On May 1, 2011, Laura Zuckerman reported for Reuters that a record number of wild animals had died in the Northern Rocky Mountains region that winter due to a severe winter.

A record number of big-game animals perished this winter in parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming from a harsh season of unusually heavy snows and sustained cold in the Northern Rockies, state wildlife managers say.

Reports included statements like:

Snow and frigid temperatures in pockets of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming arrived earlier and lingered longer than usual, extending the time that wildlife were forced to forage on low reserves for scarce food, leading more of them to starve.

And:

Based on aerial surveys of big-game herds and signals from radio-collared animals, experts are documenting high mortality among offspring of mule deer, white-tailed deer and pronghorn antelope.

Also:

Brimeyer said the estimated death rate doubled among deer fawns in the Jackson area this year, rising to 60 percent or more from 30 percent.

He said many thousands more elk have crowded the feeding grounds of the National Elk Refuge near Jackson, yet another sign of the toll winter is exacting.

With the reports of all this death and destruction, this article never breathes one word about what effect predators had on this so-called “Die-Off”. Why do you suppose this is the case?

Tom Remington

Guest blog by: James “Mike” Laughlin
(Retired) Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Animal Damage Control – U.S Department of Agriculture & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bachelor Science Degree – Wildlife Biology – Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 31 years working in 9 Western states, Mexico, Provinces of Canada, Professional big game guide and outfitter in Colorado for 17 years

After hearing reports of no elk and lots of wolves in Yellowstone Park, we decided to go look for ourselves. During the week of August 25 – 30, 2011 we packed our binoculars and spotting scopes and left Nevada headed for Yellowstone Park.

In January 1995, U.S. and Canadian wildlife officials captured 14 wolves from multiple packs east of Jasper National Park, near Hinton, Alberta, Canada. In March 1995, the 14 wolves in two packs were turned loose in Yellowstone.

Seventeen additional wolves captured in Canada were released into the park in April 1996. Officials believed that the natural reproduction and survival were sufficient to preclude additional releases. According to the National Park Service, at the end of 2010, at least 97 wolves (11 packs and 6 loners) occupied Yellowstone National Park. The Druid Pack in Lamar Valley, at one time, had over 30 wolves running together in a pack.

The main reason, according to the National Park Service, that these Canadian wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone was researchers suggested that the elimination of major predators from the Park had allowed the elk population to explode and they had over-browsed the aspen and willows thus causing damage to stream sites from erosion and loss of beaver and songbird habitat.

In 1973, the grey wolf was listed as an endangered species. From this original Canadian wolf transplant in 1995, the wolves have multiplied throughout Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana and have reached into Oregon, Washington and beyond. It has been found that an expanding population of wolves may increase 30% a year.
Mortallity factors influencing wolf population since 1995 are mange, in-fighting between packs, road kills, and wolves killed by Animal Damage Control in response to confirmed livestock kills. According to National Park Service reports, it appears that the wolf population has stablilized in Yellowstone in 2010.

Let it be understood that the Canadian wolves (Canis lupus occidentalis) that were introduced are a different sub-species than the grey “buffalo” wolves (Canis lupus irremotus) that were indigenous in the United States and some came from as far north as Fort St. John, British Columbia. The Canadian wolves are as much as 30% larger animals and they tend to run in larger packs. This makes them much more successful in taking down large prey such as bull elk and adult bison. Canadian wolves tend to a solid black or grey color. They can weigh up to 150 pounds. They have very large feet, the average being 4 inches wide by 5 inches long. They can run up to 35 miles per hour for a short distance. Pack territory size varies with location. In the US it is between 25 and 150 square miles.

So, what did we see in three days in Yellowstone? We saw very few elk. We heard no elk bugle. We saw one calf elk and no elk with horns. We saw no deer, no moose, no pronghorns, no bighorn sheep, and three coyotes. However, we did see two packs of wolves (7 in each pack including pups and several adults). We saw two bunches of elk. One herd came out of the trees at about 10:30 am running for their lives out across a sagebrush meadow. We did not see the wolves that were chasing them but there is good chance that is why they were running away. The other herd was milling around on high alert in an open meadow with a herd of buffalo in mid-afternoon on the edge of Teton National Park.

