Wildlife and People

Otter Signs Wolf Disaster Bill

Begrudgingly, Promises NOT to Abide By It

Idaho Gov. Butch Otter yesterday signed the Wolf Disaster Bill [here, here, here, here]. (Note: we previously reported that he signed it last week, which was incorrect and we redacted that mistaken report. Now we are convinced Otter has actually signed the bill, based on numerous sources).

The full text of the Bill (now law) is [here].

Gov. Otter penned a letter [here] to Idaho Sec. State Ben Ysura explaining his reasoning.

Otter claimed in his letter that Idaho citizens do not need him to declare any “state of disaster” before they are legally allowed to protect themselves and their properties from wolves. As we all know, that is false. Massive depredations of livestock and pets have occurred in Idaho while armed state troopers stand idly by, in fact threatening the victims of wolf attacks with arrest and prosecution if they attempt to defend themselves from wolves.

Otter claimed that the phony Simpson-Tester-Baucus budget wolf rider [here] will solve all the wolf problems. That is also patently false.

Otter also expressed concern that the Legislature’s declaration of a disaster usurps his “right” as governor to do all the disaster declaring in Idaho. But then, Otter didn’t do his job and has failed to declare any wolf disaster to date.

Otter concludes his letter by stating that “portions of the bill may prove useful in the future, if state management is revoked and the wolf is relisted in the future”.

Hello, Governor. The Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game has NEVER managed wolves in Idaho, has repeatedly violated the 2002 Wolf Plan approved by the Legislature, and has worked hand-in-glove with the USFWS to promulgate wolves and destroy elk, deer, and moose populations. Nor have wolves ever been “delisted” successfully, nor will the Simpson-Tester-Baucus rider delist them.

But at least Otter signed the Disaster Bill. He will not enforce it, though, so what’s the point?

Federal Wolves - States Rights

by Idaho State Rep. Phil Hart

Full text [here]

Selected excerpts:

Today there are many issues that confront our political institutions. We are living in interesting times. For state governments the big issues are balancing budgets and federal government encroachment. And for the state of Idaho, the face of federal government encroachment is that of a Canadian Gray Wolf.

Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, in the mid-70’s Washington D.C. bureaucrats began to contemplate the introduction of wolves into parts of the so called lower 48 states.

Over the objections of the Idaho Legislature, the governor of Idaho, and Idaho’s congressional delegation, in 1995 the federal Fish and Wildlife Service introduced 35 Canadian Gray Wolves into central Idaho. A like number of wolves were introduced into Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, just across the Idaho border.

The plan was to protect this population of Gray Wolves such that their numbers would increase to 300 and at least 30 breeding pairs across the three state region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Idaho Legislature, with a gun to its head, agreed to this scheme in a 2002 Wolf Management Plan it ratified; while at the same time passing a resolution stating that its real desire was to remove the wolves from Idaho all together. The DC bureaucrats were going to introduce the wolves no matter what the state of Idaho wanted; and the negotiated 2002 Wolf Management Plan reflected Idaho’s effort to at least have a say in the process. …

The Canadian Gray Wolf was introduced as a “nonessential experimental” species as defined by the Endangered Species Act. The ESA only allows the introduction of an “experimental species” when the original native species is extinct. But the Idaho Timberwolf was not extinct; we had about 80 of them. These Timberwolves were documented by recognized experts. No problem for the federal government, they just solved that dilemma by lying. Consequently, the introduction of the Canadian Gray Wolf into Idaho was based on fraud.

It gets worse. Under the original agreement Idaho was to have 100 wolves with 10 breeding pairs (our share of the three state total of 300 wolves with 30 breeding pairs). That goal was achieved in about 2002. Today, nine years later the Canadian Gray Wolf is still listed as “endangered”. The wolf issue has been tied up in endless lawsuits promoted by the environmentalists. Demonizing the wolf opposition and litigating on the issue has proved to be a money making machine for these left of center folks. Each time the environmental advocacy groups file a pro-wolf lawsuit, they rake in the bucks and contribute to the mismanagement of the wolf introduction process. …

In 2002, the Idaho Legislature agreed to manage a population of one hundred wolves. We now have somewhere between 800 to 2,000 wolves. The wolf population is out of control. And experts predict unacceptable consequences to the people of Idaho and their livestock, pets and the big game resources of the state. As the Canadian Gray Wolf consumes itself out of its natural food sources, it will turn to those areas inhabited by people for something to eat. There are already areas of Idaho where the big game numbers are so diminished that the big game herds are now in what is called a “predator pit”, a condition where the number of animals left in a herd are not enough to sustain that herd given the depredation rate unless there is aggressive human management.

Today, wolves are increasingly visiting areas occupied by humans. They have been seen numerous times within the city limits of small towns. Wolf kills have been found as close as three miles from the Statehouse located in Boise. The experts say that wolves are becoming habituated to the rural and urban fringe areas of Idaho. When this occurs, the experts tell us to expect the worst.

Idaho has an emergency. And according to the Idaho Constitution, the first and foremost duty of the state government is found at article I, section 1, “All men… have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, pursuing happiness and securing safety.” Both the legislative and executive branches of state government are empowered to declare an emergency.

For some of those who live in rural Idaho today, all of those rights referred to in article I, section 1 of Idaho’s state Constitution is now at risk, or has already been completely taken away. Those who have wolves frequent their neighborhoods have lost the quiet enjoyment of their property and are physically at risk. Idaho has an emergency, and we need to reduce the number of wolves in Idaho.

“The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the core of the State’s police power….” Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976).

