As is the case most often, we as Americans tend to idolize past iconic figures. I suppose each of us has our own individual perspective on Theodore Roosevelt, but most of us are guilty of placing people like him on a level perhaps a bit above being a normal human being, capable of errors, poor decision making and having faults. When we take the time to read personal writings that include accounts of his life, it does offer us a chance to see someone in a different context than the one history has painted for us. Teddy Roosevelt was only human and as much as one might or might not enjoy his storytelling, it seems that he had some unusual views on others who told stories and what I would say was a near bizarre concept about the grizzly bear.

Early on in his book, Roosevelt writes about hunting grizzly bears. He begins by recalling some of his own experiences with hunting the big bears; interesting enough. But then he gets into an odd sort of protective proclamation about grizzly bears and how they have been wrongly labeled as vicious by exaggerated storytelling but then uses his own storytelling (exaggerated?) to label the bears as vicious, still claiming them not to be.

One of the last grizzly bear hunting stories of his own personal account he tells us is of a time when having shot at and wounded a bear, it turned on him. Roosevelt then goes on to write:

This is the only instance in which I have been regularly charged by a grisly. On the whole, the danger of hunting these great bears has been much exaggerated.

I’m not sure I understand what he means by “regularly charged”. I’m still pondering that.

Roosevelt justifies his claim that grizzly bears aren’t dangerous to hunt by telling readers that, “At the beginning of the present century”, (that would be early 1800s) grizzly bears were an “exceedingly savage beast” that would attack a man “without provocation” and that was because there didn’t exist the modern equipment that Roosevelt was using, which has evidently taught the bear to run in the other direction. Roosevelt describes it as: “he[grizzly] has learned to be more wary than a deer, and to avoid man’s presence almost as carefully as the most timid kind of game.”

But did it really teach the bear to run instead of charge or was this merely Roosevelt’s perspective of the temperament of a grizzly bear that, for whatever the reasons, he felt compelled to project?

In his book, Roosevelt pretty much appoints himself as an expert on grizzly bear hunting and behavior while doing his very best to discredit anyone’s grizzly bear story that he might not agree with.

Hence men of limited experience in this sport, generalizing from the actions of the two or three bears each has happened to see or kill, often reach diametrically opposite conclusions as to the fighting temper and capacity of the quarry. Even old hunters – who indeed, as a class, are very narrow-minded and opinionated – often generalize just as rashly as beginners.

I wonder if, in Roosevelt’s elitist mind, obviously placing himself in a class of hunter above all others, he felt the same way toward those “narrow-minded old hunters”, when he became one? He obviously didn’t recognize himself to already be one.

Not only, it appears, has Teddy Roosevelt appointed himself the lone grizzly bear hunting expert, he lays claim to be the only one qualified to tell a hunting story. In the thirty pages that Roosevelt appropriates for telling his grizzly bear hunting stories, ten of those pages he dedicates to ballooning his own self-importance with his self-proclaimed authority on grizzly bears and dumping on anyone else with a grizzly bear story to tell I assume because they were not as intelligent as he was.

But oddly, which brought me to audible laughter while reading this chapter, Roosevelt takes 20 pages to retell all the grizzly bear stories he has heard and they are all about hunters being attacked by grizzly bears; some of those attacks being unprovoked. And if that isn’t enough, he also tells tales of humans not hunting and being attacked by grizzly bears unmolested. I guess whether a grizzly bear story is exaggerated or not or tells of grizzlies being vicious or not depends on who is spinning the yarn.

I suppose how often people were attacked provoked or unprovoked back then was all relative and therefore, someone like Teddy Roosevelt could easily state that grizzly bears have no interest in attacking a human. He appears to have had some issues in dealing with “old hunters” and accepting stories or even companionship from some of the “outdoor men” of the time and region.

Don’t take me wrong. There is much in what Roosevelt writes that comes directly from his own experiences of what bears do during certain circumstances. This information was useful then and probably would be useful today if there was any grizzly hunting in the U.S. I wouldn’t, however, be too quick to disregard the other tales from the rugged outdoorsmen of the day. As tall as some of those tales might be, there is always a certain degree of truth in all of them.

I did find it interesting to discover this part of Roosevelt, what in my opinion appears to be a bit of haughtiness on his part – but wasn’t the bully Roosevelt a haughty person anyway?

What was even more troubling is that the newspaper, the Sun Journal, published his piece in the “Columns & Analysis” section of the newspaper instead of in the “Opinions” section where it belongs. You can find his wolf drool here.

I’ll hit on some of the highlights.

Goldman claims he knows the “truth” about wild canines. I suppose, as is nearly always the case, that when one disagrees with someone else, you hold all the truth cards. Goldman is attempting to rebut an article that was written previously in the Sun Journal about wolves by V. Paul Reynolds, a weekly columnist for the Sun Journal and an editor for the Northwoods Sporting Journal.

In many ways, Goldman’s incorrect and idealistic frothing is very typical of his ilk, claiming that “malicious and inaccurate information about wolves that, for centuries, has resulted in the unjust demonization and heartless massacre of this vital and beautiful animal”.

Because the animal was readily killed and rightfully feared, Goldman, like his fellow canine worshipers, believes this action was uncalled for and born from ignorance of the wolf. Obviously knowing little about the world history of wolves or blatantly refusing to include it in his predilection toward protecting wolves, readers are robbed of an opportunity to discover how the wolves attacked and killed humans on far more than “rare” occasions, as we are indoctrinated to think from our schools and media; or that wolves without much difficulty killed people’s livestock; or anything about the 30 or so diseases they carry, many harmful or deadly to humans. Is there a need by Goldman to shield his readers from truth or is this about only his truth; that which only he wants you to know about.

Goldman drops names as the means of his references from where he claims his “truth” comes, i.e. Aldo Leopold, Adolph Murie, David Mech, Farley Mowat and Barry Lopez. Perhaps the author should have told his readers that much of the information provided by this list of resources is outdated and not necessarily scientifically proven. For instance, Dr. David Mech, a well-known “expert” on wolves, to his credit, has recanted some of the claims of which he laid out as truth some time ago (probably in order to achieve his goal of wolf introduction). One example of that is the Alpha male myth that still is perpetuated; that killing the alpha male disrupts the pack and causes the wolves/coyotes to do unruly things – a convenient application for those seeking defense of their wild dogs, while blaming humans.

One should be embarrassed to have read Farley Mowat and still rant that his writings are accurate and scientific. Many of Mowat’s claims in his book, “Never Cry Wolf” have been proven many times over to be false and rife with intellectual garbage.

