MISSOULA, Mont.— Over a million acres worth of conservation impact in Wyoming alone. That’’s the historic milestone that Wyoming volunteers of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation hope to reach this year with plenty of hard work and new grants for wildlife habitat projects across the state.

The RMEF funding commitment for 2012 projects in Wyoming totals $338,006 and affects 10 counties: Albany, Big Horn, Carbon, Converse, Fremont, Lincoln, Natrona, Park, Sublette and Teton.

Additional research and hunting heritage projects have statewide interest.

“”We’’re currently about 13,000 acres shy of the 1 million-acre mark in Wyoming, and this year’s grants should impact a bit over 19,000 acres. So if all the prescribe burning, forest thinning, weed treatment and other projects go as expected, we should reach a significant organizational milestone later this year”,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

Wyoming would become the first state to conserve a million acres with help from RMEF.

Nationally, RMEF passed the 6 million-acre mark in 2011.

RMEF’’s mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. Since 1985, the organization and its partners have completed 439 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Wyoming with a combined value of more than $100 million.

Funding for RMEF grants is based on local membership drives and banquet fundraising by RMEF chapters and volunteers in Wyoming. Allen thanked RMEF supporters for their dedication to conservation both in Wyoming and all across elk country.

RMEF volunteers also contribute labor for on-the-ground projects such as removing old fences, building guzzlers and more.

Allen added, “”In addition to the various habitat stewardship and protection efforts planned for 2012, we’’re also funding research to further document impacts of wolves and other predators on local elk herds. Resulting data will help biologists manage for more balanced populations in the future.””

RMEF grants will help fund the following 2012 projects in Wyoming, listed by county:

Albany County – —Replace 3-1/4 miles of old woven-wire fencing with wildlife-friendly fencing to improve passage for elk, deer, antelope, bighorn sheep in the Johnson Creek area of the Thorne/Williams Wildlife Management Area; prescribe burn 190 acres in the Bald Mountain area of Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest.

Big Horn County— – Improve forage for elk by treating cheatgrass and mechanically thinning and/or prescribe burning 715 acres in the Devil’s Canyon area of BLM land; provide sponsorship for the Paintrock Hunter Mentor Program to introduce youths to traditional outdoor recreation and conservation.

Carbon County— – Rejuvenate sagebrush, serviceberry and other forage shrubs for elk by prescribe burning 2,775 acres in the Big Sandstone Creek area of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest; prescribe burn 250 acres to restore aspen stands in the Little Snake River watershed; treat 200 acres of noxious weeds in the Savage Run and Platte River wilderness areas of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest (also affects Albany County); replace three miles of woven- and barbed-wire fencing with wildlife-friendly fencing in the Pole Canyon area of BLM land; install a wildlife drinking station (guzzler) in the Bennett Mountain area.

Converse County— – Provide sponsorship for the Wyoming 2012 4-H Shooting Sports Extravaganza to introduce and encourage youth to get involved in traditional outdoor sports and conservation.

Fremont County— – Prescribe burn 551 acres to enhance quality, quantity and palatability of elk forage in the upper Wind River area of the Shoshone National Forest; assist with purchased conservation easement to permanently protect 5,130 acres of vital elk habitat between the Thorofare and Wind River drainages; remove encroaching conifers to restore meadow habitats on 457 acres in the Freak Mountain area of the Shoshone National Forest; treat 100 acres of noxious weeds, purchase irrigation materials and install four miles of fencing in the Spence-Moriarity Wildlife Habitat Management Area; contribute to a purchased conservation easement to permanently protect 1,225 acres of elk habitat in the Lander Foothills.

Lincoln County – —Rejuvenate decadent forage for elk by prescribe burning 1,665 acres in the North Murphy and Weiner Creek areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest; assist with a purchased conservation easement to permanently protect 1,907 acres of elk winter range near Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and Lost Creek Wildlife Habitat Management Area; treat 405 acres of noxious weeds using herbicides and bio-controls (knapweed weevils) in the Greys River area of Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Natrona County— – Thin encroaching conifers to restore mountain mahogany stands on 200 acres of elk habitat in the Lost Creek area of the southern Bighorn Mountains on BLM land.