When the states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they met as individual sovereign states, each of whom possessed all the power of any sovereign government on planet Earth. In the process of drafting the Constitution, they delegated portions of their sovereignty to the federal government through the express language of the Constitution. And just to make it clear as to what the limits of that delegated power was, they included the Bill of Rights the Tenth Amendment of which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the state, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The police power of the sovereign has been retained by the states, and in no way has it been shared with the federal government. And when lives, peoples’ safety and the protection of property are at risk, our state government has a duty to exercise its police power and protect Idahoans and their property. …

Worldwide, there are several hundred thousand gray wolves. From a global perspective, the gray wolf is not threatened. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Canadian Gray Wolf has been categorized as “nonessential – experimental.” This is the lowest category in terms of importance that can be given to a species by the ESA. In any balancing analysis that might be made judicially, something that is “nonessential” is not going to trump the necessity to protect the life and safety of American Citizens. …

These are federal wolves, as it was the federal government who introduced them into Idaho over our objections. They told the state of Idaho that the wolves would be considered recovered when we had a total of 100 wolves in Idaho. Now we have between 800 and 2,000 wolves and the situation is out of control.

Idaho’s wolf emergency is a state issue. And in this situation, the state of Idaho has both a duty and the authority to protect its people and their property. House Bill 343 lays out the facts, the argument and the authority to do so. And the governor can devise a process, outlined in an executive order, that is dignified and methodical in confronting this emergency. Now is the time for Idaho to exercise its sovereign power, expressly retained by states as evidenced by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Of Wolves and Men

by Jim Carrell

I attended the Wolf Disaster Declaration rally at the Idaho state capitol on April 6, 2011. I and several others present resent being labeled (By Fox 12 in their April 6 article “Idaho Wolf Emergency Looming”) as part of an “Anti-Wolf Coalition” or being part of a “rabid crowd” for simply showing up and supporting our belief that wolf numbers need to be managed.

I am not anti-wolf; I am anti-unmanaged-wolves. The animal itself is simply being what it is: an apex (pack) predator. The need for wolf management is supported by clear evidence that shows massive damage to many of the ungulate populations (namely elk, moose, and deer) of ID, MT, WY, MN, WI, and MI. Some prime examples of the damage already done are below (it’s not global warming or habitat loss):

Lolo Zone of Idaho Elk Herd:

* 80% population decline since Canadian wolves were introduced in 1995.

* Average age of the cow elk in this herd: 9 to 10 years old — the age they begin to lose ability to produce calves. Many of the cows that are able to breed are aborting their fetuses due to constant harassment by wolves.

* Calf recruitment: Almost zero. Of the calves that are being born, most will not make it through their first winter before being killed, primarily by wolves.

Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd:

* 75% population decline since Canadian wolves were introduced in 1995.

* Average age of the cow elk in this herd: 9 to 10 years old — the age when they begin to lose ability to produce calves. Many of the cows that are able to breed are aborting their fetuses due to constant harassment by wolves.

* Calf recruitment: Almost zero. Of the calves that are being born, most will not make it through their first winter before being killed, primarily by wolves.

Moose of Yellowstone:

It is my understanding that prior to 1995 over 1,200 moose were in Yellowstone. It is also my understanding that today they number fewer than 100, a 92% population decline.

In short, these elk herds and moose are in danger of being lost forever. Wherever Canadian Gray Wolf numbers remain unchecked in ID, MT, and WY, as well as several Midwestern states, similar ungulate population declines are occurring. The myth that wolves only kill the sick and the weak, or just what they need to survive, has been busted. The statement “…there is no wolf emergency right now,” made by Suzanne Stone, Rocky Mountain Wolf Coordinator for the Defenders of Wildlife, at the rally on April 6, 2011, is unreasonable and conveys a hidden agenda in my opinion. As long as there are people or organizations covering up the damage wolves are doing to other wildlife and the threat they present to humans, there will be people or organizations that will counter them — some louder than others.

More consideration should be given to the people who live in rural areas who are being personally affected by wolves. There is evidence supporting that their way-of-life, economy, and well-being — both physical and psychological — have been dramatically affected by an over-population of wolves. Given these reasons, some are beyond fed-up with the situation, which may be understandable if one were to walk in their shoes. It is simply not the desire of the majority to eradicate wolves. Most of us just want them controlled before their numbers are uncontrollable — and before further damage is done to the ungulate numbers, rural living, ranching, and the use of public lands.

Many other people (who may or may not live in rural areas) who hunt, fish, berry-pick, camp or enjoy viewing all wildlife (not just wolves) have been adversely affected as well. State revenue has certainly been impinged. Almost every hunter both resident and non-resident recognizes the quality of hunting has been severely compromised in areas that have too many wolves.

My personal belief, in light of all the damage that mismanaged, introduced Canadian Gray Wolves have caused, is that we should reduce their numbers to what was originally agreed upon before all of the “goal line” changing occurred in this “Non-Essential” and “Experimental” project (as stated in the terms of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Project). The Canadian Gray Wolf is nowhere near extinct — there are at least 50,000 in Canada alone (a country that has strict wolf management). Many believe there are over 10,000 in the lower 48 and they reproduce at a rate of 25-30% per year.

Since its beginning, the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Project has been one deal broken after another. The documentary “Yellowstone is Dead” [here] takes an in-depth look at this and I highly recommend watching it.

Recently, Congress stepped in and delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana. Where this is a step in the right direction, it leaves out several other states like WY, MN, WI, and MI who are also experiencing severe losses because of unmanaged wolves. That is why I support H.R. 509 — a bill that delists the non-endangered wolves completely and in the process secures all states’ equal rights of sovereignty to manage all wildlife within their own borders.

Many of the facts are not being publicized by the mainstream media. This matter is utterly polarized and the media should stop fanning the flames and practice ethical, unbiased journalism.