You see, seeking the truth and taking the time to sing from the rooftops that you know the truth, requires reading and learning all sides of an issue and studying all perspectives and scientific data involved. Then and only then can the truth be discovered. One has to wonder if Mr. Goldman has ever studied Dr. Charles Kay, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Tom Bergerud, Dr. Clay Dethlefsen? Or read books by Will Graves, Teddy Roosevelt, C. Gordon Hewitt, the diaries of many of the trappers, explorers, etc. that traveled many years ago in the West? How about even the Adventures of Lewis and Clark? Only to name a few. And, being that Goldman hails from Maine, I wonder if he has read, “Early Maine Wildlife” – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving. I suppose that if he has, he would think the people back in the 1600s – early 1900s were maliciously spreading inaccurate information about wolves, while demonizing the creature causing unjust killing.

Instead, people such as Robert Goldman opt to cherry pick only the information that conveniently fits a narrative. Goldman admits that he has a love affair with wolves. Even though I think some people take their love affairs with animals a bit too far, I’m curious if Mr. Goldman is so concerned for his wolves that he would rather they be healthy, than riddled with disease and have to resort to cannibalism for survival? Perhaps his wolf world is just a bit too idealistic and bases that idealism on inane theories of “natural balance” or “natural regulation”?

It is unfortunate that what also takes place when there is discussion about wolves/coyotes is that anyone who asks for accurate and up-to-date scientific studies to base wild canine management decisions on, requesting a control in numbers of these and other predators, we are instantly accused of wanting to kill all wolves and coyotes and well, predators as a whole. This is simply not true and results from a person lacking any knowledge to rebut facts with facts.

Goldman says that wolves are, “instinctively wary of people and avoid contact with humans.” This is true under ideal circumstances. But people should understand that not always is everything “naturally balanced” as some would lead us to believe. All should read Dr. Valerius Geist’s “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?”

Goldman’s claim that wolves “instinctively” avoid humans is not entirely true. Wolves are not stupid animals. Their “instinct” to avoid humans wanes considerably when they learn that there is no good reason to avoid humans. As a matter of fact, they will soon discover, and their “instincts” take over, that man and his surroundings can be a very easy and convenient source of food.

Reading and understanding Dr. Geist’s seven steps to recognizing wolf/coyote behavior can not only save your life some day, but will teach you much about the real behavior of wolves/coyotes and not the myth that wolves/coyotes are cute and cuddly, human-loving puppies that only want to be our friends. Understanding that concept doesn’t mean you then have to become a person seeking the complete destruction of the animal or live in fear of it. You can choose to go right on liking the beasts, it’s just that now you’ll know more truth about the animal. Is there something wrong with that?

It is the common theme these days for people like Goldman to postulate that wolves/coyotes are a necessary “balance” for our ecosystems. This theory is simply not true, has not, nor never can be proven scientifically to be an accurate statement. To latch onto such a claim is conveniently dishonest, intellectually vacant and reeks to high heavens of agenda-driven propaganda.

It is equally dishonest to promote hostility toward hunters, blaming them for disrupting the “natural” process, while at the same time painting some far flung notion that wolves/coyotes only kill the sick and weak of their prey subjects while hunters muddle the gene pool by taking only trophy game animals. (Read this article for information about whether “trophy hunting” spoils gene pools.)

Let’s not kid ourselves, a wolf/coyote is an opportunistic hunter. They will kill what they can kill. If that conveniently, for the wild dog, happens to be a three-legged deer or elk, then so be it. There exist documented evidence that wolves/coyotes kill adult healthy prey species any time of year. Documentation also exist that these varmints kill for sport. This is far too often denied by those who simply want to protect their loveable canines.

What is really despicable and a totally unacceptable attitude of this writer is his claim that those who wanted enactment of the Endangered Species Act were “enlightened”. In addition, those who lied and created the biggest deception in American wildlife history through wolf introduction into the greater Yellowstone area, are described by Goldman as being “maturing American attitudes”. He then goes on, in ignorant fashion, to declare that anyone not agreeing with his perspective are liars.

He follows this up with lies of his own stating that elk populations in the Rocky Mountain Region,”are strong and healthy”. Goldman needs to get out more and get his “truth” straightened around.

As I began this piece, it is a pity that I actually feel the need to rebut this garbage. I have better things that I should be doing, but until, somehow, we can break this cycle of repeated ignorance and bias and get our media to get off their lazy backsides and actually do some research of their own, this remains a stumbling block to move forward with sensible, science-backed facts in the management of our wildlife.

Tom Remington

A growing chorus of hunters, dog owners, ranchers, and rural residents of all stripes are becoming aware of the magnitude of the enthusiasm and support for predators from wolves and grizzly bears to coyotes and cougars. While this enthusiasm is seen as a core belief by environmentalists and animal rights radicals intent on destroying animal ownership, hunting, fishing, trapping, grazing, public land use, natural resource management and use, rural economies, and a long list of impediments to their national hegemony like state and local governments and private property rights; the existence of this veritable predator worship among “scientists”, “experts”, University faculties, and government bureaucracies is surprising many, especially rural Americans.

Long lists of predator “studies” – cited to “prove” that predators don’t depress prey species, or that large predators are not dangerous, or that predators are not vectors for deadly diseases, or that non-lethal protections for humans threatened by predators work, or that if individuals and communities simply adjust their lifestyles living with deadly and destructive predators will result in some sort of pre-human Eden – all baffle rural residents whose daily experiences expose these lies being used to pass laws to control, regulate, and adjudicate them and their families and lifestyles out of existence. The questions, “How can they believe this stuff?” and “Why do the politicians and courts and bureaucrats accept these lies and their truly evil purposes?”, are heard increasingly as wolf, grizzly bear, coyote, and cougar protection, population increases, range increases, and damaging effects spread like a snowball rolling down the long and steep national slope.

I believe that growing numbers of citizens are coming to understand the various self-serving agendas of those responsible for the growing list of deadly attacks, property destruction, and rural mayhem being perpetrated by these predators:

- Environmentalists use the “native species”, “balance of ‘naychur’” and “endangered” myths about predators to get laws passed that advance their blitzkrieg campaign to totally control every inch of rural America.

- Animal rights radicals use the myths about predators to justify destroying game herds and bird flocks that support hunting and trapping. The widespread killing of dogs discourages animal “ownership” (just like diminishing hunting decreases public support for the 2nd Amendment) thus reducing objections to eventual elimination of private property rights in animals. Livestock depredations increase costs to livestock owners forcing bankruptcies and small herds as seen in central Asia where livestock production is a tiny, local, and more subsistence thing. Human attacks discourage not only hunting, fishing, camping, and other outdoor activities; they discourage rural residency and thus private property owners in rural areas slated for radical/government acquisition and (cheaper) easements to employ land control that is but another key to people control.

