A Response to Governor Otter’s Letter to Sec Salazar
by Tony Mayer, SaveElk.com, IdahoForWildlife.com
Dear Representative Barrett,
Thank you for forwarding Governor Otter’s Aug. 30th letter to Sec Int Ken Salazar regarding wolf management in Idaho [here, 3.8 MB].
[Note: Gov. Otter's 7 page letter is in a huge file that cannot be easily converted to text. Sorry.]
It is welcome news that Governor Otter is finally willing to go public with a position expressing concerns about the wolf issue. Albeit, in my opinion, attempting to strike a deal with the Feds at this point is nothing more than a short-term, last ditch effort to salvage some type of continued wolf control mechanism that is far from the decisive action and leadership that this state needs.
As Chief Executive Officer of our state, Gov. Otter has the means and authority to recognize the dire condition brought about by the largely unabated expansion of wolves far beyond any agreements or understanding and to declare a state of emergency — ordering the necessary control measures and reduce wolf numbers to a level necessary to preserve and protect Idaho’s citizens and ungulate wildlife.
Suffice it to say anything less will fall short of what is required at this juncture to deal with the dismal state of affairs on this wolf issue.
Regarding his letter, what is the wisdom of our state entering into another MOA with the Feds regarding wolves? How well has entering into MOA or Management Agreements with the Feds served Idaho in the past? In all instances Idaho has come out on the “short end” and the entering into such agreements has only furthered wolf advocate agendas.
So why believe that entering into another such MOA will “magically” represent Idaho’s best interests? It would again appear that Governor Otter is again yielding to his close advisors (the same ones that have given him such great advice on this wolf issue in the past.)
As I see it, the lines of demarcation are finally drawn before us on this wolf issue. Which side will the Governor and will the legislature take? Will they side with the Feds and the continued “slow bleed” approach leading to the ultimate demise of our state’s ungulate herds? Or will they side with Idaho, its citizens, ranchers, cattlemen and sportsman? When will someone stand up for Idaho and our interests?
Need we learn from our neighbors to the north or from Midwest for examples? How has Minnesota benefited from the perpetual negotiations on wolves with the Feds? How has Alaska fared? Even though wolves aren’t endangered in Alaska, negotiations with the feds have been largely unsuccessful, and the state leadership has found it necessary to decisively deal with this wolf issue in spite of Federal Government objections.
As far as the substance of the Governor’s letter, it is doubtful that any such negotiations will benefit Idaho over the long run. Entering into the requested MOA will serve as nothing more than the continuance of “tying Idaho’s hands” to this perpetual, ill-advised, ill-conceived, Federally controlled wolf boondoggle. This approach guarantees the continued “slow bleed” of our wildlife ungulate populations and ultimately guarantees their ultimate demise.
A new and bold approach is needed to deal effectively with wolves. Strong and immediate control measures are necessary — anything less is shortsighted and will prove ineffective.
If the governor and the state legislature is sincere in their desire to proactively deal with this wolf issue, then my recommendation is that a new approach and an all-encompassing strategy and program be developed. This will require clear and precise objectives, backed by indisputable facts and will require that everyone get on the same page; including the governor, the members of the legislature, the IDFG, livestock groups, sportsman groups, etc. We all need to recognize the problem and all be a part of the solution. The governor and legislature must demonstrate strong leadership including the declaration of immediate emergency control measures. The legislature needs to develop hard hitting control and management legislation and the state’s attorney general must be willing to take up the cause and to litigate through the courts as required.
Further, it is time to recognize the need to be replace the people responsible for placing Idaho in this untenable, disastrous position and those responsible for encouraging and promoting this ill-advised wolf program.
The governor should consider appointing a special independent advisory council that is primarily made up of sportsman and cattlemen to spearhead the states new program on wolves. We need hard-nosed realists that will tell it like it is and stop sugar coating this issue.
Our state is in serious trouble and it will take bold and decisive measures and leadership gets us back on the right track. I recommend that the state legislature recognize this ill-fated quagmire and declare, through legislation, that prior agreements with the Feds regarding wolves are null and void, and at the same time direct the state attorney general to immediately file suit against the federal government for the damages to our state brought about by these wolves.
Sincerely,
Tony Mayer
SaveElk.com
IdahoForWildlife.com
Nutty Grizzy Decision Appealed
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has appealed last September’s ruling [here] by (who else?) Judge Donald Molloy relisting grizzly bears.
Molloy ordered the USFWS to place the abundant bears back onto the Endangered Species list because, as the Judge alleged, global warming is killing the white pines which are a principal food of grizzly bears [here].
The problems with Molloy’s ruling are that:
1. The grizzly bear population is exploding. The species is in no way going extinct;
2. Global warming is a hoax and a scam. Average temperatures have been falling globally and in North America for 12 years;
3. White pinenuts are not a principal food of grizzly bears, which are omnivorous and eat almost anything. Grizzly bears are abundant where there are no pinenuts at all.
Strike three! Judge Molloy fancies himself to be a biologist, but in fact he is a fraud and a nincompoop.
The USFWS under Obama has aborted the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, relisted non-endangered wolves, relisted non-endangered grizzly bears, and acted in general like a bad day at the insane asylum.
But after a year of dithering, they have decided to appeal one of the many pathetic nutzoid rulings by Molloy.
So that’s something. Don’t count on the USFWS to prevail, however. This is a toothless crocodile appeal, just going through the motions for PR purposes, without any real desire to overturn Molloy’s ruling.
Yellowstone Grizzly Court Decision to be Appealed
FWS Appeal 2009 Decision Putting Bears Back on Endangered Species List
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 8/26/10 [here]
Wolves are not the only controversial animal recently put back on the Endangered Species List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently appealed a 2009 court decision, made by Judge Donald W. Molloy of the Federal District Court for Montana that placed the Yellowstone Grizzly back under Endangered Species (ESA) protection. The outcome of the appeal will lead to an important precedent as to how difficult it will be in the future to delist any species once placed under federal protection even when their populations have recovered.