Park County— – Prescribe burn 70 acres to improve diversity of sagebrush, grassland and aspen habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, sage grouse and other wildlife in the Breteche Creek area of BLM land; replace 6-2/3 miles of old woven- and barbed-wire fencing with wildlife-friendly fencing on two ranches which provide important wildlife habitat and access for hunters near Cody.

Statewide— – Provide support for University of Wyoming research on elk population variances related to habitat loss, land use changes, diseases, weather patterns, predators and other factors; support additional research by University of Wyoming on factors influencing elk pregnancy rates; provide sponsorship for Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s Outdoor Recreation Education Opportunities to provide training for teachers, as well as the agency’s Hunter Education program.

Sublette County— – Provide support for research on elk migration patterns, habitat selection and foraging habits associated with feedgrounds (also affects Teton and Lincoln counties); treat noxious weeds to improve forage on 400 acres in the Horse Creek, New Fork and Divide wildfire areas of the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Teton County— – Provide support for research on short- and long-term effects of fire on elk forage and nutrition in the Red Rock wildfire area of the Bridger-Teton National Forest; provide sponsorship for “Don’t Poach the Powder” education campaign to highlight importance of seasonal public closure areas to wintering wildlife near Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Habitat and research 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. RMEF staff and volunteers select education and hunting heritage projects to receive grants.

Partners for 2012 projects in Wyoming include the Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, U.S. Forest Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department and other agencies, organizations, corporations and landowners.

Federal Register Volume 77, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25664-25668]
 
Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population’s Status as an Experimental Population
 
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
 
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our October 5, 2011, proposal to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Wyoming from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This proposal relied heavily on Wyoming’s wolf management plan and noted that conforming changes to State law and regulation would be required to allow Wyoming’s plan to be implemented as written. Wyoming recently completed four documents that clarify Wyoming’s approach to wolf management should we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, including revised State statutes, revised gray
wolf management regulations (chapter 21), revised gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47), and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. We are reopening the comment period for the proposal to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparation of the final rule.
 
DATES: We will consider all comments received or postmarked on or before May 16, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
 
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. On the search results page, under
the Comment Period heading in the menu on the left side of your screen, check the box next to “Open” to locate this document. Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see “Public Comments” in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more
information).
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains see http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/, or contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone 303-236-7400. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 
Public Comments
 
    We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on the October 5, 2011, proposal (76 FR 61782) to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in light of four recently revised documents that clarify Wyoming’s approach to wolf management should we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, including: revised State statutes; a revised gray wolf management regulations (chapter 21); a revised gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47); and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. Copies of the revised State statute,
Wyoming’s “Gray Wolf Management” regulations (chapter 21), “Gray Wolf Hunting Seasons” regulations (chapter 47), and the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan are available: on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/; or upon request from the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment–including your personal identifying information–will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the Mountain-Prairie Region Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 
Background
 
    On October 5, 2011, we proposed to remove the gray wolf in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 61782). This proposal relied heavily on Wyoming’s 2011 wolf management plan (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) 2011) and noted that conforming changes to State law and regulation would be required to allow Wyoming’s plan to be implemented as written. These changes have now been finalized by Wyoming.

    Following publication of the proposal, we began discussions with Wyoming on necessary or advisable revisions to its State statutes. On January 9, 2012, we notified the Governor of Wyoming that draft
legislative language, developed by the State in consultation with the Service, should provide an acceptable legal basis for implementing the State’s Gray Wolf Management Plan (Ashe 2012a). This legislation was passed by the Wyoming legislature during the 2012 session and, on March 7, 2012, was signed by the Governor of Wyoming and became law.    Wyoming also developed an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan to address concerns raised by the independent peer review panel that evaluated our proposed rule and its supporting information. The addendum, developed by the State in consultation with the Service, provides additional clarification and detail about the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s approach to managing wolves. On March 5, 2012, Wyoming released the addendum for public review and comment. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved a final version of the addendum on March 22, 2012.