- Politicians love to “pass” warm and fuzzy laws to “restore the ecosystem” and “save the environment”. Predators are romantically portrayed via an environmentally-friendly media in anthropomorphic caricatures beloved by urban children, urban elites, and moneyed powerbrokers – none of whom live with, raise families near, recreate near, or struggle to make a living near these very destructive predators. The result is a hard-core predator constituency that votes enthusiastically and supports expensive lobbying for more and more and more predators. This is why the increasing predator/human interfaces are more and more costly due to prohibitions against killing them as only an unjustifiable last resort in favor of catch-and-release processes that merely transfer the problem that more often than not returns to the scene of their original, sighting or crime – take your pick.

At this point I would like to take the liberty of “lumping” the rest of the predator lovers into one herd. I know that this leaves me open to charges of not “celebrating diversity”, but so be it.

Most University faculties, in addition to their personal interests in reaping the 30+ year bonanza of federal grants and professorial benefits attendant to “findings” confirming radical/government self-serving claims, have an even more visceral “love of predators”.

Most federal and state bureaucracies over the last 30+years preferentially hired and promoted women and other urban government-designated minorities (the majority of whom were at least uncomfortable with and at most unalterably opposed to hunting, fishing, trapping, logging, grazing, rural lifestyles, local governments, etc.) as they eliminated the legally-designated purposes of their agencies and the lands they acquired. The agencies that were once respected authorities have become little more than politically “responsive” roosts for political sycophant employees that support this visceral “love of predators”. Hence the lies about wolf impacts, the disinformation about grizzly bear’s presence in settled landscapes, the claims about how human behavior is responsible for human deaths, the encouragement for wandering cougars and wolves to settle in places like Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. (where they do not belong) and how “they were here first” chirping from government employees regarding a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum to the very citizens that pay their salaries and retirements.

There are, in my opinion two basic reasons why Universities and government bureaucracies “love predators”.

1. The gradual perversion of the study of natural resources and applied methodologies resulting from such studies over the past century.

When I first began reading about wildlife and nature in the 1950’s there was a subtle undercurrent regarding “predator control”. It was often “unnecessary”, “ineffective”, and the advocates of predator control were often characterized as “uneducated” rural rubes simply tolerated out of necessity by the college-educated elites that ran the agencies. Predator control administrators that were once equal administrators that moving around and moving up in the agencies, were increasingly isolated in their control specialty where grades and responsibilities were less than the more “modern” branches proliferating in the agencies. Control agents were often called “killers” and were detested by the environmentalists, animal rights radicals, and New Age hires referred to above. From a premiere section of the federal bureaucracy that emerged under Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago, predator control was unceremoniously and quietly moved to the US Department of Agriculture in the 1990’s where it was hoped that established agriculture priorities would lead to the demise of this despised activity.

When I went to college in the 1960’s predator control was recognized by some professors and dismissed by others. Very much like political discussions today, predator control v. anti-predator control discussions became heated matters that were irresolvable and only evoked recrimination and personal animosities.

When I went to work for the federal government I came to understand that since the time of Teddy Roosevelt there evolved the common-sense attitude toward natural resources v. the romantic attitude toward natural resources. Forests were either lands that produced timber, fish and wildlife, grazing lands, revenues, jobs, recreation, etc. for people and the Nation; or they were “Wilderness”, “Roadless”, “Closed”, “Preserved for their own sake” sacred lands to be kept inviolate ad infinitum. Wildlife management was either the preservation, control, and use of species supportive of human societies and landscapes or it was the “Native species” or “Native Ecosystems” or “necessary Apex Predators”, etc. to be protected, never interfered with, lived with or avoided by moving to urban areas. Similarly grass lands were either grazing lands or agricultural lands to be developed in line with American rights and principles or they were lands that must remain in “Native” grass, lands that should be let burn whenever the fire is “natural”, and only used by free-roaming buffalo or whatever “native” species that government designates based on the “science” bought and paid for by government and radical groups.

From all this in the 1970’s the federal bureaucrats were wearing hats that read, “Save The Dirt” and there were increasing calls for “more” federal authority over “ALL” Waters of the US, increasing conversions of National Forests, National Refuges, and the uses of other federal lands from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Bureau of Land Management from traditional uses and management to non-use and “let ‘naychur’” take care of it non-management.

Throughout the above scenario, predators and their effects were romanticized and distorted by “science” and “scientists” that basically wanted to lift their image from Middle Ages Gamekeepers providing desirable species for those that employed them, to “Einsteins” of the Natural World deciding what will go where based on their knowledge that a befuzzled public would never understand or much less appreciate.

2. As a result of the foregoing (#1.) there has arisen a pervasive disenchantment with and growing disdain for US Constitutional government among Universities and bureaucracies that see themselves as representing not humans and their needs but a romanticized notion or plants and animals that need to be restored where people have “taken” their habitat from them. US Constitutional government represents the people that formed the government and people are the enemy of those thinking of themselves of serving this higher good of reducing the human presence to favor the plant and animal presence of their choice.

For those familiar with my essays, I have written and spoken at great length about how the US Fish and Wildlife Service stole $45 to 60 Million from state fish and wildlife agencies and used it to introduce wolves, an action that Congress had previously refused to fund. I have detailed a dozen serious violations of federal law involved in this theft. See my talk “Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats and Others Involved in the Introduction, Protection and Spread of Wolves in the Lower 48 States” given in Bozeman, Montana for The Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd in May of 2010. The result was that no one was ever prosecuted. The Director at the time went on to a high-paying job with the Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation. The political hire that was in charge of the funds at the time is now the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Finally, the State fish and wildlife agencies NEVER requested that the funds be replaced. So much for what everyone likes to deny exists: environmental extremism is eroding the rule of law and our limited government from beneath our feet.

As this “love of predators” more and more perverted wildlife “science” and as Universities, state bureaucracies, and federal bureaucracies merged like some biblical plague of locusts into a single form destroying Constitutional government beneath it, other things became impediments to their agenda:

- Private property rights were peppered like shooting targets that were not replaced. Whether it is livestock, dogs, or rural homesteads, predators are a wedge to government dictation of how and where we live and what we will be allowed to eventually “control” but not own at government sufferance.

- Local governments’ representation of local communities becomes irrelevant as such governments are stripped of tax sources and federal courts set one precedent after another about such government’s irrelevance in this New Age.

- State bureaucracies more and more depend on federal funds. State bureaucrats; like politicians, federal bureaucrats, and political staff employees; look to future job enhancements among these entities as retirement transfers and hiring become payoffs enabled by recent laws and the elimination of hiring standards and requirements have become the norm. There is no “credible” opposition as all recognized expertise resides with those adopting the new normal. Local communities are at the mercy of federal overseers that not only ignore them but actually work to remove them from the landscape.

- Authority and jurisdiction over “ALL Water of the US” instead of the Constitutional “Navigable Waters of the US” is seen as necessary if full land use and land management authority is to be taken from private property owners and State governments are ever to be placed under federal hegemony.