Judge Molloy’s decision came in response to a suit brought against the FWS by a coalition of anti-hunting and environmental groups seeking to overturn the agency’s 2007delisting of the bear. The Service has publicly stated that the Yellowstone Grizzly’s have surpassed recovery goals and they strongly oppose the decision.
Among the reasons cited by Molloy for relisting the grizzlies was a determination that the FWS relied on state regulations to assure protection of the bears after being delisted that he did not believe were adequate.
“We disagree with every point [Judge Molloy] has,” stated FWS grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen according to press reports.
Judge Molloy’s decision could have far reaching implications. This case may establish a precedent that could be used by anti-hunters to block the delisting of healthy and sustainable animal populations, such as the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves and the Great Lakes wolves.
The Yellowstone Grizzly population has reached approximately 600 bears. At this number, many biologists believe that the Yellowstone ecosystem is at full saturation level with grizzlies. In fact, the target recovery population to trigger the delisting was set at 400-500.
Lolo Wolf Reductions
by Rod Halvorsen
The effort to reduce wolf populations in the Lolo zone is to be commended, but will represent a minor effort in controlling the game and stock depredations and destruction of jobs, businesses, general economic health, forced lifestyle changes and spread of disease caused by wolves and perpetrated on rural populations throughout the state by wolf recovery efforts.
History is repeating itself with the increase of wolf populations in the state. Prior to 1915, wolf populations suppressed healthy livestock industries and game populations throughout the state. Indeed, the livestock industry of the West teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. Then, after years of pleading from citizens, local governments, state and Federal agencies, on July 5, 1915, the US Congress appropriated funds for the removal and destruction of wolves and coyotes from Federal lands in Idaho and the West. It is no coincidence that elk were translocated into Idaho during the same year; 1915.
The concerted efforts of state, county and Federal governments, stockmen’s associations and the general public in removing wolves starting in 1915 was instrumental in establishing stable and healthy game populations and a thriving livestock industry in Idaho. Such efforts must now be reintroduced and hopefully the Lolo action will be the first step in what will eventually be the eradication of wolves from Idaho.
Wolves were not inadvertently, unintentionally or mistakenly eliminated from Idaho but were, rather, effectively extirpated at great cost and effort by residents, state and Federal agencies and private organizations as a response to the great damage wolves caused. The cost was worth the effort and the cost to extirpate the wolf will be considered wholly worthwhile if wolves are successfully eliminated from Idaho in the future. Wolf damage to the economy of the West was so severe that even in 1915, a day when Federal appropriations were severely limited by comparison to today, the Federal government responded to the cries of the people and rightly served to protect them by initiating action to eliminate wolves from Federal lands. Such a great effort must yet again be commenced.
The wolf is more akin to a disease organism than it is a big game animal and should be “managed” in precisely the same way small pox is managed; eradication from the free environment with small populations saved in captivity for research purposes. Wolves and people do not mix any better malarial mosquitoes and people do. No “specific number” of wolves is acceptable. The Federal government at present requires rural people to live with a specific number of wolves. This requirement is the moral equivalent of a Federal Government requirement for restaurant owners to maintain a certain number of rats in their kitchens, or hospitals to maintain a certain quantity of staph bacteria on the chairs in their waiting rooms. Introduction of wolves in the name of “biological diversity” is wholly, morally equivalent to the introduction of malarial, anopheles mosquitoes into the Deep South in the name of “biological diversity”. Wolf introduction was and is an immoral act of great oppression, an absurdity that our forefathers would scarce believe possible. If the US Army introduced wolves into Afghanistan or Iraq, no doubt the US would be charged, rightly, in international court, with crimes against humanity. Such moral bestiality has been perpetrated on the rural people of Idaho against their will. Wolves are, have been and always will be a scourge to rural people and rural pastoral and recreational lifestyles. Wolves are not protected under the Constitution but yet have gained ascendancy in the Courts by misplaced interpretation of the Endangered Species Act and now have gained a bizarre moral equivalency with and/or superiority over people in the courts. The rights of the citizens of this country are deprived in order to support wolf populations. The rights of the people are deprived in favor of a disease.
Some find wolves beautiful from the vantage point of a mountain top. Some also find fleas, typhus and small pox beautiful from the vantage point of a microscope. All are nevertheless organisms that should be eliminated from contact with people.
Indeed, wolves should be eliminated from the Lolo zone and from all other zones. Wolf extirpation was an essential factor in establishing healthy, sustainably-harvestable ungulate populations and still is. Wolves are significant threats to rural lifestyles and economic stability and have cost many jobs, the destruction of businesses and millions of dollars to the state and its citizens.
“Wolf Recovery” is a euphemism for the destruction of lifestyle, heritage, custom, culture and economic health in rural Idaho. New laws must be written to protect the rights, property, jobs, businesses, lifestyle and heritage of the people in the face of uncontrolled wolf populations. After such laws are established, the real work will begin, and it will be tough and at times very distasteful work. Efforts to eliminate wolves will be physically hard, done under tough outdoor conditions in all weather and temperatures, costly, and even at times, repulsive. Our forefathers shouldered this responsibility and we must also. As repulsive as this work may sometimes be, we have misinterpretations of the Endangered Species Act and the deviant behavior of radical environmentalists to thank for it. A surgeon’s work is messy, but the healed patient has great gratitude for the doctor’s efforts. So shall the rural people appreciate the efforts of lawmakers and wolf killers in the days to come.
Wolves must be eradicated throughout the state and expanded methods of take must be legalized and utilized by state and Federal agencies and the public to eliminate wolves from the landscape of Idaho. The theobromine/caffeine canid-specific toxicant delivery system should be approved by the USDA immediately and utilized throughout the state to eliminate wolves. It should be provided to stock owners free of charge with costs borne by revenue generated by wolf hunting tag sales, wildlife license plates and donations. Private and government aerial gunning and no-closed season hunting and trapping must be legalized and promoted by Idaho Fish and Game. IFG should seek out and employ experts in wolf trapping and hunting and seminars on wolf destruction should be provided to the public. Identification of wolf dens and the practice of wolf denning should be taught and promoted by Idaho Fish and Game. County and state bounties need to be established to encourage wolf killing throughout the year, especially during denning season when wolf populations can best be reduced.