Hundreds Expected To Turn Out For Wolf-Judge Protest Rally At Missoula U.S. District Court Building

By Lobo Watch, March 15, 2011 [here]

Residents of the Northern Rockies have just about had their fill of wolves. Actually, what they’ve mostly grown tired of is how wolves are now making a seriously negative impact on other wildlife populations - namely the elk, deer and moose populations that have made Montana, Idaho and Wyoming famous, and which are now disappearing rapidly in many areas. Rural residents have also become weary of fighting to keep wolves away from their livestock, and worrying about the safety of their children.

Many of those who live close to the land are equally disturbed at how a handful of self-proclaimed “environmental” groups continue to fight the wolf management hunts needed to control wolf numbers at a level where big game herds can still flourish, plus allow ranchers to profitably raise cattle and sheep. Likewise, tax-paying citizens are now realizing that these same groups or organizations have financially benefited from the billions of federal dollars they’ve received through the Equal Access to Justice Act, for the grossly padded legal expenditures for which these “non-profit” organizations are reimbursed. And many Northern Rockies residents are now growing extremely suspicious of the one federal judge these groups continually get to hear their cases, and wonder just what the incentives are for this judge to always decide in their favor.

That anger…that frustration…that distrust will surely be openly displayed on March 24, 2011 as a large crowd of sportsmen, rural land owners, ranchers, and those who have seen their logging careers ended by these same “green” organizations, and the very same Judge Donald Molloy, gather in protest of efforts to once again thwart any control of ever growing wolf numbers, and to stop ever escalating wolf devastation. The issue has reached and surpassed the boil-over point, and hundreds are expected to join in the protest - and there will more than likely be quite the array of protest signs - some targeting wolves, some taking environmental groups to task, and some questioning the motive of the judge inside.

LOBO WATCH has been hearing from groups up and down the western side of Montana…and from across Idaho…and even from Wyoming who fully intend to be standing in front of and alongside the Russell Smith U.S. District Court building on that day. The rally will take place at the corner of East Broadway and North Pattee streets in Missoula, as Judge Molloy once again listens to the wishes of groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Humane Society of the United States, who are opposed to any control of wolf numbers, and especially reducing the wolf populations to an acceptable level. The hearing on March 24 is an attempt by these groups to have the definition changed for the “experimental” and “non-essential” classification of the non-native and non-endangered Canadian wolves that many feel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly transplanted into the wildlife rich Northern Rockies. Or to eliminate that classification altogether.

After listening to the arguments of these groups last June, Molloy placed gray wolves back on the Endangered Species List, which cancelled out management hunts that were scheduled for Montana and Idaho. Molloy based that decision on the fact the USFWS did not accept Wyoming’s wolf management plan, and he ruled it was wrong to permit hunts in adjacent states. However, another federal judge in Cheyenne, WY decided that USFWS had been wrong to reject Wyoming’s plan. Still, the management hunts in Montana and Idaho remained canceled - and that will be one part of the issue that draws many angry sportsmen to this protest rally. Some will be protesting for individual state right to manage wolf numbers, others will be calling for the complete resignation or impeachment of Judge Molloy.

This rally is being co-organized by a number of sportsman and land owner based organizations. LOBO WATCH has become the lead organizer. Anyone wanting to participate should contact Toby Bridges at lobowatch (at) yahoo.com. Right now, plans are for protesters to be at the courthouse starting at 12 noon, since the actual hearing begins at 1:30 p.m., and there needs to be a crowd around the courthouse when key players and the media begin to show. Molloy’s court session will likely end around 4 p.m., and some protesters need to be still be on hand. Any time or date changes will be posted on the LOBO WATCH website [here, here].

Restoring Rural American Rights and Prosperity

by Jim Beers

As this is being written:

* Union rioters are seizing State Capitol buildings in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio.

* State legislators are fleeing their states to avoid the wrath of their Union supporters.

* Chronic national unemployment is on everyone’s mind.

* National and State debts threaten to bankrupt and even destroy government.

* National and State Budgets cause hostility everywhere as calls for comity abound.

* Budget Cuts v. Tax Increases reflect the deep political division emerging everywhere.

* Unfunded entitlements from government pensions to social and medical promises loom.

* Housing prices and construction are in the worst shape since the 1930’s.

* Banks, loans, business futures, insurance costs, and federal funds are all questionable.

* Middle East and African governments are falling with unknowable future rulers.

* Oil and energy prices are exploding as federal policies are unclear and threatening.

Additionally, Rural America is depressed and reeling from ±40 years of federal government policies that treat federal lands as distinct from the states and local communities wherein they are located (i.e. Wilderness Declarations, Road Closures, abandonment of renewable natural resource management and use, revenue-generating and revenue-sharing management practices from grazing and timber management to wildlife uses, “Travel Management” Plans, Permits requirements, etc.); from the effects of steadily expanded and unconstitutional federal powers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); from Taking Without Compensation and disregard for both state authorities and private property; from administrative takeover of state agencies and changing the ESA from “saving species” to selectively restoring species anywhere at will and even mortally endangering human safety with “GI” (Government Introduced) wolves; and an arrogant disregard for those affected.
more »

Wolfish Judicial Games

by Mike Dubrasich, Exec Dir W.I.S.E.

The latest twist in the judicial wolf saga [here] is complicated and merits some discussion of the history vis the courts and wolves. We offer a partial history as follows:

On Aug. 7, 2008 US District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy issued a wolf decision [here] that began with his usual flowery though unintelligible verbosity:

This case, like a cloud larger than a man’s hand, will hang over the northwest states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming until there has been a final determination of the complex issues presented.

In that case (CV 08-56-M-DWM) the Defenders of Wildlife et al. challenged the February 27, 2008 US Fish and Wildlife Service delisting of the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf distinct population segment (DPS). The USFWS RM wolf DPS included all of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and northern Utah.

Molloy reinstated (relisted) wolves as endangered because, as he reasoned, the USFWS had made “no plausible showing of genetic exchange” between wolves in Yellowstone and wolves in Montana and Idaho.