We did see a large number of buffalo. The wolves had killed an adult buffalo near Canyon and we saw wolves feeding on this kill the next day when we got there.

There was talk that the wolves are killing more buffalo because the elk, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep numbers continue to decline. The US Fish and Wildlife service says that elk comprise up to 92% of the winter diet of Yellowstone wolves, and estimate the overall kill rates of Yellowstone wolves on elk to be 22 ungulates per wolf annually. Grizzly bears are following the wolves and taking over their kills. Wolves evidently cannot fight off the grizzlies at a kill, leave, and go on to kill again. Grizzly numbers have reportedly increased to over a thousand individuals in the Yellowstone Park ecosystem. During our trip, a grizzly killed a lone hiker five miles from the trailhead west of Hayden Valley. When you see more wolves from the road than coyotes, there is a good chance you may have more wolves than coyotes!

After three days of looking and glassing, we came out the south entrance of the Park and continued on to our friends’ ranch south of Moose, Wyoming. When we drove onto the ranch there were five large bull elk lying in the hayfield next to the main house. We asked our friends how long these elk had been here. They said, “Oh, they have been here all summer. They never go far.” Why do you suppose these large bull elk were camped near the house? I would guess to stay alive and keep away from the wolves.

If you think for one minute that the introduction of Canadian Wolves was simply to protect aspens, stream banks and songbird habitat, guess again. These introduced wolves are being used to end sport hunting and livestock grazing as we know it throughout the west. There a number of organizations such as Western Water Shed, Defenders of Wildlife, etc. that are against sport hunting and livestock grazing. Why not use the wolf to help put an end to sport hunting and grazing by increased wolf depredations upon livestock and depletion of our big game herds?

What is the answer to this large problem? There is none. In a period from 1883 to 1917, more than 100,000 wolves were killed for bounty in Montana and Wyoming. All types of control tools were used during this period and wolves were killed in Yellowstone Park as well. Now we are down to hunting with a rifle, no hunting in National Parks, and more rules and regulations than you can read. Looks like the wolves will have it their way from here on out. If you put together all of the livestock owners, outfitters, motel owners, grocery stores, etc, that the 1995 wolf introduction has had an impact upon, it would be a large list and it is growing. As one old timer said when the wolves were put in the Park, “This is like putting mice in a cheese factory.” Well said!

A series of twelve photos taken over 4 days were sent to me claiming to come from Wyoming. A rancher lost one of his critters to he opted to set up a trail camera to see what might come by and have a snack. Below are just three of the twelve photos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

I received an email a few days ago that contained a link to another study. Why is it I am getting to the point of losing interest in even glancing through the latest study? Could it be that they are all mostly lacking in credible science and either agenda-driven directly or indirectly? Or is it simply bought and paid for by someone eager to provide “scientific evidence” to support their agenda, casting their corrupt money on greedy scientists?

The article that contains information about the study can be found at Royal Society Publishing. I’ll just give you the link where you can find the free version of the text of the article. If you so wish, you can navigate from there and find other information.

The study, in which scientists were interested in learning what effects poaching had on the recovery on endangered species, took place in Scandinavia. The study, for whatever it’s worth, claims to show that “cryptic poaching”, (I presume meaning the secret kind of poaching? What other kind is there?)severely hinders recovery of larger predators such as endangered wolves.

Our simulations suggest that without poaching during the past decade, the population would have been almost four times as large in 2009. Such a severe impact of poaching on population recovery may be widespread among large carnivores.

Thank God for “cryptic poaching”!

I could actually care less about this study. It’s just another study. I have little interest in poaching and wasting my time giving the criminals more attention to the matter than any of them deserve. I am however interested in exposing the criminal enterprise behind wolf reintroduction in this country and the actions of the useful idiots who unwittingly perpetuate the crime.