Many of these operations are indeed distasteful and will be to those who engage in them. The elimination of an epidemic is never easy. The people never asked for this epidemic yet they must rise to the challenge and eradicate it with the support of the Governor, Legislature and local governments.
Boy Scouts, community groups, churches and schools should be provided materials identifying the economic, wildlife management, livestock depredation and disease threats wolves pose. The people must be educated to the facts of wolf behavior and impact on rural people and economy.
For roughly three quarters of a century, since the early 1930’s when wolves were effectively reduced to very low populations, Idaho reaped the benefit of a wolf-free environment. We now see exactly why wolves were removed from the landscape.
For all human history wolves have been despised as destroyers of health and economic welfare. They still are.
As pro-wolf organizations use the picture of the wolf to amass vast fortunes, wallowing in the revenue collected from uneducated, mostly urban donators, the wolf himself is proving to be the only honest member of that pro-wolf camp. No amount of polemic sugarcoating can change the facts of what the wolf does and what the wolf is. He was a wolf. He is a wolf. He always will be a wolf. He will continue to prove to the world why he is universally despised by those with whom he lives. Given a bit more time as the facts of his life-cycle and behavior amass, that proof will one day again be as self-evident as it was to our forefathers and as it is to the informed population now. By that time he will, unfortunately, destroy, infect and threaten with horrific effect.
It is far past the time necessary to solve this great problem. State, Federal and Local Governments must work in concert to change the laws that have caused the introduction of wolves and must now work in concert to change them into laws that protect the rights and serve the interests of the citizens of this state and region.
Molloy Relists Wolves
Thursday U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ordered the US Fish and Wildlife Service to place Rocky Mountain wolves back on the Endangered Species list.
Judge orders protections reinstated for wolf
By MATT VOLZ, AP, Idaho Statesman, 08/05/10 [here]
A federal judge has ordered endangered species protections reinstated for the gray wolf in Montana and Idaho.
The federal government last year removed protections for wolves in those two states but not Wyoming. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy says in his ruling Thursday the government’s decision was a political solution and does not comply with the federal Endangered Species Act.
Molloy says the entire Rocky Mountain wolf population must be either listed or removed as an endangered species, but the protections can’t be separated by state.
The implication include:
* Wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana have been canceled. State fish and game departments are offering refunds on purchased wolf tags [here].
* Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and Utah wolves are also now relisted [here].
* The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) proposed program to control wolves in Idaho is now moot [here].
Canadian wolves were (illegally) introduced into Yellowstone by the USFWS in the mid-1990’s. By 2002 wolf populations had exploded, leading the USFWS to recommend delisting (removal from the Endangered Species list). Despite numerous attempts to do so under two Administrations, all delisting efforts have been thwarted by Judge Molloy.
An estimated 5,000 to 6,000 wolves now roam the Northern Rockies in the U.S. Ungulate populations have fallen 90% or more as wolves have decimated deer and elk herds. Livestock losses to wolves have skyrocketed.
Judge Molloy’s decision is [here]. With flowery language (”stentorian agitprop”, “Talmudic disagreement”) Molloy ruled:
…[I]t is not necessarily the case that threatened or endangered status can be determined solely on the basis of scientific evidence alone. Beyond the question of risk is the issue of the acceptability of risk. kl at 73. The decision that a risk is acceptable regarding a specific species is, in turn, an ethical and policy judgment. That means, in many respects, the complications are political. …
…[T]he Court finds:
* The Endangered Species Act does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a “species” as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part as the Final Rule here does; and
* the legislative history of the Endangered Species Act does not support the Service’s new interpretation of the phrase “significant portion of its range.” To the contrary it supports the historical view that the Service has always held, the Endangered Species Act does not allow a distinct population segment to be subdivided.
Accordingly, the rule delisting the gray wolf must be set aside because, though it may be a pragmatic solution to a difficult biological issue, it is not a legal one. …
The plain language of the ESA does not allow the agency to divide a DPS into a smaller taxonomy. For this reason, the Rule delisting the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf DPS must once again be vacated and set aside. …
Thus the ruling hinged on the way the USFWS subdivided the wolf population into “distinct populations segments” — illogical, unscientific, and political chicanery that the USFWS has indulged in with many species.
However, when seen as a whole, the introduced Canadian wolf population is in no way endangered of going extinct. The population of introduced wolves has exploded. There is no evidence that the wolf population has or will decline, and ample evidence that wolves are spreading into states hundreds of miles away from the original dumping ground.
But Judge Molloy did not rule on that point. Instead his ruling was based on a technical interpretation of certain specific language in the ESA.
The USFWS brought on this tragedy in so many ways. First they illegally dumped the Canadian wolves into Wyoming in 1995. Then they immediately declared the (illegal alien) population “endangered” based on no evidence. Then after the wolves multiplied, the USFWS decided to backtrack, but in a manner that twisted the ESA into knots never intended.
Meanwhile the States were cowed and subservient, with the exception of Wyoming and Utah. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game welcomed wolves with open arms, a misguided gesture that eventually decimated Idaho elk herds and has cost the state hundreds of $millions in mitigation and lost hunting revenues. The IDFG is today under extreme duress from outraged citizens and is hugely disrespected by the taxpayers who fund it.
No informed observer, including Judge Molloy, the USFWS, IDFG, etc. still maintains that wolves are endangered. The USFWS, however, maintains that wolves are endangered in Wyoming but not elsewhere. That is a backhanded way to inflict special punishments on one state by power-drunk Federal civil servants. Judge Molloy ruled that the USFWS cannot hack off Wyoming wolves from the rest of the population, and that if Wyoming wolves are endangered, then they all are.