This was a strange finding, since the Canadian gray wolves in Montana and Idaho were direct descendants of the Canadian gray wolves the USFWS dumped in Yellowstone in 1995. They were the exact genetic strain. Was Molloy saying that brother and sister wolves were failing to mate, or first cousins, or what? It was difficult to decipher his irrational rationale, but he did mention “genetic exchange” no less than 67 times in that decision and concluded:

Absent genetic exchange, the wolf will not likely be able to withstand future environmental variability and stochastic events. 1994 EIS, App. 9. Plaintiffs therefore have demonstrated a possibility of irreparable harm.

The reaction to this nonsense was swift and loud, and more than a little bit derisive [here, here]. Obviously there was genetic exchange. The wolves were one big happy family. They not only interbred, they mongrelized with dogs, coyotes, and attempted to do so with whatever they came across that looked half way mate-worthy, successfully or not.

more »

Wolverine Madness

The new “charismatic” predator of the month is the wolverine. Wolverine news is popping up all over. For instance:

Wolverine population threatened by climate change

NCAE & UCAR News, February 03, 2011 [here]

BOULDER—The aggressive wolverine may not be powerful enough to survive climate change in the contiguous United States, new research concludes.

Wolverine habitat in the northwestern United States is likely to warm dramatically if society continues to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, according to new computer model simulations carried out at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The study found that climate change is likely to imperil the wolverine in two ways: reducing or eliminating the springtime snow cover that wolverines rely on to protect and shelter newborn kits, and increasing August temperatures well beyond what the species may be able to tolerate. …

Peacock’s research focused on mountainous regions of the Northwest, the primary habitat of the wolverine population in the contiguous United States. The study did not look into the impacts of climate change on regions where wolverines are more numerous, such as Canada, although other research has indicated those areas will likely warm significantly as well. …

The study was published last week in Environmental Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

Note that “computer model simulations” are the source of this alarming news. In actual fact, winter temperatures in wolverine country have been trending downwards for the last 20 years at a rate of -.53°F per decade, and a whopping -5.24°F over the last 10 years.

NCDC Climate Services and Monitoring Division, Climate At A Glance [here]

Winter (Dec-Feb) Temperatures, West North Central Region, Winter (Dec-Feb) 1990 - 2010 Trend = -0.53 degF / Decade

Winter (Dec-Feb) Temperatures, West North Central Region, Winter (Dec-Feb) 2000 - 2010 Trend = -5.24 degF / Decade

Evidently nobody told the computer making the simulations. The wolverine alarmists don’t care about the actual facts, however, and are content to spew insane tales of horror no matter what the facts are.

More government promulgated insanity: all citizen visits to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area are to be banned because of wolverines. Wildlife pseudo-biologists have determined that the mere presence of a human being causes wolverines to curl up and die.

The Boise, Payette, and Sawtooth National Forests are developing “Wildlife Conservation Strategies” that will eliminate recreational use of their “Recreation Areas” and wildernesses because of the fragile sensitivities of wolverines [here].

Note that all three Forests have deliberately and with malice aforethought promulgated megafires over the last five years. The fires have eliminated almost all recreational use across thousands of square miles, but not affected the wolverines in the slightest (evidently). A crown fire ripping through 100,000 acres is no great burden to wolverines, but the presence of human being on that same tract of land is fatal to them, according to the USFS and USFWS.

The hidden objective is to de-humanize vast tracts of public and private land, in accord with the Wilderness Project dreamed up and promulgated by Earth First!. The former radical underground eco-terrorist group is now mainstream and has taken over the US Forest Service.

The wolverine is not endangered. They are doing quite nicely in Canada, and the US population is growing. The fur trapping days are over. That’s what mainly caused wolverine population declines over the last 200 years. Not human sighting.

De-humanizing the West will not do anything for wolverines. Pseudoscience notwithstanding.

The radical anti-humanists are not retreating, however, despite their failure to get wolverines listed:

Wolverines denied federal protection

Given ‘candidate species’ designation

By Katherine Wutz, Idaho Mountain Express, Dec. 15, 2010 [here]

Even though wolverines are threatened with extinction [BS Alert - false statement by a journo-lista], they will not receive federal protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Monday.

Wolverines will be listed as a “candidate species,” meaning that they are eligible for protection under the Endangered Species Act. However, the service said there are other, more high-priority species on the same list, and listing wolverines under federal protection will have to wait for now, though the species will undergo an annual review.

“There are reasons to be concerned about the long-term persistence of wolverines,” said Robin Garwood, a wildlife biologist with the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. “Even though wolverines won’t be protected by ESA for now, I think it highlights the importance of ensuring that remaining habitat, including habitat on the Sawtooth Forest, is kept as intact as possible.”

To the Sawtooth NF, “intact” means keeping the public out, with armed federal agents if necessary. You might disturb a wolverine, so you are forbidden to go upon federal land. You are requested, however, to pay the salaries of the federal agents like Mr. (or Ms.) Garwood, or else go to jail. That’s how the System works.

It’s not your land, it’s not my land. The land belongs to the Government and that means not you and not me. Only certified federal agents and eco-terrorists are allowed. Exclusion of the public is necessary to “save” the non-endangered wolverines.

Foreign and Domestic Train Wreck in the Making - More of the ESA

by Karen Budd-Falen, Karen Budd-Falen Law Offices LLC, Cheyenne WY [here]

See also: Western Legacy Alliance [here]

As the New Year opens, the use and abuse of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) continues to provide a significant hardship to private property, private rights, and land use both within this country and even in countries of which most people have probably never heard. Despite President Obama’s proclamation that “America will play a more restrained role on the international stage,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) does not seem to be restraining from listing species as threatened or endangered, despite the fact that many species on the American list have NEVER traveled to American soil. In fact, by January 3, 2011, the FWS had listed 568 foreign species on the American threatened or endangered species list. These species are from places like China, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Palau, and of course Canada and Mexico. The latest additions were seven birds from Brazil on December 28, 2010.