- Guns, whether for hunting or self-defense, are viewed by the “predator lovers” as dangerous to their agenda, dangerous to the predators, and dangerous to enforcers.

- Government land use and management that is anything other than contributory to government plans are problems to be dealt with and eliminated.

- Hunting, fishing, trapping, livestock, recreation, etc. advocacy groups must be shredded as grazing is shut down here, as timber management is shut down there, and as hunting et al disappear like stars one at a time as when the sun casts its first light on a night sky.

We are all starting to realize how these agendas are all one. The protection, spread, and introduction of these deadly and destructive predators is a major part of this movement. The disinformation about these predators is not only lies intended to attain evil objectives, the myths masquerading as “science” concerning predators is a deeply imbedded tenet of a belief system inimical to the rest of us that see and know the truth. Such beliefs are as hard to root out as some carbuncle on the national derriere.

The irony of all this is beyond current comprehension. If wolves, grizzly bears, coyotes, and cougars are ever to be tolerated in and persist in the rural Lower 48 States, four things are absolutely necessary:

1. Local (where the predators exist) support and tolerance.

2. Efficient, swift, continual, and lethal control measures.

3. Affordable controls by citizens as opposed politically vulnerable and expensive government programs.

4. State governments with ultimate predator jurisdiction that protect the interests of rural residents from both national and urban majorities’ whimsies.

Consider that these are precisely the things being destroyed as I write. One needn’t be a swami to see that if the predator pendulum is not reversed, either rural America will eventually be akin to some central Asian dictatorship where the pernicious effect of these animals are everywhere or rural America as we knew it during the height of American prosperity will begin to be slowly rebuilt for our children and their children.

The choice is ours.

Jim Beers
5 November 2011

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

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

The reporter for PBS, Miles O’Brien, gives us, early on, an example of his biased reporting. This may have been an attempt at a bit of humor, although I am really stretching things here in hopes of giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The video begins with O’Brien introducing us to a rancher, Martin Davis, who can’t seem to locate half of his cows. O’Brien says: “Among ranchers like Martin Davis, the wolf is always guilty until proven, well, soon-to-be-guilty.” Note also in the way that Mr. Davis is portrayed in the video. Do you get the sense that he is being made out to look stupid? Inept?

This is biased and misleading. There are many ranchers who deal with various predators and grazing issues and not all ranchers are “always” pointing a finger at the wolf. I don’t think Mr. O’Brien knows anything of the struggles and countless issues that face ranchers. Dealing with predators such as the wolf is but a thorn in their side, albeit a costly one. The ironic part is that later in his piece, O’Brien spends a fair amount of time with his focus on some ranchers who are trying different methods to combat against livestock losses. Note again here how these ranchers are being depicted.

Rancher Davis makes reference that wolf numbers need to be reduced to help alleviate depredation of livestock. O’Brien, first, gets in a typical description used by wolf advocates for years by saying that wolves are “misunderstood”. He fails to explain just what that means and who is purportedly misunderstanding wolves or why that is so. The intent here is to wrongfully paint anyone who would like to see wolves controlled and properly managed as misunderstanding the wolf. This is a very inaccurate assumption.

While there is a fair amount of misunderstanding of the gray wolf that occurs at all levels of this debate, it seems more which “science” is injected into any wolf debate that stirs the most disagreement. It is this very explanation as to why this PBS television report is a bad piece of journalism. The reporter simply accepts as fact the information told to him and offers very little in the way of opposing views and differing scientific data. Everybody loses when this happens, but I argue that this is the intent of PBS, to mislead.

Perhaps intentional, perhaps not, O’Brien makes the following statement: “gray wolves returned 16 years ago after a 70-year hiatus.” They “returned”? A more accurate description here would have been “introduced”. However, later on Mr. O’Brien does allude to the use of “reintroduction” of the gray wolves to describe the presence of wolves in the Rockies today. Regardless, omitting the proper term is misleading.

He continues: “Starting in the early 1900s, they [wolves] were systematically poisoned, trapped and gunned into extinction in the Lower 48, a good riddance for ranchers, an unconscionable extermination for environmentalists.”

If O’Brien was intending to educate his audience to the truth of historical accounts – bearing in mind he was probably limited in how many minutes he had to present his puff piece – he could have slipped in a few words like; the wolves were poisoned, trapped and gunned with the eager assistance of the United States Government. I’m also confused here as to what message, if there is one, that O’Brien is trying to convey by saying that during the time that wolves were being extirpated, I doubt there existed very many, if any, “environmentalists” who opposed such mass killings. The environmental movement of “true believers” is a recent phenomenon and played no role in early Western settlement. Also inaccurate and again misleading is to point out that killing off all the wolves was only a benefit to ranchers. Mr. O’Brien should open up some history books and learn all the reasons wolves, in addition to other larger predators, were disliked and virtually all citizens wanted them gone.

If Mr. O’Brien, or any other readers, are seriously interested in historic accounts of what was transpiring during this poisoning, trapping and gunning down of wolves, coyotes and grizzlies, I have several articles with links and information from the writings of Charles Gordon Hewitt – here, here, here, and here. Or you can simply find Hewitt’s book, “The Conservation of the Wildlife in Canada“, here. (Don’t be distracted by Canada in the title. He covers both Canada and the U.S.) There are of course countless other documents readily available for research.

Mr. O’Brien then brings in Doug Smith, a controversial member of the Yellowstone Park Service, much involved in the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho in the mid-1990s. O’Brien asks Smith: “Is this ideal wolf country?”

Here was Smith’s answer: “This is. Some people said before we reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone that this was the best wolf habitat in the world, and had no wolves.”

In addition to this O’Brien then makes the following comments: “The wolves are thriving here. They are, after all, at long last, home. What began with 31 individuals imported from Canada has blossomed into a population of more than 1,700.”

All I will say about the “1,700″ gray wolves invoked here is that this is nothing more than a low-balled guesstimate used to politically appease and mislead the masses. The real truth is nobody knows how many wolves there are because, like most wildlife, models are used because no actual head counts are taken. Dr. David Mech, one of the lead guys with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leading up to, during and after wolf reintroduction, in an interview for a documentary film “Elk in Peril”, said that there could easily be as many as 3,000 – 4,000 wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Perhaps Mr. Smith is correct when he states that at the time of reintroduction, Yellowstone was good wolf habitat. I’m not sure it was the best in the world but we got the point. However, O’Brien conveys to viewers of his piece that “they [wolves] are, after all, at long last, home.” This misleads viewers of accurate history in this event. There have been years of argument and speculation as to whether or not the Canadian wolves brought down from Canada were the best choice for reintroduction.