Further, in 2008 Judge Molloy ruled that Wyoming wolves are genetically isolated [here]. The lunacy of that ruling is that Wyoming (Yellowstone NP) is where the Canadian wolves were dumped in the first place. All the wolves in the Rockies came from wolf genes in Wyoming. Instead of being genetically isolated, Wyoming wolves are the infection pustule that spawned all the wolves.
For some reason Congress has not fired every last USFWS employee and shut the doors of that supremely incompetent and worthless agency.
One Congressman, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, has introduced H.R. 6028 which would prohibit treating wolves as an endangered species under the ESA:
H. R. 6028
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 30, 2010
A BILL — To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit treatment of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species or threatened species.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT OF GRAY WOLF AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES.
Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(4) The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) shall not be treated as an endangered species or threatened species for purposes of this Act.”
That would solve the wolf problem but not the USFWS problem.
Meanwhile, state fish and game departments and commissions should prepare for a thorough housecleaning as they have failed miserably to protect citizens from a Federal system gone mad.
Federal Wolf Control in Idaho Proposed
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) has proposed a program to control wolves in Idaho including lethal removal of wolves to mitigate livestock depredation problems and wolf impacts on ungulate populations.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) [here] has been prepared in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture, Idaho Dept. of Lands, and the Nez Perce Tribe.
Four alternatives are offered in the EA:
Alternative 1 - Continue the Current Wolf Damage Management Program (No Action)
Under Alternative 1, wolf damage management has been and would continue to be conducted on private and public lands in Idaho when the resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf damage, wolf damage is verified by WS, and an Agreement for Control or other work authorization documents have been completed.
Alternative 2 – Expanded Wolf Damage Management Program (Proposed Action, Preferred Alternative)
Under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, WS would be able to employ all the methods included under the Current Program for protection of domestic animals, but could additionally provide assistance to IDFG to protect ungulates in those situations where IDFG has determined that wolves are impacting the ungulate population in a specific management area.
An additional lethal method which might potentially be employed under the Proposed Action would be considered only in limited circumstances when attempting removal of entire packs of chronic depredating wolves. IDFG authorizes removal of entire packs of wolves in those cases where a pack has been implicated in repeated depredations on livestock over a period of time. When these types of removal efforts occur during the spring months, there may infrequently be situations involving a pack with pups in a den. If the entire pack is to be removed, this would include the pups in the den. Excavating the den to reach the pups could involve unnecessary health and safety risks, and the most practical, humane approach to this infrequent scenario would be to employ the use of an EPA-registered den fumigant to euthanize the pups in the den. …
An additional management strategy under the Proposed Action could potentially be the infrequent use of sterilization of one or both alpha wolves from packs implicated in chronic depredations on livestock, or from packs targeted for removal at the request of IDFG to protect ungulates.
Alternative 3 – Nonlethal Wolf Damage Management Only
This Alternative works in much the same manner as the Preferred Alternative except Idaho WS would only use and provide advice on nonlethal methods for wolf damage management. The IDFG and property owners would still be able to use lethal methods in accordance with state laws and the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002) and Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012 (IDFG 2008a) guidelines.
Nonlethal methods used or recommended by WS could include animal husbandry practices, installation of fencing, electronic guards, fladry and turbo-fladry, aversive conditioning, nonlethal projectiles, use of livestock guarding animals, and/or other nonlethal methods as appropriate. WS would still investigate complaints to determine if complainants meet criteria for wolf damage compensation, and could assist IDFG with radio-collaring wolves for monitoring purposes and/or to enhance effectiveness of nonlethal deterrents…
Alternative 4 – No Federal Wolf Damage Management in Idaho
Under this Alternative, WS would not be involved in wolf damage management in Idaho, but the IDFG and property owners would still be able to use lethal and nonlethal methods in accordance with state laws, ILWOC (2002) and IDFG (2008a) guidelines.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is a cooperator in the preparation of the APHIS-WS EA. The IDFG’s current management is referenced by the Idaho Wolf Population Management Plan 2008-2012 [here] and is summarized in the EA as follows:
IDFG Management Direction (IDFG 2008a)
The goal of IDFG (2008a) is to ensure that populations are maintained at 2005-2007 population levels (about 500-700 wolves) during the 5-year post-delisting period through adaptive management under the guidelines of the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002); the current management goal is 518 wolves (IDFG 2009a). Consistent with the delisting rule, the State goal is to ensure the long-term viability of the gray wolf population. In order to ensure the population goal is achieved, IDFG will maintain =15 breeding pairs (floor threshold). The IDFG will also maintain balanced wolf and prey populations, ensure genetic transfer among states through maintaining connectivity and functional metapopulation processes, and manage wolves to minimize conflict with humans and domestic animals.
Ideally, population objectives will reflect the ability to monitor packs, breeding pairs, and total wolves, as well as harvest, and monitoring objectives in neighboring states. Therefore, the long-term objective is to maintain viable wolf populations in Idaho, achieve short-term harvest goals to reduce conflicts, provide annual harvest opportunity, and provide for non-consumptive benefits (i.e., aesthetics of wolves in the environment) as well. Based on stakeholder input, the most important objective within IDFG (2008a) is conflict resolution, when populations meet or exceed the population goal. Future population goals will reflect knowledge gained each year. However, the statewide population management objective will range between the 2005 and 2007 levels and not be allowed to fall to a level where management of conflicts has to be restricted (20 breeding pairs (Table 4-1). Twenty breeding pairs is not an objective, nor is it a prejudgment about the population level of wolves necessary to avoid conflict. It is however an IDFG management trigger that would require additional protections to ensure the population goal is maintained and achieved (IDFG 2008a).
There are numerous other details in the 106-page EA, which may be downloaded [here]. If a determination is made through this EA that the proposed action would have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, then an EIS would be prepared.