There are a lot of alleged reasons given that the U.S. should be spending American tax dollars to research, study and list foreign species under the ESA. One of the biggest reasons, so they say, is so that America can stop foreign import of endangered and threatened species. I thought that was fair until I did some simple research online and found out that you can buy some of these listed threatened and endangered species on E-bay. Does any one want to buy a Goliath Frog, from West Africa? It was going for $150.00 on E-bay on January 20, 2011, despite the fact it was listed on the American ESA list in 1994.

The more shocking research however is that once a foreign species is listed on the U.S. threatened or endangered species list, the ESA gives the American government the authority to buy “land or water or interests therein” in foreign countries. In other words, the ESA gives the U.S. government authority, with the consent of the foreign government, to use foreign currency to buy foreign land in the name of the United States. With the current budget and deficit drowning American workers, why is the U.S. government even thinking of buying foreign land and water? And once we do buy it, who manages it and what does that cost the American taxpayer?

If America is playing a more restrained role internationally, the FWS does not seem to agree. In relation to the December 28, 2010 foreign species ESA listing, the FWS press release states:

All seven species face immediate and significant threats primarily from the threatened destruction and modification of their habitats from conversion of agricultural fields (e.g., soybeans, sugarcane, and corn), plantations (e.g., eucalyptus, pine, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and bananas), livestock pastures, centers of human habitation, and industrial developments (e.g., charcoal production, steel plants, and hydropower reservoirs).

Although there is limited information on the specific nature of potential impacts from climate change to the species included in this final rule, we [FWS] are concerned about projected climate change, particularly the effect of rising temperatures in combination with the potential loss of genetic diversity, and population isolation; and cumulative effects including El Niño events. Furthermore, we have determined that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is a contributory risk factor that endangers each of these species’ continued existence.

So America is dictating what property in foreign countries can be used for and American businesses have to wait for the completion of ESA section 7 consultation based on “climate change” for birds in Brazil?

more »

Who Are the Real Predators?

Note: The following is excerpted from “It’s Time for Elected Officials to Take the Blinders Off and Admit Their State F&G’s Real Agenda”, the lead article in The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 41, Sept-Dec 2010. The entire issue is [here]. Back issues are available at Idaho For Wildlife [here].

By George Dovel

States’ F&G Lobbyist, IAFWA, Abandons Hunters

State F&G Directors in both Wyoming and Idaho insisted “the public” wanted them to provide opportunities to enjoy watching species that were not harvested by hunters and fishermen – but that was not the truth. The truth is, in 1990 the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in Washington, D.C. hired bird watcher Naomi Edelson to run nongame programs in the 50 States and changed its #1 priority from providing wild game and fish for hunters and fishermen to harvest, to promoting non-consumptive wildlife recreation.

Twenty or even 10 years ago, anyone who dared to tell the truth about this was branded a “conspiracy theorist” or an “alarmist” by our state wildlife managers. Nearly two years ago, after I had carefully documented the step-by-step process in several Outdoorsman issues, Idaho F&G Commissioner Tony McDermott admitted they did what AFWA (formerly IAFWA) told them to but said even if my claims were true I couldn’t do anything about it.

My Challenge to Elected Officials

If you are one of several hundred elected officials in several states who receive this publication, you have internet access. I challenge you to take five minutes and “get it straight from the horse’s mouth” [here]:

The paper titled, “Finding Our Wings: The Payoff of a Decade of Determination” was written by Edelson and presented to a national convention of bird watchers in 2003. It is also Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191 dated 2005, and spells out how the IAFWA priority was changed and how millions of dollars have been diverted by Congress from perpetuating game and fish harvests to promoting the nongame agenda beginning in 2001 with what is called “State Wildlife Grants”. …

The next step in the state F&G Agencies’ alien agenda, dictated by the IAFWA and the powerful Nature Conservancy (TNC), was to use sportsmen’s license money to help “Teaming With Wildlife” lobby for passage of CARA (the Conservation and Reinvestment Act). Passage of this Act would have provided a billion dollars from offshore oil drilling fees to support the non-consumptive agenda, and would have given wildlife managers authority to implement the radical UN Convention on Biodiversity (”Wildlands”) that was never ratified by Congress.

It would also have bypassed the legislative and judicial branches of both our state and federal governments and allowed both state and federal wildlife bureaucrats to condemn and acquire $450 million worth of private property each every year. With its massive federal “pork” money for every state, the 2000 version of CARA easily passed the House and was approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 13-7.

But thanks to private property rights advocates and Western senators who continued to oppose CARA, it was never sent to the floor for a vote by the full Senate. President Clinton strongly supported the UN Wildlands Agenda, so the Teaming With Wildlife (TWW) activists were desperate to get something passed implementing that agenda while Clinton was still in office.

more »

Which Is The Greater Criminal?

by Jim Beers

Wolves Attack Cattle, Kill Sheep In Central Montana

Flathead Beacon, 01-13-11 [here]

GREAT FALLS, Mont. (AP) - State and federal authorities have confirmed that gray wolves recently attacked and injured two calves on a Fergus County ranch while wolves killed more than two dozen sheep on two ranches south of Ulm.

USDA Wildlife Services state director John Steuber tells the Great Falls Tribune that the attack on the cattle was the first confirmed instance of wolf attacking livestock in Fergus County. Wildlife Services officials say ranch personnel witnessed the Dec. 31 attack.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks asked Wildlife Services to capture and radio collar one of the wolves, but the wolves haven’t been seen recently.