I did a piece some time ago while researching and examining the historic documents of Teddy Roosevelt’s travels in and around the Northern Rockies in which he describes the wolves/prairie wolves and coyotes he witnessed and at times describes them in detail. He also makes reference to the bigger, more feared wolves north of the Canadian border.

We could spend forever discussing historic accounts, which brings me to a piece written by Dr. Charles E. Kay, “An Alternative Interpretation of the Historical Evidence Relating to the Abundance of Wolves in the Yellowstone Ecosystem”. (I have a copy on my desktop for anyone interested.)

Dr. Kay presents historical documentation that refutes the oft repeated claim that Yellowstone was some “paradise” for wildlife, that wolves, elk, deer, bear, and perhaps even a unicorn (just kidding) freely romped about the wilderness waiting for the destructive hand of mankind to interrupt their nirvana.

Kay examines the historic documents and accounts of 20 different exploration parties between the years of 1835 and 1876 comprising a total of 765 days accounted for in the field. Of that amount of time by that number of people, Kay writes: “no reliable observer reported seeing or killing even a single wolf, and on only three occasions did explorers report hearing wolves howl.”

Dr. Kay reports that a similar observance can be found as it pertains to ungulates, i.e. elk, deer and moose and that bison were a rare sighting.

It may make us all somehow feel better to simply believe the information all too often given that before Europeans arrived, the United States was “pristine” in its nature and landscape. Or we could question this belief, review our recorded history that hasn’t been purposely tainted, and gain a truthful understand of how things were, why and what really happened after that, in order to move forward from a position of fact rather than fiction. But I contend this doesn’t fit the narrative of those protecting wolves nor that of PBS. It’s a shame really.

Once the Yellowstone Park was opened, protected and managed, prey species and habitat probably became quite ripe for the notion of bringing in wolves. In its “natural” state, Yellowstone was not the best wolf habitat in the world.

Of all things, Mr. O’Brien brings in a lawyer to support his story about how wonderful the wolf introduction has gone and the “whoa is me” attempt at painting the Center for Biological Diversity as some helpless little organization trying to help save wolves. Bill Snape is an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

See what Snape says: “Using their political muscle, the ranchers got their members of Congress to put a provision in the federal budget bill that took the wolves off the endangered species list.” In the way this is presented, it sounds as though everything was fine and dandy with wolves, that they needed protection as have been since 1973, when the big bad ranchers used some trumped up “political muscle” to force Congress to allow them to kill all the wolves off again.

My point is, that how difficult would have been for O’Brien and his editors to have done a bit more work and presented at least just enough facts to counter the clear intended misrepresentation of the history of wolves and the statistics to back it up. The history of getting to this point in time for the people of Idaho and Montana, pertaining to gray wolves, is critical to any discussion that brings up the delisting process which he did. This is a huge mistake by O’Brien which detracts from any credibility of this report.

For instance, Mr. O’Brien states: “Since the wolves returned to Yellowstone, they have been linked to more than 4,500 cattle and sheep killings.” Just one more sentence or two here could have gone a long way to explain that 4,500 killings are “linked” to wolves doesn’t mean that’s all they have killed. It has been conservatively estimated that for every 1 livestock kill officially blamed on wolves, 3 go by without such a designation, simply because it can’t be proven by an eyewitness. There is substantially more private property loss than what protectors of predators want people to know about.

But here’s a claim by Mr. Snape that goes completely unchallenged by Mr. O’Brien. This makes it obvious that Mr. O’Brien went to do his story unprepared and failed to substantiate claims made by those he interviewed before presenting it. Snape says: “They want to shoot hundreds of wolves through a private hunting scheme that would decimate the pack structure and really change the dynamics of the wolves’ success.”

In an attempt to help discerning readers understand the text of this interview, I’ll point out, not simply to become nit-picky, that the text becomes confusing as to who Mr. O’Brien is referencing. Before he quotes Snape on the “private hunting scheme”, O’Brien is talking about ranchers and calling them repeatedly “they”. Whether he is confused or has no specific identity to lay his information in the lap of, I’m not sure. He says: “They claim the wolf population is now large enough to sustain hunting.” This coming in the next paragraph after talking about ranchers and referring to them as “they”.

This leads into his discussion about wolf hunts. So, I’m guessing O’Brien shifts “theys” in midstream and “they” become hunters? perhaps?

Assuming so, Snape says “they” (hunters?) want to shoot hundreds of wolves “through a private hunting scheme”. I’ll address the rest in a moment. A private hunting scheme? In O’Brien’s ignorance he is clueless about questioning Snape’s referral to a claimed “private hunting scheme”. There is nothing private about the wolf hunting season. It has been put together lawfully by both the state’s of Idaho and Montana and is open to the public for anyone wishing to buy a hunting license and a wolf tag. If Mr. Snape is making implication that this perceived “political muscle” of the ranching community has created some “private hunting scheme”, he is delusional. His choice of words, left unchallenged by the reporter places hunters and ranchers in Idaho and Montana in the light of being something other than lawful citizens and going against the laws of the land to become wolf vigilantes.

But Snape also says that: “Montana will grant licenses for hunters to kill 220 out of about 600 wolves. Idaho has 1,000 wolves and will allow hunting until the population drops to 150.”

Again, this is extremely misleading. Remember, I’ve already educated you to the fact that there are far more wolves than what is “official”. Snape wants viewers to believe that simply because there is a wolf hunt season, the landscape will be running red with wolf blood. O’Brien also fails in presenting the facts behind wolf introduction and the plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove wolves from federal protection once wolf populations reached 300 across three states. He never mentions either that it was Snape’s organization and others that were successful in convincing the courts that at least 5,000 wolves were necessary before they would survive. Is this somehow no longer important evidence?

Nearly two years ago, I spent hours researching and crafting a four-part series called, “To Catch a Wolf“. Utilizing historic accounts from around the world, including the United States, and information contained in the work of Will Graves’ in his book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, one can read this. Just follow the link provided and learn for yourself the near impossible task of hunting wolves to extinction.

In the early 1900s it became possible only after the government became involved and it became financially motivational to go and kill wolves. Nothing of the sort will ever happen in Montana or Idaho, regardless of the image people like Snape want us to believe. What is hoped to happen is to haze wolves to gain a better understanding that man is also a dangerous predator and to reduce wolf numbers to ease the threats of property losses and public safety concerns.

To listen and view attorney Snape in this video piece one would think the end of the world had arrived. Perhaps his fear is his cash cow will dry up.

The rest of the report is spent making every effort to show that everybody wants to live with wolves and that the wolf is some kind of magical beast that “balances” nature, which science clearly refutes and that which Dr. Valerius Geist refers to as “intellectual garbage”.