Public comments on the EA are requested and will be accepted through August 31, 2010. Comments can be submitted via e-mail to: or by mail or fax to the Idaho WS State Office:
USDA-APHIS-WS
Idaho WS State Office
9134 W. Blackeagle Drive
Boise, Idaho 83709
telephone: (208) 378-5077
fax: (208) 378-5349
More information from APHIS-WS regarding the EA is available [here].
Comments should be as specific as possible, and include factual information or refer to credible information which supports the comments.
For questions or requests for additional information, please contact the Idaho WS State Office (contact information listed above).
Wildlife and People readers are encouraged to share your comments with us by using the “leave a comment” form below.
Truth Coming to Light Re Grizzly Bear Fatal Attack
The facts are coming to light regarding the June 17 fatal attack by a grizzly bear on Erwin Evert, noted botanist.
For background see [here, here].
On July 16 the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the Investigation Team Report — Fatality of Erwin Evert from a bear attack in Kitty Creek on the Shoshone National Forests on June 17, 2010. [11.5 MB here].
Dave Smith, Bear Attack Examiner of Examiner.com, analyzed the Report:
Report incriminates feds in fatal bear mauling
by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, July 20, 2010 [here]
Ever since a grizzly bear near Yellowstone Park that had just been trapped, tranquilized and released by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team killed Erwin Evert on June 17, agency representatives have told the media Evert had no one to blame but himself. They claimed the trap site was closed and posted with warnings.
On June 19, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen told the Billings Gazette, “We try to do everything we can to minimize the risks. But we can’t protect ourselves against people that ignore every warning we give, and we can’t protect people against themselves.”
On July 16, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a 105-page report about Evert’s death that said, “There were no warning or closure signs at the incident location where Mr. Evert approached this site when he was killed.”
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) had been trapping near Evert’s cabin on Kitty Creek in the Shoshone National Forest for about three weeks before his death. The IGBST failed to notify Evert, or 13 other cabin owners in the area, of it’s activities.
The IGBST did not do a news release so the local media could warn people about bear trapping at Kitty Creek.
The cabins along Kitty Creek are located on Forest Road #448. The road ends just beyond the cabins, where Kitty Creek Trail #756 begins. There were no warning signs at the trailhead.
Evert was killed about two miles up the trail. It was perfectly legal for Evert or anyone else to head up the trail.
The IGBST set bear traps at numerous sites in the Kitty Creek drainage over the course of three weeks. The trap sites were posted with signs that said, “closed.” Evert was well aware of bear trapping in the area, but never went beyond the closed signs.
The 430# male grizzly bear that killed Evert was released at trap site #3 at 12:30 p.m. “With the bear showing signs of recovering, the crew removed the snare equipment and closure signs in the area and left.”
It was noted that “the bear had a large open wound behind its left shoulder and numerous scars and fight wounds on its head and neck.” … [more]
The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) abandoned a wounded, drugged, male grizzly a mile from the Kitty Creek cabins and a Boy Scout camp, took all their signs down, and departed.
The only sign of a “dangerous bear” that Erwin Evert had seen was at a different site a week earlier. That sign did not mention trapping and drugging, nor did it mention the site where he was killed.
Following the fatal attack, the IGBST deliberately spread misinformation to discredit and disparage the victim, although IGBST employees were well aware that they had taken down all the warning signs before Erwin Evert had even left for his hike. IGBST knowingly lied to the media and falsely claimed that Evert ignored the removed signs. IGBST also told the media they has closed the trail (false), that Evert’s wife was their employee (false), that Evert had knowledge of bear trapping and sites (false), and other lies as part of a clear campaign to blame the victim.
The IGBST is administered by the USGS Biological Research Division. They are died-in-the-wool global warming alarmists [here]. They claim global warming is killing off grizzly bears, when in fact grizzly bear populations are expanding. They are allied with radical environmental groups who are suing the government to drive human beings off the land [here].
The IGBST operates in the shadows, with an extreme political agenda that taints any “science” they do. Hiding their shadowy existence is why they took the signs down. The IGBST had never informed the media that they were trapping grizzly bears in the area. They think they are the CIA of bears, and that the public should be kept in the dark as to their machinations. They also seek to hide their research data.
As a consequence of the IGBST’s clandestine operations, an innocent citizen and taxpayer has been cruelly killed.
It is imperative that the US Attorney investigate, indict, and prosecute IGBST officials for negligent homicide and for the attempted cover-up of their crimes.
See also: Bear researchers gamble with lives of citizens by Dave Smith [here]
Court suits involving bear researchers are inevitable by Dave Smith [here]
Has The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Become A Rogue Agency?
LOBO WATCH Editorial News/Press, July 20, 2010 [here]
by Toby Bridges
There are now a number of very dark clouds hanging over the fish and wildlife arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior. And the tallest thunder cell has to be the manner in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has handled the so-called Wolf Recovery Project in the Northern Rocky Mountain states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana - especially in how the agency resorted to the manipulation of wolf science and wolf facts to expedite restoring wolf populations where they had been missing for most of the past 70 or 80 years. Or, were they?
The Endangered Species Act was established in 1973, to protect and restore endangered or threatened wildlife species. Back when that act became law, there were between 50,000 and 60,000 wolves of varying subspecies roaming freely across Canada (and likely just as many in Alaska). Still, since there were only about 700 to 1,000 wolves known to exist in northern Minnesota and in several small pockets in northwestern Montana, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pushed to get the “gray wolf” added to the ESA list of endangered species in 1974.
One of the tools used by FWS to facilitate their management of a species/subspecies that is endangered or threatened is to establish it as a “Distinct Population Segment”, separating it from the management of that species or subspecies as a whole. And this is likely where the “gray” area lies in the ESA listing and the management of the gray wolf as an “endangered species”.
