and children. She had killed no one herself, but had fed on two of her children who died.

Things are pretty harsh when anyone has to resort to cannibalism but to first have to kill somebody to eat them, is unfathomable.

John Fremont and Charles Preuss covered areas of Southern Wyoming west toward the Bear River and then South toward Salt Lake. Things were tough. Game was missing and grazing grasses for the horses were non existent as well. Explorers tried trading with the Indian for food but soon discovered the Indians were starving to death themselves. It was only upon finding the Shoshone camped out along the Snake River, were they able to find a tribe living well from ample supplies of smoked Salmon.

Fremont’s party traveled the Columbia River north into Vancouver finding much the same. They even had to buy firewood from some of the resident Indians. Heading south toward Nevada, local tribes warned Fremont there was nothing for his horses to feed on. They were right.

… They had found nothing but dry, shallow basins, their way “broken by gullies and impeded by sage, and sandy on the hills, where there is not a blade of grass.”

Later Fremont would find Pyramid Lake and gorge on trout.

In all of the travels that are documented by many of these explorers, in what is now the state of Nevada, only one time is there mention of someone sighting an elk, but it is believed the person saw a mule deer and mistook it for an elk.

The Indians in this region mostly lived terrible lives, with little clothing, food or sufficient shelter. They ate mostly rats and insects and what few other birds or small game they might be fortunate to find and kill. We have visions of Indians having access to ample game animals and utilizing the hides for clothing and shelter. Such was not the case in most of the Great Basin.

Howard Egan, Sr. was the first Mormon explorer into the region of the Great Salt Lake. As a matter of fact he traveled there with Brigham Young. Egan covered much of the area between the Salt Lake and west into California as he was in the business of driving cattle there.

Egan recounts for us how the Indians crafted these remarkable corrals they would use to trap antelope. The entire episode of putting on a drive required all the men, women and children of the tribe. One had to question whether the effort put into the building and driving was worth the 24 antelope they trapped in twelve years. But when you’re hungry, some antelope is better than none.

The Indians did a similar thing conducting a cricket drive. No, I’m not kidding. Trenches were dug of about 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep and covered over with a thin layer of stiff grass. All the tribes people would begin pounding the ground with tufts of straw in a concerted effort, to drive the black crickets toward the trenches. Once the trenches contained all the crickets they could drive, they set the grass they had placed over the trenches on fire, killing the crickets. They then used the crickets for food, mostly grinding it up and mixing it with other things to make a concocted kind of flour.

These and more accounts certainly paint a far different picture of how things actually were than what we are often taught about how balanced and bountiful our forests and wilderness were before man arrived. Man certainly made his share of mistakes in being good stewards of the land but in time we figured out what we had to do to sustain game populations and to control the predators that destroyed those.

With the presence of man and bringing with him agriculture and the knowledge to plant and grow crops and tend the land, this began to create a better habitat that would support a heartier and healthier crop of game animals. We controlled the predators so people could harvest the game to feed their families and over time devised a pretty decent wildlife management plan that many around the world now envy.

Sorry, but Mother Nature didn’t really give us a “balanced” ecosystem, at least one that is the most productive. These accounts above I believe more accurately depict Mother Nature’s idea of a balanced ecosystem. There’s nothing wrong with that but I don’t think it is in the best interest of humans to have it that way, nor is it what I think people really want or are thinking about when they speak of “natural” wildlife management.

Tom Remington