While the overwhelming majority of people who watch this piece will go away, once again, thinking that the ranchers and hunters are bad, which is clearly the intent of the piece, efforts to educate remain difficult. To further fortify the indoctrination they have been forced to swallow for decades, organizations like PBS continue to present one-sided, misleading and biased “puff pieces”.

What is never mentioned in this report is the biggest crime of all. This reporter never even hints at the fact that little in this report would be possible if it hadn’t been for the efforts of the sportsmen who have forked over hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to grow and protect wildlife. We are the greatest conservationists on this planet and we are scoffed and demonized and ridiculed.

Had it not been for the effort of these sportsmen, this “world’s greatest” wolf habitat in the Yellowstone ecosystem would never have been possible. And what do we get for it? Pissed on.

PBS has tons of resources at their disposal. Had they used some of them, they could have put together a factual narrative to go with the video clips. Clearly, this was not their intention. I am just one person, working from my office at home, with a computer and a telephone, and I can provide the information this report should have had in it.

It’s all quite a shame.

Tom Remington

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is a draconian law that offers no flexibility, ruling out any semblance of common sense; strips states of their sovereign right to manage and care for their own flora and fauna; denies property owners of the right to use their land for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness; allows for the destruction of the country’s economic well being; and abdicates this nation’s sovereignty to International powers, to name a few.

What began, at least back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, as attempts by the government of protect specific species, resulted in a culmination of efforts and pressure from the international community and more precisely the United Nations, that ended in the signing of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, by President Nixon. Nixon at the time had been through hell with his Watergate turmoil and many believe he hadn’t the foggiest notion of what he was signing……or did he?

Perhaps the first most formal attempt at protecting species happened in 1966 with the signing of the Endangered Species Preservation Act. This law gave authority to the Secretary of Interior (DOI) to make a list of “endangered” domestic fish and wildlife. It also gave the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) $15 million to buy up land to protect endangered species habitat.

Over the next few years, the United States made attempts to expand their reach of “protecting” and “conserving”, even reaching out and listing species outside the U.S. and signing agreements with foreign entities in collaboration to “protect” and “conserve”.

Included in the first attempts at saving plants and animals, were such words as “insofar as is practicable and consistent with their primary purpose.” This, according to certain international entities wasn’t strong enough nor specific enough language to accomplish the agendas of “protecting” and “conserving” species.

It was pressure from the International Community that prompted the drafting and signing of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Within the ESA very strong and deliberate language was included that offer effectively no means of any kind of flexibility, that would allow for waivers or exemptions or to accord anyone some leeway of practicality and common sense.

The first real test of the strength of the language incorporated into the ESA of 1973, came when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) began construction of the Tellico Dam. After construction began, a University of Tennessee biologist named David Etnier, discovered what was believed at the time to be a very rare and tiny little fish called persina tanasi (snail darter), and declared that under the ESA the dam construction had to cease to save the fish.

It was during this time that some, including many who had voted for the ESA, began to realize parts of the ESA were impractical. Their thoughts were, “Who would allow for the stoppage of a multi-million dollar dam that was providing jobs and tons of cheap electricity when it was completed”. Their answer came from the Supreme Court.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al – 437 U.S. 153 (1978), let Congress, the TVA and the rest of the world know that according to the ESA, there were no provisions to make any exceptions for endangered species no matter what the costs.

Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion. (Lore has it that Mr. Burger, an appointee to the Supreme Court by Nixon, was on the minority but changed his vote so he could write the majority opinion. Believing this case to be so ridiculous, he thought his opinion would prompt Congress to begin immediate amendments to the ESA.)

Mr. Burger used language from the ESA like “admits of no exception” and “jeopardize the continued existence” and “halt and reverse the trend of extinction, whatever the cost”. The order was to stop the construction of the dam, even though during this entire time of litigation, building of the dam continued.

This was the onset of resolution when Congress was able to amend the ESA (Section 7) to “create a special exemption process”. Part of this “special exemption process” was the forming of a “Committee” which became commonly known as the “god squad” – the purpose of which was to examine cases such as Tellico and determine, under very strict criteria, if any exemption should be granted. This amendment is believed by some to have actually made the language of the amended ESA even more strict, if that were at all possible, raising serious questions as to the purpose and who or what was behind it.

The “god squad” would not grant TVA an exemption and so, what do you think happened? After all, there is a dam there now. Congress was able to attach an appropriations bill rider to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 1980. The 1978 Amendment to the ESA was a bust.

So, where did Congress or the United States Government get its authority over species and state sovereignty? That’s the million dollar question in which I hope to be able to answer for you. Who or what was pushing the United States to stiffen its grip on the people through wildlife and habitat protection? In addition, under what legal avenue did the United States Government assume their authority over state sovereignty and their right to manage and care for their own wildlife? Not only is it ironic but intently troublesome that during drafting of the ESA, our own National Wildlife Federation lobbied that management of endangered and threatened species remain with the states.

Let’s take a quick examination of the ESA that tells us where this authority, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, comes from.

Section 2. (4) the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to—
(A) migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;
(B) the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;
(C) the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;
(D) the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;
(E) the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;
(F) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and
(G) other international agreements; and
(5) encouraging the States and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards is a key to meeting the Nation’s international commitments and to better safeguarding, for the benefit of all citizens, the Nation’s heritage in fish, wildlife, and plants.(emphasis added)

I will examine some of these treaties and others that are very relevant to the crippling and destructive power of the Endangered Species Act.

Tom Remington

It’s a bit unclear as to how it all started and exactly what role President Roosevelt played in the beginning but it mostly came to a halt not too long after the President decided to remove from the classrooms and libraries the books of William Joseph Long.

Long was publicly accused by John Burroughs, President Roosevelt’s “Naturalist Adviser” (snicker), of gross exaggeration in his tales of events he claimed to have witnessed or obtained written testimony from those who had. There were obvious disagreements, not unlike what we still see to this day. Because Long’s work was used in public schools to educate children, it was eventually decided to remove his books from the schools.

As I understand the events, Teddy Roosevelt, in an article he penned in a publication of a magazine (Everybody’s Magazine?), made the claim in his criticism of William Long, that it was “a mathematical impossibility” for a wolf to kill a caribou by biting its chest. (Tearing it’s heart out.)

Long sent President Roosevelt a letter, evidently providing an invitation to the President, that the two should meet and settle this matter once and for all. On May 28, 1907, the New York Times carried a news story about Long’s attempts in communicating with the President, and getting no response, offers up a public letter to Roosevelt. The letter addresses claims that Roosevelt called Long a “nature faker” and that if Long was going to make claims that wolves can take down a caribou by biting it in the chest, he better provide proof.