We must first understand one thing before we move on. If you can’t grasp this concept, you’ll struggle with the rest I’m about to share. Scandinavia, like Russia, Germany, Italy and many other parts of the world, have a history of dealing with wolves that far exceeds that of ours in the United States. I am always wondering how much American elitism plays a role in refusing to believe in historical facts from other lands? More than we may know.

The United States has a two-part history of wolves and both eras are short as historical eras go. The most modern era of living with wolves lacks the completion of even one chapter.

Ignorance causes people to state wolf history incorrectly. They achieve their ignorance through a lack of doing any kind of research on this issue. There’s lots of historical documentation of how hunters, trappers, and settlers dealt with wolves. Contrary to the repeated mantra of never having had a wolf attack on humans in the U.S., history is loaded with examples. No, really! Go look……if you dare.

Americans fail miserably at learning and retaining history. Much of that comes from deliberate cover-ups in order to more easily promote agendas. And we also blunder wretchedly in learning from our foreign friends and neighbors who have dealt with wolves far longer than this country.

The article I linked to above states that if “cryptic poaching” didn’t exist, the number of wolves in the Scandinavian Region would have been 4 times higher in 2009. I’m sure most citizens in Scandinavia also thank God for poachers.

But instead of focusing on how poaching is bad and all the more wolves we all could be miserable with, why not examine the reason why people poach large carnivore predators?

We learned from Will Graves in his book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, that the Russian people didn’t poach. Instead, they had all their rights to possess weapons that could have easily protected themselves taken away from them. If given the means, they would have killed as many wolves as would have been necessary to live in peace and save their properties.

Years ago, the same as here in the United States, there wasn’t the bureaucratic nightmare to deal with simply to protect yourself and your property. In the U.S. we had guns, we had traps and trappers, baits and poison and a government that paid to kill the nasty predators. Today the same government goes out of their way to protect the wolves at the expense of all the things humans fought to protect. And this is progress? The same anger toward these wolves still exists today as it did 70 or so years ago. But today, those wolves are protected by bureaucratic red taps and lawsuits.

The study referenced above says that poaching of predators such as wolves, “are particularly vulnerable to effects of poaching” and that wolves, “are killed because of conflicts with human interests, such as competition for game, depredation of livestock and threats to human safety”.

This is exactly true and when you have a corrupt government whose aim is to promote the very agenda that infuriates humans, why wouldn’t they shoot, shovel and shut up?

In an email exchange, Will Graves writes: “I’ve hunted in both Sweden and Norway, and when honest hunters become “fed up” with all the red tape etc about controlling wolf numbers, even honest men will sometimes [use] the sss approach.”

We know that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) failed unbelievable with their wolf reintroduction criminal enterprise. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the reintroduction of wolves was a sham. When you examine the EIS, many things come to light. The USFWS states that, “The presence or absence of wolves will influence perceptions of people about the Yellowstone and central Idaho areas”. And yet, the USFWS essentially ignored all written comments made by organizations and individuals who claimed introducing wolves would anger, not only the hunters, but livestock owners and citizens in general. All USFWS attempted to do was drum up some distorted and poorly examined figures about how much money a wolf in everyone’s backyard would bring the area – more than enough to pay for the introduction.

In short, the USFWS forsook the American people and went ahead with their plan anyway while failing to take seriously things such as social acceptance, the local economies and dangerous diseases. Now it is getting time to pay the fiddler. Americans being subjected to the undesired affects of gray wolves are getting angry. As Will Graves says, they’ll become “fed up” and take matters into their own hands, i.e. SSS.

Rational thinking would lead a person to ask why would the USFWS and the wolf supporters jeopardize their efforts by insisting that the people get so “fed up” they resort to “cryptic poaching”? Beyond anything that might appear obvious, isn’t the intent of the Government, particularly this administration, to incite Americans to anger so that they will do things outside of the usual comfort zones? Somehow, this justifies predator protection?

Tom Remington

It is refreshing to observe as the debate on wolf wars morphs ever closer toward true meaning.

Below is a video compiled by the highly talented Scott Rockholm of a meeting that took place in Montana between members of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and local ranchers. In Rockholm’s title he fingers the United Nations’ Agenda 21 and how the gray wolf is used as a tool for their purposes.