    In early 2012, we began discussions with Wyoming on necessary or advisable revisions to its State regulations including Wyoming’s “Gray Wolf Management” regulations (chapter 21) and “Gray Wolf Hunting
Seasons” regulations (chapter 47). On March 9, 2012, we notified the Governor of Wyoming that we regard the draft revised regulations, developed by the State in consultation with the Service, to be consistent with State law and Wyoming’s conditionally approved Wolf Management Plan (Ashe 2012b). On March 9, 2012, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department made the proposed regulations available for public review and comment. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved a final version of these revised regulations at their April 25-26, 2012, meeting.
 
Highlights of Recently Released Wyoming Management Documents
 
    Population Management–The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan reaffirms Wyoming’s commitment to manage the wolf population with a buffer above the agreed-upon population minimums of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year (WGFC 2012, pp. 3-5). The addendum adopts
this approach, as it would provide the greatest assurance that minimum agreed-upon population targets can be confidently exceeded on an annual basis, and that Wyoming would not risk managing wolves near minimum
recovery levels (WGFC 2012, p. 5). Furthermore, Wyoming clarified that the buffer would be applied solely within Wyoming’s portion of the population in the Wyoming Trophy Game Management Area (WTGMA) (i.e., wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation would not constitute the buffer) (WGFC 2012, p. 5). Regarding the size of the buffer, no specific number or range was offered. Instead, Wyoming noted that the buffer would be determined through an adaptive management approach and may luctuate based on natural population dynamics and the effects of specific management actions (WGFC 2012, p. 4).

    The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan also reaffirms and clarifies Wyoming’s intention to use an adaptive management framework based on intensive monitoring efforts to ensure minimum population objectives are never compromised (WGFC 2012, pp. 5-7). The addendum explains that, because of additional human-caused mortality, Wyoming would monitor the wolf population more intensively than the Service has in the past, and that this effort would become more intense as the population approaches minimum population objectives (WGFC 2012, p. 5).

Regarding management responses, the addendum clarifies that if the minimum population objectives are approached, the State would sequentially limit: Control actions for unacceptable impacts to ungulates; harvest levels; control for damage to private property; and lethal take permits (WGFC 2012, p. 7). The last item in this sequential list (lethal take permits) is discussed further below. Regarding hunting specifically, the addendum notes that Wyoming would employ an iterative, adaptive, and public process whereby season structures, hunt areas, and quotas are evaluated and adjusted based on the response of
the wolf population to prior management actions (WGFC 2012, pp. 4-7). Furthermore, the addendum notes Wyoming’s authority to revise, reduce, or close hunting seasons if necessary (WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7).

    The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan also confirms the State’s intention to manage wolf numbers to gradually reduce the wolf population over a series of years (WGFC 2012, p. 6). This will
give the State an opportunity to understand how to best manage wolves in Wyoming, while not risking relisting of wolves under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (WGFC 2012, p. 6). Within the WTGMA, at the end of 2011, there were at least 177 wolves in at least 29 packs (including 16 breeding pairs), as well as at least 4 lone wolves; within the seasonal WTGMA, at the end of 2011, there were at least 10 wolves in at least 2 packs (including 1 breeding pair), as well as at least 5 lone wolves (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). If we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, the State intends to uthorize a hunting quota of 52 wolves in 2012, and once reproduction is accounted for, the State believes this would reduce the population by about 10 percent within the WTGMA (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). Specifically,
Wyoming estimates the population within the WTGMA would be around 170 wolves and 15 breeding pairs at the end of 2012 (Mills 2012, pers. comm.). We note that this first year goal is comfortably above the minimum agreed-upon population targets.

    In the permanent predator area, we estimated there were at least 22 wolves in at least 5 packs (including 2 breeding pairs), and at least 6 lone wolves at the end of 2011 (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). Additionally, 1 pack with 3 wolves (the Owl Creek pack on the Wind River Indian Reservation) borders and likely spends a significant portion of its time in the predator area (Jimenez 2012, in litt.). We believe few of the wolf packs in predator portions of Wyoming would persist to the end of 2012, although some individuals from these packs could survive as lone animals. Similarly, some of the current lone wolves in the predator area would be killed. Because none of the packs resident to the WTGMA are known to spend a significant portion of their time in the predator portions of Wyoming (Jimenez 2012, in litt.), the predator designation would not be expected to meaningfully impact wolves in the WTGMA (Jimenez 2012, pers. comm.).