First of all, the gray wolves of central Canada were never really endangered, or threatened for that matter. Despite ongoing wolf control efforts in Ontario, the wolf population just to the north of the U.S.-Canada border was not endangered back in 1973 when the ESA was established. Neither have wolves been endangered or threatened there since that act was put into place. Likewise, there has not been any efforts to prevent their migration south, into northern Minnesota. Even so, the mad wolf scientists of the FWS felt compelled to write themselves into the annals of wildlife conservation and took it upon themselves to classify the wolves of the upper Midwest as a “Distinct Population Segment” , and endangered - even though absolutely nothing separated them from the tens of thousands of wolves north of the Canadian border.
And their muddling with such wolf facts came back to nip them hard on their backside.
Deadly Bear Journalism
Dave Smith of Examiner.com is doing an excellent job reporting about the fatal grizzly bear mauling of Erwin Evert near Yellowstone Park on June 17 [here].
Dave Smith is the author of Don’t Get Eaten, and Backcountry Bear Basics: The Definitive Guide to Avoiding Unpleasant Encounters. In past lives he spent more than a decade in Alaska, and another six years working as a winterkeeper in the snowbound heart of Yellowstone Park. He’s an avid outdoorsman and traveler, and the “bear examiner” at Examiner.com.
Smith’s reports to date on the June 17 fatal mauling include:
Investigation of fatal bear mauling could take months
by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, July 1, 2010 [here]
If history is any guide, it could be months before wildlife officials finish their investigation into the June 17 death of a man near Yellowstone Park killed by a grizzly that had just been trapped, tranquilized and released.
Seventy year-old botanist Ewrin Evert of Park Ridge, IL was killed near his cabin on Kitty Creek, about seven miles from the East Entrance of Yellowstone National Park. There were no witnesses. On June 29, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Chuck Schwartz told the Associated Press, “federal wildlife authorities outside the team will conduct the investigation.”
How long can Evert’s widow, daughter, and friends expect to wait before the investigation is completed? …
Will fatal bear mauling be investigated?
by Dave Smith, Examiner.com, June 28, 2010 [here]
Will there be an independent, objective investigation by law enforcement officials into the suspicious death of a man near Yellowstone Park who was killed by a grizzly bear that had just been trapped, tranquilized, and released? …
Seventy year-old botanist Erwin Evert of Park Ridge, IL was killed on June 17 just two miles from his summer cabin on Kitty Creek, near the East Entrance to Yellowstone National Park.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team leader Chuck Schwartz says a 50-to-100 square yard area around the bear trapping site was closed. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen claims a trail that began near Evert’s cabin and lead to the trap site was closed. Evert’s wife and cabin owners in the area dispute these claims. …
Servheen told the Chicago Tribune that on June 17, the bear trappers caught a 430-pound male grizzly in a foot snare. “They tranquilized it, collected blood and hair samples and fitted it with a [radio] collar. They waited for it to stir, then beat a quick retreat.”
Did they watch the bear to make sure it recovered from being tranquilized? “Standard Operating Procedure” for the “Capture, Handling & Release of Grizzly Bears” in Canada’s Northwest Territories is that “bears captured by snare should be observed from a safe distance until they recover and move away from the site.” (p.20)
A Park County, WY sheriff’s department press release said that after tranquilizing and radio-collaring the bear that later killed Evert, trappers “packed up their equipment and left the area.”
If their job was done, why would the trap site still be closed? Wouldn’t the trappers take down the “closed” signs and pack them out with the rest of their equipment?
Erwin Evert left his cabin for a daily hike at 1:15 p.m. He could easily have covered the two miles to the bear trapping site in an hour. That puts him at the trap site at 2:15 p.m.
According to the Chicago Tribune, authorities said trappers left the area where the bear was released “around 1 p.m.” Oddly, the bear trappers did not cross paths with Evert. Stranger yet, there’s no indication law enforcement officials have tried to determine exactly when Evert died.
The bear trappers were on horseback. It was only two miles to Evert’s cabin, but they didn’t arrive until at least 4 p.m. Why would it take three hours to cover two miles on horseback?
Near the cabin, the bear trappers were met by Erwin Evert’s wife Yolanda, who told them her husband was late returning from his walk. One of the bear trappers claims he went back up the trap site and found Evert’s body. Did he notify a supervisor via cell phone or 2-way radio? “Hey boss, I thought thought you might want to know there’s a dead body where we just tranquilized and released a grizzly bear.”
All that’s known is that the bear trapper went back down the trail to the cabins to deliver horrifying news to Yolanda Evert. It took 15 minutes, round trip.
The Park County Sheriff’s Department wasn’t notified “that a subject had possibly been mauled and killed by a grizzly bear until 6:48 p.m.”
What took so long? The bear trappers met Yolanda Evert sometime between 4 p.m and 5 p.m. If there was no cell phone service or 2-way radio service at the cabins on Kitty Creek, it was 15 minutes max to the East Entrance of Yellowstone Park. Why did it take almost 2 hours to call the Sherrif’s department?
Nothing about this story adds up. Everything points to a cover-up.
Yesterday, the Casper-Star Tribune’s editorial board said a “formal review” of closures during bear trapping operations by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team “might reveal some ways to improve the process.”
Not doubt it will. But an in-house review of bear trapping procedures by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team is one issue, and a law enforcement investigation into the death of Erwin Evert is another matter entirely.
Is a law enforcement agency going to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Erwin Evert’s death?
Deadly Government Bears
Another collared bear has killed an innocent citizen:
Grizzly kills man near Wyoming’s Yellowstone Park
By MEAD GRUVER - Associated Press Writer, June 18, 2010 [here]
A grizzly bear killed a Wyoming man outside Yellowstone National Park, apparently just hours after researchers trapped and tranquilized the animal.
The attack happened Thursday in the same place where two researchers with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team [here] had examined a large adult male grizzly earlier that day, Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said Friday.
The suspect bear was wearing a radio collar. Authorities didn’t intend to venture into the woods to chase the animal, however. …
Shoshone National Forest officials closed off the Kitty Creek area, about six miles outside the Yellowstone East Entrance, until further notice.