The video does a decent job of capturing the frustration of the ranchers who are trying to make a living and can’t. We see embittered and resentful ranchers raising their voices and pointing fingers at the members of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) and telling them, “It’s your fault!”

It’s interesting as well that the person who appears to be the leader of the meeting - I assume he is a MFWPs person - tells those in attendance that this meeting isn’t about wolves. He actually tells them that if they came there for a wolf meeting they can leave now and find some other place to talk about wolves. The results appear to be about the same as if Noah called a meeting about water but informed everyone once they got there not to talk about the rain that caused all the water.

The debate on wolves has many levels or I suppose it might be better described as having several dark curtains. Most Americans live within the comfort and protection of the first curtain, never curious to know whats behind the next one. These people are not independent thinkers and clearly do what they are told. They are not interested in politics or what really manipulates their lives. They are happy to go to the zoo or to places like Yellowstone Park and see wildlife. They easily buy into propaganda. The majority of these people can easily be classified as useful idiots. More on this in a moment.

For those brave enough, they venture behind another dark curtain and here they learn that there is corruption, politics, agendas and that our leaders aren’t looking out for our best interest after all. There are fewer useful idiots living behind this curtain but they are still there and spending the majority of their time behind the first curtain.

A small number of these people will keep looking behind dark curtains. They must be driven to seek the truth, no matter what that is. They must have reason to do this.

If you are following, I think by now you understand where I am headed with this. If not, chances are pretty good you’ll never want to even peek behind another dark curtain. It may frighten you to much.

If you keep searching behind the dark curtains, eventually you will find those in control. Those tucked safely behind their first curtain know nothing of anyone controlling them and fear anyone who tries to help them through another curtain. These are the useful idiots to those who are running the show.

The term useful idiot may appear harsh to some but it accurately portrays what takes place in our daily lives. In debates over wolves the useful idiots are the wolf lovers, eager to unknowingly assist those in control with the agendas they want to fulfill. Protect wolves at all costs to save our environment. They believe this. They are spoon fed the information. Realize they dare not trample outside their curtain. Do as you’re told.

Scott Rockholm dares go behind dark curtains. The debate process has moved from the anger and frustration over corruption and the seeming ignorance that drives fish and game and federal officials to continue their protection of wolves, into an area that gives greater meaning and understanding of what’s really going on - Agenda 21 and beyond.

During the video below you will hear a man, clearly incensed, telling a MFWP official that he is either deliberately trying to protect wolves that ultimately will drive him off his land or he is just plain stupid. That’s frustration for sure but perhaps this same man is ready to step behind the next dark curtain.

If Agenda 21 is what’s behind wolf introduction because they realized this predator could effect the changes they desire to drive ranchers from their lands, consider then the level of anger and frustration that exists in these ranchers. When I hear this kind of tone from people, I believe their next step is to give up in frustration. Perhaps that is exactly the plan.

Thanks Scott for this video. It has become a tool of it’s own.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Truth about Hydatid Disease in Humans

By George Dovel

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

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

Bangs Lied About Impact of Wolf Parasites

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

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

Thousands of Worms per Wolf Hidden From Public

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

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

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

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

Annual Reports Did Not “Connect the Dots”

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

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

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

First Absurd Lie Published by Mainstream Media

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

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

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

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

Drew’s Documents only Address Eggs Still in Feces

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

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

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

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

The Second Lie – “Sylvatic Infection Is Not Severe”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few Treated Hydatid Disease Cases Are Reported

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

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

Recent Sylvatic Hydatid Disease in Alaska Humans

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

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

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

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

New F&G Excuse to Hide the Truth

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

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

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

Factual Information from Bona Fide Experts

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

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

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

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

Australia Published Facts – Not Unsupported Theories

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

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

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

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

Incomplete Information Puts Citizens at Risk

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

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

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

Otter’s Promise to Kill Wolves Nets Poor Results

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

State Agencies Protect Wolves – Not Citizens

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

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

Citizens Forced to Protect Themselves from Disease

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

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

Danger! – Do Not Puncture Cysts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We ache to move on!

Tom Remington