    Regarding genetics, Wyoming’s gray wolf management regulations indicate the State is committed to managing gray wolves in Wyoming to ensure that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not threaten
the population (Chapter 21, section 4(a)(ii)). This regulation goes on to say this commitment would be accomplished by encouraging effective migrants into the population in accordance with the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (Chapter 21, section 4(a)(ii)). The Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan indicates the Wyoming Game and Fish Department would strive for a minimum genetic target of ~1 effective
migrant per generation (WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7). If this minimum target is not achieved, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department would first consider changes to the monitoring program, if the increased monitoring is
likely to overcome the failure to document the desired level of gene flow (WGFC 2012, p. 6). If the Wyoming Game and Fish Department determines increased monitoring is unlikely to detect adequate levels of genetic interchange, or they determine that sufficient interchange is not occurring regardless of monitoring efforts, they would alter management, including reducing mortality quotas in dispersal corridors or reducing total mortality quotas over a series of years to increase the probability that migrants into the population survive and reproduce (WGFC 2012, pp. 6-7). Translocation of wolves between subpopulations would only be used as a stop-gap measure, if necessary to increase genetic interchange (WGFC 2012, p. 7). These efforts would be coordinated with Montana and Idaho (WGFC 2012, p. 7).
 
Variations or Clarifications From What Was Described in the Proposed
Rule
 
    Lethal Take Permits–Consistent with the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (WGFC 2011, pp. 22-23, 32), the proposed rule explained that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department “may” issue lethal take permits in chronic depredation areas. However, Wyoming law (W.S. 23-1-304(n)) states that permits “shall be issued” to landowners or livestock owners in cases where wolves are harassing, injuring, maiming, or killing livestock or other domesticated animals, and where wolves occupy geographic areas where chronic wolf predation occurs. This mandatory approach to issuance of lethal take permits is a significant change from both current management and our summary of anticipated State management provided in the proposed rule. Another meaningful change from current Federal management is Wyoming’s allowance for lethal take permits for “harassment.” While these factors indicate lethal take permits could become a significant source
of mortality if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, numerous safeguards are in place that limit their potential to meaningfully and detrimentally impact the population.

    For example, State statute requires that permits be issued, and renewed as necessary, in 45-day increments (W.S. 23-1-304(n)), and State regulations limit the take allowance for each permit to a maximum
of 2 gray wolves, and specify that each permit can only apply to a specified limited geographic or legally described area (Chapter 21, section 7(b)(ii)). These requirements ensure application of this source
of take is limited in time and geography. Similarly, State regulations indicate that purported cases of wolf harassment, injury, maiming, or killing must be verified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department
(Chapter 21, section 6(b)). We believe this requirement for Wyoming Game and Fish Department verification would limit potential abuse for this source of mortality. Finally, and most importantly, State law
(W.S. 23-1-304(n)) and the implementing regulation (Chapter 21, section 7(b)(iii)) clarify that existing permits would be cancelled, and issuance of new permits would be suspended, if the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department determines further lethal control “could” compromise the State’s ability to maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone
National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year. Importantly, the word “could” (as opposed to would or will) provides authority for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to
manage for a buffer above the minimum target and limit control from lethal take permits, if necessary, to maintain an adequate minimum buffer. However, the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan explains that the State law’s mandatory approach to issuance of lethal take permits requires that Wyoming’s adaptive management framework limit other discretionary sources of mortality before it limits this source of mortality (WGFC 2012, p. 7).

    On the whole, the available information indicates that, if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, Wyoming’s approach to lethal take permits may impact population abundance (particularly at a localized
level where wolf-livestock conflict is high), but that Wyoming has instituted sufficient safeguards to ensure that this source of mortality would not compromise the State’s ability to maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year.