Wildlife Services is also investigating the killing of 27 sheep near Ulm.

Biologist Craig Glazier says two wolves were responsible. On Dec. 21, Wildlife Services shot a 3-year-old male wolf near one of the kill sites.

11 hunters convicted of illegally taking elk in Montana

Billings Gazette, January 4, 2011 [here]

GLASGOW, Mont. - A multi-year investigation into the illegal killing of elk in southern Phillips County, Mont., has resulted in criminal convictions for

11 hunters, including seven South Dakota residents.

A total of $37,300 in fines and restitution was collected in the case, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Criminal Investigator Lennie Buhmann.

Eight of the 11 defendants also lost a total 22 years of hunting, fishing and trapping privileges in the 36 states involved in the Interstate Wildlife Violators Compact. …

In all, 11 unlawfully killed bull elk were recovered. Two of the bulls were trophy class, which resulted in $8,000 in restitution being charged for each. Another animal, a cow elk, was also unlawfully killed but was not recovered. …

FERGUS COUNTY, Montana (where the livestock is starting to be killed by wolves spreading from western Montana) is just west of Phillips County, Montana where some South Dakotans unlawfully took a dozen elk recently.

Three months ago I was watching some elk in southern Phillips County on one of the two National Wildlife Refuges that comprise the ENTIRE southern boundary of that county along the Missouri River. The hills above me (on the Refuge) were alive with hunters while the Bottoms where I was is a Closed Area where watching elk bulls assemble “harems” makes for a pleasant roadside evening with a few others with binoculars, cameras, and some enjoyable conversation.

When I told one local guy that soon the wolves would reach this area and this would become but a dim memory, he laughed and said the “experts” said wolves wouldn’t come this far into central Montana and beside they would only take a “few” of the elk. I told them they would be here sooner than he thought and that they were probably already here, he laughed again.

I tried to point out that bugling elk and concentrations of 100’s of elk would attract wolves like a dinner bell he shook his head and smirked. When I said that first the elk would try to go back into the woodlands but soon enough would be fewer and fewer in number as they began keeping more quiet and breeding opportunistically and clandestinely like deer so as to be safe, he just smiled and walked away.

more »

Which Organizations Should U.S. Sportsmen Support?

by Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH News Release, January 3, 2011 [here]

If there’s one thing that outdoors men and outdoors women have learned from being forced to live with wolves, it’s that the citizens of the United States sure cannot put much trust in what advocacy groups or organizations call themselves these days. Most who enjoy an outdoor lifestyle have grown up with organizations like the National Rifle Association, Ducks Unlimited, and the National Wild Turkey Federation - names that clearly say what these organizations are pretty much all about. These and a number of other sportsman-based organizations have been there to represent sportsmen issues, threats against hunting and fishing, or the rights of U.S. firearm owners. Quite a few are “roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty” conservation organizations which have done much to preserve and expand wildlife and fisheries habitat in this country.

Unfortunately, there are also dozens of organizations in existence today which vehemently oppose consumptive outdoor sports, namely harvesting wild game and fish for the table. Likewise, a very large number of these organizations are dead set to eliminate the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees Americans the “Right to keep and bear arms.” And for some groups the idea of preserving wildlife habitat is to eliminate or severely restrict human use of the land, especially publicly owned lands such as National Forests and the open range land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This includes halting multiple use of lands where a large percentage of the lumber used to build our homes is grown, and where much of the beef we consume is raised. Things that so-called “environmental” organizations and groups feel are “un-natural”.

So, who are these groups, and what’s so wrong about what they call themselves?

more »

The Source of the Harmless Wolf Myth

Note: Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary in Alberta, is a renowned expert in wildlife management and conservation practices. In addition to teaching, writing about, and lecturing on the subjects, Dr. Geist has performed years of in-the-field research on big game species. He has authored 16 books, seven documentary films and contributed 40 entries to various encyclopedias. Two of his papers are posted in the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences [here, here]. Other essays by Dr. Geist are [here, here, here, here, here, here]

The effects of thousands of impoverished trappers and wolf bounties in northern Alberta early in the 20th century on predators, and its relation to the myth of the harmless wolf.

by Valerius Geist

I have been digging into historical literature in my quest to understand why in North America the myth of the “harmless wolf” took such a such a severe hold, to the point of perverting scholarship and quite probably leading to the death of some believers.

The conventional view of the harmless wolf, which I also believed in throughout my academic career and four years into retirement, is in sharp contrast to experiences elsewhere. Yet, it certainly coincided with my personal experience pre-1999 when a misbehaving pack of wolves settled about our and our neighbor’s properties at the edge of a farming district in central Vancouver Island. I subsequently discovered that the wolves were much the same in their behavior, whatever their origins, but that circumstances lead to vastly different outcomes.

In general, the evidence indicates that wolves are very careful to choose the most nutritious food source most easily obtained without danger. They tackle dangerous prey only when they run out of non dangerous prey, and they shift to new prey only very gradually, following a long period of gradual exploration. Wolves are very sensitive to strangeness, including a potential prey species strange to them. Garbage is the easiest and safest food source for wolves, and they do take advantage of such. Once they are habituated to people due to their proximity, they may begin to investigate people. The ultimate exploration of a strange prey by a carnivore is to attack — consequently, the danger from habituated wolves. However, they need not have garbage, just a shortage of prey to begin investigating and eventually attacking humans. This means that as long as wolves have sufficient natural prey, they leave livestock aloe. As long as they have livestock they leave humans alone. When short of natural prey and livestock they turn their attention to humans and their habitations and may even break into such to extract cattle, horses, pigs, sheep or poultry. Dogs and cats are attacked before that. We humans are next in line, primarily children. But even then the initial attacks are exploratory in nature and clumsy, allowing some victims to escape. However, this scenario is of exceptional scarcity in North America, though it is practiced occasionally by coyotes targeting children in urban parks.