In Long’s open letter he writes:

The issue between you and me is no longer one of animals, but of men; it is not chiefly a matter of natural history, but of truth and personal honor. In your recent magazine article you deliberately attacked me as well as my books. You have used the enormous influence of your official position to discredit me as a man, to ensure my reputation, and incidentally to make a poor man even poorer by destroying, if possible, the sale and influence of his work. I have spoken the truth, and you accuse me of deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation.

Long goes on to say that Roosevelt bases his accusations of being a “nature-faker” on the authors claim, in his book “Northern Trails” that a wolf can take down a caribou by biting his chest, in other words, ripping the heart out.

In “Northern Trails”, Long explains in detail how a wolf can take down a deer by ripping out the heart and explains the anatomical differences between specific ungulates.

(1) The lower chest of a deer, between and just behind the forelegs, is thin and wedge-shaped, exactly as I stated, and the point of the heart is well down in this narrow wedge. The distance through the chest and point of the heart from side to side was, in this case, exactly four and one-half inches. A man’s hand, as shown in the photograph, can easily grasp the whole lower chest of a deer, placing
thumb and forefinger over the heart on opposite sides. (2) The heart of a deer, and indeed of all ruminant animals, lies close against the chest walls and is easily reached and wounded. The chest cartilage, except in an old deer, is soft; the ribs are thin and easily crushed, and the spaces between the ribs are wide enough to admit a man’s finger, to say nothing of a wolf’s fang. In this case the point of the heart, as the deer lay on his side, was barely five eights of an inch from the surface. (3) Any dog or wolf, therefore, having a spread of jaws of four and one-half inches, and fangs three quarters of an inch long, could easily grasp the chest of this deer from beneath and reach the heart from either side. As the jaws of the big northern wolf spread from six to eight inches and his fangs are over an inch long, to kill a deer in this way would require but a slight effort. The chest of a caribou is anatomically exactly like that of other deer; only the caribou fawn and yearling of “Northern Trails” have smaller chests than the animals I measured.

Roosevelt, in his criticism of Long, writes in his newspaper article that if Long wants people to believe what he writes, he better supply some proof.

If Mr. Long wants us to believe his story he must produce eyewitnesses and affidavits.

In the New York Times open letter, Long produces a list of sworn and signed affidavits from people who have witnessed wolves easily killing deer and caribou. After producing the witnesses Roosevelt demanded, Long takes the President to task.

You cannot at this stage, Mr. Roosevelt, take refuge behind the presidential office and be silent. You have forfeited your right to that silence by breaking it, by coming out in public to attack a private citizen. If your talk of a “square deal” is not all a sham; if your frequent moral preaching is not all hypocrisy, I call upon you as president and as a man to come out and admit the era and injustice of your charge in the same open and public way in which you made it.

In an attempt to keep things in context with Mr. Long, because his writings were used in schools, geared toward educating children, his work often would be done in ways to appeal and hold the interest of children without scaring them to death. Often Long would weave a bit of fiction and the creation of fictitious characters into his stories in order to be able to carry with it the educational message he hoped to deliver on.

There are a few things here to consider. The obvious is that there will probably always be a degree of disagreement among those who are at all connected with the world of the woods. It is unfortunate, as it is today, that the President of the United States, of all people, who publicly criticize a private citizen, a nature writer, for publishing accounts for which the President didn’t agree with. Not only did he not agree but he chose his bully pulpit, the Presidency, to scoff, ridicule and demonize Long because he believed himself to be a more knowledgeable person in outdoor and wildlife issues.

This is the same thing we run into today. As much as Teddy Roosevelt was and still is respected by some, and placed on a high pedestal by others for his “conservation” work, history has shown us in this one example that he was wrong. Do we throw out everything else that Roosevelt wrote about and shared as his experiences in the field? Of course not. But by taking the position that Roosevelt did in this one case amounted to nothing really and probably did substantial, if not irreparable damage to Long’s reputation and character. And for what reason? Just to be right in the eyes of the public while disregarding the fact that science is a giant learning curve of which no one person has all the answers?

The lesson to learn here is that as much as we all want to take the high ground and claim to have all the unchanging, settle facts, not only can science not advance but good people can get destroyed. Why?

Tom Remington

“Congress should eschew this misguided bill and leave the science to the scientists.”
Yarrrrrr! Like this is the only time that some lame politician or foolish judge has wandered away from “science” in favor of politics. Like Duh! It is a crying shame that since Obama became like the President or something, we gotta do what he says and put science where it belongs or something.

“Politics has no place in decisions regarding the protection of wildlife.”
We know this to be true because when politics aides the narratives and agendas of the environmentalists, this is heavenly. However, if politics plays a role in stymieing those agendas, it’s a bad thing and we must revert back to the science of the environmentalists.

“Wolves also give pause to hunters and outfitters, many of whom are unwilling to share their game with another apex predator.”
Gosh! Remember when the big fat kid from down the street used to come by and visit? Within about 15 minutes he had cleaned out the refrigerator and cupboard, leaving the house in a trail of food crumbs? You mean that kind of sharing? I suppose too we could ask if the editorial writer(s) are willing to share their community and work places with Al Qaida. I mean, after all! Let’s not be greedy. I know writing editorials is a legitimate business enterprise but them useless hunters and outfitters. Cast them into the Lake of Fire! And I think somewhere out there, there might be a state Constitution or two mandated game management. Or do we ignore those documents now. I get so confused.

“they’re beginning to disperse throughout their original range”
I wonder! In making such a statement, would the author(s) please provide proof that these wolves are in “their original range”. Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with that according to his writings while in the West.

“That return to the natural order of things poses a problem for those, like Matheson and Chaffetz, who want man to master nature, not live in harmony with it.”
I answer this with a question. Is “the natural order of things” and “live in harmony” with wildlife like it was in the days of Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden, Milton Sublette, Joe Meek, John Fremont, Charles Preuss, Captain J. H. Simpson, and Howard Egan? I would suppose that when wolves are finished with their chores, the editorial staff at the Salt Lake Tribune don’t mind eating horses.

“But a federal judge ruled that the entire Western population of wolves is a contiguous unit and must be protected or delisted en masse under the Endangered Species Act,”
Is that what Judge Molloy said? I don’t recall that Judge Donald Molloy laid out any boundaries, well, except those that he liked. Forget about the boundaries that were used when wolves were introduced and the boundaries used to determine what kind of protections certain wolves would get as opposed to others. Nope! I recall nothing in Molloy’s ruling that said that gray wolf protection was limited to “the entire Western population”. That means there’s plenty of room for wolves in downtown Salt Lake City and Las Vegas, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Atlanta and New York City.

And this, a great ending.
“Worse, by usurping the role of the federal Environmental Protection Agency in administering the Endangered Species Act, lawmakers would set a dangerous precedent.”
First off, let me say that I wasn’t aware that the Environmental Protection Agency administered the Endangered Species Act. I thought it was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with the NOAA. But then again, the U.S. Supreme Court gave authority to the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases and as a result, somehow, polar bears, a species that has grown consistently for several decades is now listed on the ESA. I guess maybe the EPA at least controls the ESA like it does every other aspect of our lives.