“There have been Forest Service people in the area talking to people who live in those cabins, and at the lodges around there, letting them know what’s going on,” forest spokeswoman Susan Douglas said Friday. …
“My heart goes out for the victim and the family involved in this. Nobody would want anything like this to happen,” Chuck Schwartz, head of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team based in Bozeman, Mont., said Friday.
The team is made up of federal and state biologists who monitor and study grizzlies in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
The researchers also had trapped and tranquilized another grizzly in the area Thursday.
Schwartz said there would be an investigation, including into whether required procedures were followed, such as posting warning signs about the grizzly research.
Schwartz said it wasn’t certain whether the trapped grizzly had mauled Evert. But Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said it’s unlikely that another grizzly would have been in the same area as the large adult male.
“There’s a very, very high probability that it was this bear,” Servheen said.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department was working Friday to try to recapture the bear, agency spokesman Eric Keszler said.
Grizzly bears have been back on the federal list of threatened species since last year.
This is not the first case of negligence by wildlife biologists leading to the killing of innocent people. In 2007 an 11-year-old boy was killed in a bear attack, by an aggressive bear known to employees of the USFS and the Utah Division of Wildlife Services who failed to warn campers [here].
Distinct Legal Confusion
There are plenty of wolves in the Lower Forty-Eight. There are thousands of wolves from Oregon to Wisconsin. The are tens of thousands more wolves in Canada and Alaska. Wolf populations are growing. The species is not in danger of going extinct.
Despite those obvious and agreed upon facts, and despite the fact that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has been attempting to delist wolves (remove the species from the Endangered Species list) since 2002, Federal judges have refused to allow a complete delisting.
In 2008 U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy overturned the delisting of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies and put them back on the Endangered Species list [here]. Then he partially lifted his injunction and in 2009 the USFWS delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana, but not Wyoming [here].
The USFWS also delisted Great Lakes wolves at that time, but later in 2009, under another court order, the USFWS was forced to re-listed wolves in Great Lake states [here].
Then the usual plaintiffs sued everybody, or intervened in someone else’s lawsuit, and the Rocky Mountain wolf delisting case went back to Judge Molloy. He listened to oral arguments yesterday from all factions — you need a scorecard to keep track of who is opposed to whom and why.
The latest case revolves around Wyoming and whether Wyoming wolves need to remain listed, and if so, why aren’t all Rocky Mountain wolves listed. Part of the legal arguments centered on the question of “distinct population segments” (DPS’s).
Wolf Control Works
by David Johnson, Outdoors Directory [here]
In the mid `70s, early in my career as an Alaska state wildlife biologist, the Associated Press distributed a picture of me nationwide. I was standing in front of wolf pelts ADF&G was auctioning in Fairbanks. A Lower 48 reader clipped the photo and inscribed it: “This is so you can show your children what wolves looked like when they become extinct.”
That they are not extinct, or even remotely in danger of becoming so in Alaska, now more than a quarter century after that photo, is obvious. Why else would we still be having rancorous discussions about managing wolves?
Standing above the rancor is the simple reality that properly applied wolf control works. An example from the wolf control program that resulted in the wolf hides I had my picture taken with illustrates.
When we started the Tanana Flats wolf control program in the mid-1970’s moose and caribou numbers were low and falling. Wolf numbers were high. Ten years later, and some years after the program ended, there were more of each: more moose, more caribou, and…here’s the punch line….the wolf population had bounced back to a larger size than when we started.
In the early 1980’s, as an area biologist in Delta Junction, I watched as wolf control had a similar impact on moose numbers. Today, moose and wolves are again abundant around Delta.
Wolf control doesn’t always work. For example, when bear predation of young ungulates is the primary mortality factor, wolf control has a much smaller impact. Intelligent application is the key.
Wolf control programs also may not work if they are operationally hobbled. If insufficient numbers of wolves are removed from a population, the advantage for the ungulate populations will not be achieved. Depending on the circumstances, game managers with substantial knowledge of pack distribution and movements may have to use helicopters to control wolf numbers. The efforts of trappers and hunters alone are usually insufficient to achieve real control.
Romantic notions of the “balance of nature” lead easily to the false conclusion that if we simply “let nature take its course,” abundance will naturally result. The historical reality is that much of Alaska was hungry country when US Army explorers began to penetrate the Interior in the late 19th century. Some of these parties nearly starved for lack of game. The Athabascan inhabitants of the Interior often struggled with starvation. The “balance of nature” there seems to have been weighted more toward scarcity than abundance.
I believe our choice today is either wildlife abundance, maintained by intelligent management of ungulates, their habitats and their predators, or what will likely be long periods of limited numbers of prey species like moose and caribou, as the 19th century explorers found.
As a younger man I scorned what I considered to be emotionally motivated arguments against good wolf management. I could then and still plainly see the potential for wildlife abundance in Alaska….an abundance that includes both predators and prey.
Today, I have more sympathy. I have come to understand that some of the best things in life cannot be decided or even understood on the basis of logic. I have come to sincerely respect the perspectives of those who are hurt by even the thought of wolves being killed. In the calculations we as a society make about this issue, we fail to acknowledge as honest and important these sentiments only at peril to our humanity. National Parks and special state areas should be an important contribution to meeting this valid emotional perspective.
But I also have observed with my own eyes that that intelligently applied wolf control works. It can provide a balanced abundance of prey and predators for subsistence, recreational and aesthetic uses. Alaska is poorer today for having failed to appropriately manage wolves in many yesterdays now gone by.
The main question, in my mind, is whether we want an Alaska with abundant wildlife or an Alaska where wolf populations are not actively managed with occasional lethal control. The evidence suggests to me that we cannot have both.
David Johnson is an Alaskan and retired state wildlife biologist and supervisor who worked in Fairbanks, Delta Junction, Juneau and Anchorage during his ADF&G career. He is currently the webmaster of OutdoorsDirectory.com and general manager of Outdoors America Communications.