    Management on the Wind River Indian Reservation–Another issue incorrectly characterized in the proposed rule is wolf management within the Wind River Indian Reservation. Specifically, the proposed
rule noted that wolves would be classified as game animals within the Wind River Indian Reservation’s boundaries. This assumption was reflected in the proposal’s discussion of the percentage of Wyoming where wolves would be protected or managed as a game animal, as this calculation considered the entire reservation as game. However, the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan clarifies that, if we
delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, wolves would be classified as predators on non-Indian fee titled lands within the Wind River Indian Reservation’s boundaries (WGFC 2012, p. 3). This altered interpretation
would have minimal impact on wolf management and abundance, as these inholdings tend to be concentrated on the eastern side of the reservation outside of reported areas of wolf activity (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department 2007, Figure 1). Furthermore, this change in our understanding is likely of little biological consequence as the proposed rule noted an expectation that the reservation would likely support only a “very modest * * * number of wolves.” Therefore, this change does not alter our perspective on the viability of the Wyoming wolf population should delisting move forward.

    Management Authority and Hunting–Following publication of the proposed rule, many members of the public expressed confusion about what it means to be included in the WTGMA and whether hunting would
occur within National Park Service and National Wildlife Refuge System units. First, let us clarify that nothing in the proposed rule would alter, or in any way affect, the jurisdiction or authority of the State
of Wyoming, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to the regulation of hunting in any unit of the National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System. Whatever
jurisdiction or authority the State and the respective Services had to authorize, prohibit, or regulate hunting in such areas prior to any final rule would be unchanged by the promulgation of that rule (except,
of course, that, if adopted, the proposed rule would remove the protections of the Endangered Species Act from wolves wherever they may occur in Wyoming).

    Wyoming regulations (Chapter 21, section 2; Chapter 47, section 4) and the Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan (WGFC 2012, p. 3) clarify management authority over various portions of the WTGMA. Specifically, Wyoming clarified that the State of Wyoming has no management authority in Yellowstone National Park, on lands administered by the National Park Service within Grand Teton National
Park, on National Wildlife Refuges, and on lands within the Wind River Indian Reservation except non-Indian owned fee titled lands (as discussed above) (WGFC 2012, p. 3). Wyoming further clarified that, if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, wolves present within Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge would be designated as trophy game animals solely for the purposes of counting wolves toward the State’s agreed-upon management objectives (WGFC 2012, p. 3), and that any planned allowance for hunting would not apply in these areas (Chapter 47, section 4(a)). Although some hunting is currently allowed in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway under the Parkway’s enabling legislation and Wyoming law, Wyoming’s hunting regulations are clear that gray wolf hunting would be closed in the Parkway for at least 2012 (Chapter 47, section 4(i)).

    While such clarifications are important to have a complete understanding of wolf management, if we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, these characterizations of authority and clarifications of intention have little, to no, biological impact on the ability of Wyoming’s regulatory framework to satisfy its greed-upon management objectives.
 
Service Assessment
 
    The Service has reviewed the recently finalized Wyoming wolf management documents (including revised State statutes, revised gray wolf management regulations (chapter 21), revised gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47), and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan), and concludes that the revisions to these documents are consistent with the conditionally approved Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. Based on our review, we believe Wyoming’s regulatory framework would likely maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone National Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation at the end of the calendar year and, when considered in the context of management across the entire State and the entire Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) region, that the regulatory framework would likely maintain Wyoming’s share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population and contribute to the continued maintenance of the larger NRM gray wolf population above minimum recovery levels.
 
Peer Review
 
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we intend to subject this proposal to peer review. Specifically, the peer review will
evaluate the proposal in light of the four recently completed documents that clarify Wyoming’s approach to wolf management should we delist the gray wolf in Wyoming, including: Revised State statutes; revised gray
wolf management regulations (chapter 21); revised gray wolf hunting season regulations (chapter 47); and an Addendum to the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan. We anticipate this peer review will be completed and provided to the Service during the public comment period. Once available, we intend to post the peer review comments online at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/. We will consider all comments and information provided by the public and peer reviewers during this comment period in preparation of a final determination on our proposed delisting. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from our proposal.
 
References Cited
 
    A complete list of references cited is available: On the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/; or upon request from the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
 
Authors
 
    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

One of the complaints residents of the Northern Rockies region have had since the introduction of Canadian grey wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area and Central Idaho is that the rules are always changing, or as has been described far too often, someone keeps moving the goal posts.