The discrepancy, however, between global and conventional American experiences with wolves is crass. Wolves have killed thousands upon thousands of people as chronicled by European and Asian sources, yet in North America fatal attacks are few and disputed. The differences are real. What then was going on in the past century in North America to make wolves so harmless? I felt I had obtained part of the answer that showed that wolves are wolves wherever they occur, but that circumstances can generate very different outcomes in wolf behavior.

more »

Idaho Wolf Encounter

Note: Here is a report from a friend of mine. This horrific event happened yesterday evening. This is what we will be faced with, on top of the destruction of our wildlife. I am sure that similar encounters will happen with increasing frequency. — Scott Rockholm

by Karen Calisterio, November 27, 2010

Tensed, Idaho — About 4:30 PM, I, Karen Calisterio, and my husband, Ed Calisterio, arrived home from Coeur d’Alene to find our driveway too deep in snow to drive our car in without risking getting stuck. My husband decided not to take a chance and went to a friend’s house nearby (about 3 1/2 miles) to borrow his plow to clear the driveway.

I was tired and wanted to go on home while he did this, so I said I would just walk up to the house while he went to get the plow. Our driveway is about 1/3 mile long from mailbox to house. I had walked up our driveway before and had my snow boots on and a warm coat so figured I would be fine.

I was carrying my large canvas purse so checked the mailbox, put the mail in my purse and started up the driveway. I was about a quarter of the way up the driveway when I heard my phone ringing in my purse and tried digging for it but couldn’t find it in time to answer it. From my call log on my phone that call came in at 4:33 PM.

After standing there for a few minutes fumbling through my purse to find my phone, I found it and noted the missed call was a friend. I figured I would just call them back when I got to the house, as it was getting dark. I decided to put my phone in my pocket so I wouldn’t have to dig for it again, in case Ed needed to call me for any reason.

As I started up the driveway again, I saw, what I thought were two dogs at the crest of the driveway before it turned to go to the house. At first I thought it was my two dogs, but they seemed too big to be my dogs. I thought well maybe, because I was looking uphill at them and it was getting dark, they just look bigger.

However, they just stood there and didn’t bark which I thought was odd behavior for them. They usually bark at everything. I called out to them but they didn’t respond like my dogs normally do, and they still didn’t bark. But they started walking toward me.

Then suddenly I saw two more coming with them and instantly said to myself, “Oh shit, I don’t have four dogs — these are wolves.”

I grabbed my phone out of my pocket and called my husband in a panic and said, “Get back here fast. There are wolves in the driveway and they’re coming toward me.”

He said to keep my phone in my hand, don’t panic, and that he was turning around to come back. This call was placed at 4:37 PM and lasted 27 seconds.

For a second I started to turn and run back down the driveway, but then I said to myself, “I don’t think I’m supposed to run.”

Then I started crying, saying to myself, “I don’t know what the hell I’m supposed to do.”

I turned back around so I could keep watching the wolves and walked backwards as fast as I could. They kept coming toward me, but they didn’t appear to be running. It was getting dark fast.

At 4:39 I tried calling a neighbor but he didn’t answer. At 4:40 my husband called back and said that while he was rushing to get back, he slid into a ditch and was stuck at the bottom of the mountain, but had help coming and would be there as fast as he could get there, and to stay calm. This call lasted 11 seconds.

The wolves then went into the bushes. I couldn’t see them anymore and I couldn’t tell where they went or what they were doing.

At 4:41 he called me again to make sure I was still okay, and I stayed on the phone with him for 30 seconds. My phone was nearly dead and I was trying to preserve all the battery I had.

It seemed like an eternity and I was scared to death that the wolves had circled me in the surrounding bushes. I had a long wool coat on and remember thinking, “I wonder if that would protect me from their sharp teeth.”

I prayed and I cried. At that point I really thought I was going to be eaten alive.

At 4:43 I finally reached another neighbor by phone who said she would be there as fast as she could get there. I stayed on the phone with her for 43 seconds.

She left her house immediately, and I could see her lights coming, but it seemed like an eternity.

I started moving as fast as I could to the end of the driveway, hoping the wolves would be afraid to attack me if they heard her coming.

At 4:49 PM my husband called me back, but it went straight to voicemail. At 4:53 I called my husband and told him that the neighbor had got there and that I was safe.

She has 4-wheel drive and was taking me to the house. He said that he was on his way up the hill with the friend who was bringing the plow, but said he’d have to go back down and get the car after they plowed the driveway and made sure I was okay.

As my neighbor was driving me up the driveway to the house we could see all the tracks in the headlights. You could clearly see how far they had advanced toward me before going into the bushes.

When I got to the house I found my dogs to be under the house. It took quite a bit of coaxing to get them to come out.

When my husband and another friend got there, they plowed the driveway on their way up but saw the tracks going off to the side. My husband got his 4-wheel drive pickup and went back down to pull the car out of the ditch, and a neighbor drove my car home.

It continued snowing. We went down with a flashlight and guns and tried to see if we could tell where the wolves went or where they came from, but the snow had covered most of their tracks. There were tons of tracks going in all directions, but not well defined, mostly indentations in the snow at this point since it had continued snowing. I was hoping to be able to tell if when they went into the bushes they had circled me or if they had taken off.

Our hayfield is a frequent wintering ground for area elk as it borders forest land. Just a few days before Thanksgiving, we had counted about 40 head of elk in the field next to our house at dusk. We also have a large pond on the lower side of our driveway where the deer and elk water. We think it was the elk herds in the area that may have drawn the wolf packs in.

This was the most frightened I can ever remember being. I will never walk to my mailbox again. If I have vehicle problems again, I will never leave my car.