But, I think somewhere in this mish-mash of words we can find two things. 1). It’s all George Bush’s fault, and 2)controlling wolves will lead to more global warming.

Now there’s some science for ya!

Tom Remington

There should be an investigation into the illegal introduction of wolves, but I am not aware that there is any formal investigation in the works. It is however, the claim of an outdoor writer, Jim Matthews, whose article is posted in The Sun, a publication for the San Bernadino, California area.

There is an investigation ongoing that’s likely to prove that the federal agency has done two illegal things: 1) used illegal funding for the wolf relocation, and 2) introduced a subspecies of wolf that wasn’t native to the Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho region.

Many of us have read accusations delivered by Jim Beers, former staff member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who essentially lost his job for discovering that millions of Pittman-Robertson money was illegally used to pay for the wolf introduction into the Yellowstone area.

We have also read accounts of how the wolves introduced were not the same wolves that once naturally roamed the Yellowstone area. (More info here: “Is There Any Such Thing as ‘Pure’ Wolf?” and the Smithsonian claims that the introduced wolf is not the same as what once lived in Yellowstone.)

Short of that, I know nothing of any formal investigation into these charges, although one might be welcomed at some point.

I would be interested to know if readers have further information on this claim and can substantiate any claims. Please weigh in below.

Tom Remington

If you will recall, Teddy Roosevelt often documented in his writings about wolves and coyotes. He relates his experiences with the Native American Indians how they cross bred dogs in order to get a useful beast for work and hunting. Roosevelt also described in detail his sightings of wolves in his travels, making account of the variations in size and behavior from one region to another.

In numerous discussions, some claim the wolves we see in the wild, including those introduced into the United States were “pure” wolves. Others question whether there is such a thing. In our haste to populate regions of this country with wolves, we have pushed to create distinct species and subspecies of the wolf. Back in March I told you about environmentalists in the Northeast region of our country that wanted to recognize, document and declare wolf-dog hybrids as a separate species and move toward their federal protection.

Through researching and studying this creature so frequently recorded in history, much of which is deemed as lore, I’ve had access to varying records of historic accounts of wolves, albeit many times anecdotal evidence.

Recently I received through a group emailing a series of historic notes or excerpts taken from records of many years. These accounts speak of the frequent and common inbreeding of wild wolves with domesticated dogs. I thought that in combination with links to previous historic accounts, this would shed some light on the possibilities that there even exists a “pure” wolf, or the same ones that roamed our regions years ago. It might help us all understand better the kind of animal we are dealing with.

~~~~~~~~~~

Late 1700’s, Western Hudson Bay – “the Dog… resembles the wolf, but in size is greatly inferior… They run and bite in silence, never barking but sometimes howl egregiously… It is usual for our [Newfoundland] dogs and also the native breed to copulate with wolves, and the offspring retain the moroseness of the latter.”

Williams, G. ed., intro by R. Glover. 1969:33. Andrew Graham’s Observations on Hudson’s Bay, 1767-91. The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, Vol. XXVII, London.

————–

1801, Park R. Post, North Dakota – “We had a Bitch [in heat]… I turned [the dogs] out and drove them all to the plains when a band of Wolves being near hand, and getting the scent of the bitch approached them, and a furious battle ensued, in which one of our dogs was torn to pieces, and left dead on the spot. This is frequently the case at this season of the year, when the Wolves are copulating and our dogs get among them they are often torn to pieces. The female Wolves it would seem prefers our dogs to their own species, and we now see them daily coming near the Fort and endeavour to entice the dogs out onto the plains with them. This often happens, when if the dogs do ever return again, they are in a most miserable condition, lean and covered with sores. Some of my men have amused themselves by watching their motions and when they have observed them in the act of copulating have rushed upon them with an Axe or Club, when the dogs apprehending no danger would remain quiet, and the Wolf being prevented from running off was instantly dispatched.”

Gough, B.M., ed. 1988:106. The Journal of Alexander Henry the Younger 1799-1814, Vol. 1:Red River and the Journey to the Missouri, The Champlain Society, Toronto.

—————-

1861, St. Cloud, Minnesota – “I saw a large brown and red dog at the hotel, so wolfish in appearance that I enquired his pedigree. I was told that he was half wolf and raised as a train dog for the sledge… and that such dogs were raised and kept at Georgetown for this express purpose. In the rutting season the she dog is taken into the woods, tied and left. She is found there when the heat is upon her by the wolf… and the result is a cross breed… The wolf dog I saw… [described]’ p 121

Morgan, L.H., 1999:121. The Indian Journals, 1859-62. Dover Publications, New York. Originally published in 1959, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI

————–

1851, Fort Union, North Dakota – “Indian dogs differ very slightly from wolves in appearance, howl like them, do not bark, and not infrequently mate with them.”

Kurz, R.F. 2005:172. On The Upper Missouri: The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852. Edited and Abridged by Carla Kelly. Introduction by Scott Eckberg. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

————-

1859, Fort Edmonton, Alberta – “They are mostly of the ordinary Indian kind, large and long-legged and wolfish, with sharp muzzles, pricked ears, and thick, straight, wiry hair [of many colours]… Most of them are very wolfish in appearance, many being half or partly, or all but entirely, wolves in blood. One dark grey dog… was said to be almost a pure wolf…”

Southesk, Earl of. 1969 [1875]:152-53. A Diary and Narrative of Travel, Sport, and Adventure, During a Journey Through the Hudson’s Bay Company’s Territories, in 1859 and 1860. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas; 1969 by Charles E. Tuttle Co. Publishers, Rutland, Vermont & Tokyo, Japan.

————

1845, southern Saskatchewan – “an immense number of dogs… follow them from the [Metis] settlements for the purpose of feeding on the offal and remains of the slain buffaloes. These dogs are very like wolves, both in appearance and disposition, and, no doubt, a cross breed between the wolf and the dog. A great many of them acknowledge no particular master, and are sometimes dangerous in times of scarcity. I have myself known them to attack the horses and eat them.”

“At night we were annoyed by the incessant howling and fighting of innumerable dogs and wolves that had followed us to the hunt, seemingly well aware of the feast that was preparing for them…”

Kane, P. 1925:53, 61. Wanderings of an Artist Among the Indians of North America. The Radisson Society of Canada Ltd., Toronto.

———-

Assiniboine word for dog = “Shunka”; and wolf = Shuñkto-ka-cah,” which means “Literally, the other kind of dog.”

Denig, E.T. 2000 [1930]:189. The Assiniboine. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Reprint from Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1928-1929

Tom Remington

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Tom Remington