Granted, the wording found in miles of sometimes seemingly senseless bureaucratic drivel, says that deference be given the Secretary in making decisions and changes and those changes should be based on “best available science”. Unfortunately “best available science” has also become a political football.

It appears that now, with some inroads being reached by those demanding stricter controls over grey wolves, wolf advocates are attempting to move the goal posts yet again. The impression is given that this is another attempt at public persuasive propaganda, where “best available science” becomes a session of human interaction and sensitivity training. One Ph.D. wants to survey people about how wolves should be managed and find out how the feel about it; the best available science of feeling?

Through email exchanges, I’ve discovered that Jeremy Bruskotter, a PhD at Ohio State University, began seeking participants for his survey. The copy of the inquiry letter is printed here:

Dear study participant,

We are contacting you because you expressed an interest in wolf management policy and a desire to participate in future research related to wolves. As a participant in our previous study, we’re interested to learn if and how your views on wolf conservation and management have changed since gray wolves were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes states last year.

Please note: We have greatly reduced the length of the prior survey. This survey should only take about 5 minutes of your time to complete. Also be aware that your participation in this study is voluntary. Should you choose to participate, you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop, there will be no penalty to you. All information gained in this study will be kept completely confidential and at no time will this information be connected with your name.

If you agree to participate, please click the link below to proceed to the survey.

CLICK THE LINK TO PROCEED TO THE SURVEY:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FJHJ1r_2bAH_2bh4MTcTEwOXpw_3d_3d

Thank you for your time and participation!

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD

As one might suspect, some people began questioning all aspects of such a survey. Robert T. Fanning, a gubernatorial candidate for Governor of Montana, responded to Dr. Bruskotter with a bruising and factual email, in which Fanning takes Bruskotter to task of his lack of knowledge of historic fact concerning the entire grey wolf introduction. Fanning wrote:

Jeremy,

In 2000, I, we, {FOTNYEH} paid a total of $17,000 for three consulting Ph.D’s, one of which was Dr Robert Taylor, Ph.D ,who, among other duties, reached out at my direction and appealed in writing to Mike Phillips of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and the federal biologist in charge of the YNP introduction to bring all the “stakeholders” represented by Ph.Ds from both sides to the table and participate in the “adaptive management” process so a wildlife cataclysm could be avoided and the economic , customs, culture and traditions mandated by NEPA of those States impacted by forced wolf “reintroduction ” could be represented transparently and equally.

Phillips replied in writing on TESF letterhead and essentially told Dr Taylor to “stick it where the sun don’t shine”.

As the next governor of Montana I will introduce that letter as evidence in litigation seeking restitution and restoration for the harm done by Turner, Phillips et. al. and their bad faith dealing..

Now 12 years later you want to take a vote on “management”? The “deal” was 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone National Park over a 10 to 20 year period; now you have “concerns” about “statutory obligations” with over 4,000 or 5,000 wolves reproducing at a 30% rate.?
You’re joking , right Jeremy?
Who is paying for this “study” that is 12 years late ?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I wrote this and other Montana and Idaho legislation http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Mr. Fanning makes reference to the “deal” in his email response. Just over one year ago, I wrote a two-part series about “The Deal”. This should help readers to better understand exactly what Mr. Fanning is referencing when he questions Dr. Bruskotter’s request in surveying residents.

Understand as well, that it seems that Mr. Bruskotter makes reference, according to the response from Mr. Fanning, that now with the present management policies in place for wolves, i.e. they are hunted and trapped in some states, there should be concern for abiding by “statutory obligations”. Fanning’s reference to “The Deal” is all the statutory obligations that were presented to the people prior to wolf introduction and those wishing wolves in every dooryard, didn’t seem to have much concern about abiding by these so-called statutory obligations.

By hand selecting only those obligations that fits one’s agenda, has contributed significantly to the constant moving of goalposts making it impossible to properly manage and control the species. With years of historic statutory obligations tossed aside to achieve personal agendas, now that things are seemingly not going the way of wolf proliferation, those who disregarded the rules, like a spoiled child, once again are demanding rule changes.