The Secret World Inside the Animal Rights Agenda — Part One

by Lowell E. Baier, President, Boone and Crockett Club, Fall 2010 issue of Fair Chase Magazine [here]

Queen, country and fox hunting are dear to England’s landed gentry, all part of the rarefied world of inherited privilege and tradition. However, when the British Labor Party banned fox hunting in England in 2004, the victory went not to the liberal politicians, but rather to the secretive, clandestine, Machiavellian worldwide animal rights and liberation movement begun in the early 1960s by a group of United Kingdom Oxford University academics known as the “Oxford Group.” Animal rightists and liberationists are of a very different orientation than the anti-hunting movement, which is a minor component of their agenda.

Rightists are a distilled, radical extension far beyond anti-hunters, driven by intellectuals, academics and the scholastic legal community in a global political movement. Animal rights advocates seek to end the rigid moral and legal distinctions drawn between humans and animals, end the status of animals as property or prey, and end their use in research, food, clothing, hunting and fishing, and the entertainment industries. Their aim is to remove an animal’s current status as “property,” and to recognize and grant animals “personhood”; that is, to award them legal rights and standing on the same terms humans enjoy fundamental rights to protect their basic interests. The “bible” of the modern animal rights movement, Animal Liberation, was authored in 1975 by Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University.

The philosophical and moral foundations for the animal rights position are that animals have the ability to suffer and feel pain, and that capacity is the vital characteristic that gives every creature with a will to live the right to equal consideration which must be recognized in any moral community and philosophy of natural law. Contrarians argue that animals lack rationality to distinguish between right and wrong; they lack language and are not able to enter into a social contract, make moral choices, assume moral obligations, nor have a moral identity; and hence, cannot be regarded as a possessor of rights. Only humans have duties, therefore only humans have rights, and rights must be accompanied by duties. …

Full text [here]

Gray Wolf Impact Hearings

From: Denny Rehberg, Montana’s Congressman

Announcing Gray Wolf Impact Hearings

To be held in Dillon, Hamilton, Kalispell

October 5-6

News Release [here]:

After hearing from thousands of you over the past several weeks at listening sessions and through the internet, I recognize that the frustration is well past the boiling point and federal legislation is likely necessary. It’s time to start working toward a solution that works for Montanans, not just powerful out-of-state interest groups.

Be sure to RSVP on the right, and invite your friends. If you can’t attend, you can still provide comments, concerns and ideas on my website or through Facebook and Twitter. - Rep. Denny Rehberg

October 5: Dillon
9:00 AM-11:00 AM
University of Montana Western, Lewis and Clark Room at Matthews Hall

Panel:

Denny Rehberg, Montana’s Congressman, Rancher (Billings)
Jake Cummins, Jr., Executive Vice President, Montana Farm Bureau (Bozeman)
Meg Smith, Rancher, Member, Southwest Stockgrowers Association (Big Hole)
Rick Sandru, President, Ruby Valley Stockgrowers (Twin Bridges)
Russ Kipp, President, Montana Outfitters and Guides Association (Polaris)
Debbie Barrett, State Senator (Dillon)
Dave Schultz, Madison County Commissioner (Ennis)
Mike Leahy, Rocky Mountain Regional Director, Defenders of Wildlife (Bozeman)
John Steuber, Director, USDA Wildlife Services (Billings)
Harold Peterson, Owner, Peterson Brothers Cattle Company (Big Hole)
John Helle, President, Montana Woolgrowers Association, Sheep Rancher (Dillon)
Steve Jennings, President, Beaverhead Outdoor Association (Dillon)
Emcee: Jeff Welborn, State Representative (Dillon)

*****

October 5: Hamilton
3:00 PM-5:00 PM
Hamilton Performing Arts Center

Panel:

Denny Rehberg, Montana’s Congressman, Rancher (Billings)
Montana Farmers Union (Great Falls) *Invited, but unconfirmed
Ron Stoker, State Representative (Hamilton)
Sierra Club (Missoula) *Invited, but unconfirmed
Jack Pfau, Cattle rancher (Stevensville)
J.R. Iman, Rancher, Ravalli County Commissioner (Bitterroot)
Scott Boulanger, Former Owner, Circle K Outfitters (Darby)
Bill Merrill, President, Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (Missoula)
Ryan Benson, National Director, Big Game Forever (Utah)
Tony Jones, President, Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association (Hamilton)
Craig Jourdonnais, Wildlife Biologist, Montana FW&P (Bitterroot) *Invited, but unconfirmed
George Edwards, Livestock Loss Mitigation Coordinator, MT Dept of Livestock (Helena)
Emcee: Rusty Wickman, Former Missoula Chief of Police, Member, Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (Missoula)

*****

October 6: Kalispell
10:00 AM-12:00 PM
Flathead Valley Community College, Arts and Technology Large Meeting Room

Panel:

Denny Rehberg, Montana’s Congressman, Rancher (Billings)
Gary Wardell, Board Member, Five Valleys Chapter Safari Club International (Kalispell)
Wayne Slaght, Rancher, Chair, Endangered Species Committee, Montana Stockgrowers Association (Ovando)
Chuck Hunt, President, Flathead Wildlife Incorporated (Kalispell)
Mike Meuli, Cattle Rancher (Kalispell)
Gerald Bennett, State Representative (Libby)
Edwin (Ed) Jonas, Cattle Rancher (Rollins)
Clarice Ryan, Board Member, Montanans for Multiple Use (Flathead)
Kirk Murphy, Director of Operations, Division III, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (Polson)
Jason Tounsley, President, Montana Bow Hunters Association (Billings)
Toby Bridger, President, Lobo Watch (Missoula)
Joe Maurier, Director, Montana FW&P (Helena) *Invited, but unconfirmed
Emcee: Bruce Tutvedt, State Senator (Kalispell)