Tom Remington

One of my most favorite coined phrases by Dr. Valerius Geist is “intellectual rubbish”; something he once used to describe the efforts by some to sell natural balance or the balance of nature as viable. The same phrase, intellectual rubbish, can just as easily be applied to the efforts of those who attempt to convince people that predators, like the grey wolf, only kill the sick and lame of prey species and as such are the authors of healthy prey populations. This is intellectual rubbish, as well as completely dishonest.

Wolves are opportunistic hunters. In other words, they take what they can when they can. That isn’t to say that a wolf isn’t smart enough to recognize a badly limping deer or elk and from a few years experience has learned that they are easier to catch. However, the idiots who perpetuate the dishonest fable about killing only the crippled and sickly, present their theory to people in a manner that leads them to believe that wolves are so highly evolved intellectually, they always are aware that they are killing only those animals that “need” to be killed to keep a healthy prey species for next time.

The question I have is this. We have learned that wolves carry echinococcus granulosus worms and pass this on to elk, deer and moose. We’ve also discovered that when this occurs, hydatid cysts develop, sometimes very large ones, in the lungs, the result of which can seriously restrict an ungulate’s ability to escape the danger of predators. Are these same highly intelligent wolves capable of diagnosing hydatid cysts where highly skilled human doctors cannot?

In a recent news article in the Kansas City Star, a woman who represents the Defenders of Wildlife in the Northern Rockies where overblown populations of wolves exist, made the following statements. (Warning: If you are eating or drinking, please clear mouth and throat before reading.)

“In some ways wolves are benefitting elk in that they’re the only predator that actually culls disease and other illnesses from those herds,” Stone said. “So genetically over time, wolves actually improve the overall health of elk populations.

“So the wolves should maybe be charging Idaho for their services.”

The wolves are doing such a good job, it appears they are taking no chances. Probably due to fear, the wolves are killing all elk just to make sure they haven’t left any diseased or lame animals behind.

This person needs a rubber room. It’s this kind of crap sandwich that gets shared so often in the media that people actually believe this stuff to have truth in it. Not one word uttered here is factual. Not one! I say let’s bring in a half dozen of these wolves, give them a stethoscope and a white robe and put them to work “culling diseases” from humans.

I don’t like to place photos or cartoon sketches of other people’s work on my websites without permission. However, in the Critter News about a week ago, there appeared the below cartoon. The author’s name and signature are on it. Having seen this cartoon, I thought it only appropriate that I share this with others and perhaps if someone knows Ms. Stone, who promotes disease-killing wolves, she would appreciate a copy as well.

MISSOULA, Mont. – The state ranked last in total population, Wyoming, has emerged as the No. 1 fundraising state for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Over the past six years, Wyoming had consistently finished second to America’s most populous state, California, but the Cowboy State came out on top in 2011.

“Wyomingites are deeply proud of their wild country, their elk herds and their hunting heritage, and they’re clearly willing to invest to keep them all in top shape,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO of RMEF, an international conservation outfit based in Missoula, Mont.

RMEF’s mission is ensuring the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. Since launching in 1984, the organization has helped to conserve more than 6 million acres across the continent. In 2012, Wyoming could become the first state to reach 1 million acres of RMEF-funded habitat stewardship and protection projects.

To fuel these efforts, RMEF volunteers host fundraising banquets in cities and towns nationwide, with each event billed as “a good time for a great cause.”

In 2011, Wyoming chapters of RMEF raised $1,388,569, edging second-place California by $10,752.

RMEF volunteers were honored during a rowdy celebration at the RMEF convention and expo, called Elk Camp, which concluded Feb. 4 in Las Vegas.

Allen congratulated the RMEF leadership team in Wyoming including volunteer state chairs Donae Bezanson and Tom Kaness, volunteer regional chair Mike Cuin, and staff regional directors Jill Tonn and Ryan Kaiser.

He added, “We can’t say ‘thank you’ enough to the volunteers and RMEF members and partners in Wyoming, California and around the country. We have fun with competition between the states, but the fact is, conservation today depends our cumulative effort.”

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