ODFW authorizes lethal removal of wolves - Breeding pair to be protected
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) News Release, May 31, 2010 [here]
Enterprise, Oregon - ODFW is authorizing USDA Wildlife Services to kill two wolves from the Imnaha pack, which are responsible for five confirmed livestock losses in the past few weeks.
Wildlife Services has been authorized to kill only two uncollared wolves. This selective removal is meant to protect the alpha male and alpha female, Oregon’s only known breeding pair of wolves at this time. Protecting the collared wolves will also help ODFW, USDA Wildlife Services and ranchers continue to monitor wolf activity. (The alpha female was collared in July 2009 and the alpha male was collared in February 2010.)
ODFW confirmed two additional wolf-caused livestock kills in the upper Wallowa Valley area on Saturday, May 29. (The other three confirmations occurred May 6, May 21 and May 28.)
The lethal action is aimed at killing wolves that are showing an interest in livestock, not wolves simply in the area, and will be limited to an area where three of the confirmed livestock kills are clustered. Under the terms of the authorization, the wolves can be killed a) only within three miles of three clustered locations with confirmed livestock losses by wolves and b) only on privately-owned pasture currently inhabited by livestock.
ODFW’s authorization will be valid until June 11, 2010.
Through these specific terms, ODFW aims to protect the breeding pair and the Imnaha pack’s den site, where the alpha female may be caring for new pups. (Wolf pups are typically born in mid-April, though ODFW has not visually observed any new pups this year.)
The authorization for lethal removal is consistent with the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and associated Oregon Administrative Rules, which guide ODFW responses to livestock losses by wolves. After non-lethal measures have been used and there are two or more losses on adjacent properties, the department may authorize its own personnel or Wildlife Services to kill wolves.
The non-lethal measures tried include removal of livestock carcasses and bone piles that can attract wolves; radio telemetry monitoring of wolves; use of radio activated guard box; aerial hazing of wolves; the hiring of a wolf technician to haze wolves and monitor wolf activity nightly; and increased presence around livestock.
ODFW has also issued two additional “caught in the act” permits to the landowners with losses confirmed on Saturday, May 29. The permits give landowners the legal authority to shoot wolves “caught in the act” of biting, wounding or killing livestock. Last week, ODFW issued five of these permits.
The Wolf Plan, first adopted in 2005, is currently undergoing a five-year review. Ranchers, conservationists and others with comments about the process for responding to livestock losses or other issues may provide public comment.
To comment, please send an email to ODFW.Comments@state.or.us Comments received by June 30, 2010 will be considered for the draft evaluation, which will include any recommended changes to the plan. The draft evaluation should be available for preliminary review by the public in August. ODFW will present the results of the evaluation and any recommendations to amend the plan to the Fish and Wildlife Commission (the state’s policy making body for fish and wildlife issues) at their October 1 meeting in Bend.
For more information on wolves in Oregon, visit: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves/
Wolf plan requires reality check
Editorial, Capital Press, May 27, 2010 [here]
Imagine for a moment that you are a detective, and you’re called to a crime scene. The victim is dead, and though no one witnessed it, the suspected killer was seen there before and after the death. In fact, no one else was seen in the vicinity and the suspected killer and accomplices were wearing radio collars placing them at or near the crime scene.
What conclusion would you make?
As the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has investigated cases of calves that were killed, torn apart and partially eaten, the conclusions — or lack thereof — have been startling. Though wolves were seen in the pastures before and after calves were killed, in some cases ODFW officials were unwilling to conclude that wolves killed the calves.
What, exactly, do they think killed the calves? Bigfoot? The Easter Bunny? Elvis?
Marlyn Riggs, a federal Wildlife Services hunter with 30 years of experience, was able to determine that wolves attacked the calves, and the Wallowa County sheriff, Fred Steen, agrees.
But the state official, ODFW Wolf Program Coordinator Russ Morgan, withheld judgment.
Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats Involved with Wolves
Former USFWS Wildlife Biologist Jim Beers has been on a speaking tour of late.
He spoke in in Bozeman, MT on May 16th at a meeting sponsored by Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd.
He will be speaking at the upcoming wolf symposium, “Can Ranchers and Wolves Co-Exist?,” in La Grande at Eastern Oregon University’s Badgley Hall from 1- 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 22; and at The Wolving of America Event,Wednesday, May 26, 4 pm at Greyhound Park in Post Falls, Idaho.
Mr. Beers’ speech is based on a paper he wrote recently:
Beers, Jim. 2010. Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats and Others Involved in the Introduction, Protection and Spread of Wolves in the Lower 48 States. Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Bozeman, MT 16 May 2010.
We are pleased and honored to have placed that paper online at the W.I.S.E. Colloquium: Wildlife Sciences [here].
It’s a great speech and also a great read — if you can’t make it to one the above events and even if you can. Jim Beers knows his subject and he pulls no punches. Criminal Activities … is an indictment of corrupt practices by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, some of which date back 40 years and are still ongoing!
The story Mr. Beers relates is not pretty, but it is important to understanding how federal and state wildlife management tumbled down a slippery slope.
How we are going to pull them back up into compliance with the law is another story, but to do that we have to know how and why things fell apart in the first place. Please enjoy Jim’s skillful prose while you get an education in the politics of wildlife, wolves, and Homo sapiens.
Birds Cougars Coyotes Endangered Specious Wildlife Agencies
by admin
2 comments
Sage-Grouse and Predator Prey Relations
After years of hue and cry, and being carpet-bombed with lawsuits, last March the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service placed the greater sage-grouse on the candidate species list [here]. That didn’t halt the lawsuits, however [here, here].
The gist of the argle-bargle is that sage-grouse are in decline because their habitat is diminishing [here].
Nothing could be further from the truth. Sage-grouse population changes are governed by predator-prey relations, not habitat.
Sage-grouse do not eat sagebrush. They eat insects and seeds. They feed their chicks caterpillars. The insects and caterpillars that make up their diet also do not eat sagebrush. Principally, sage-grouse prey eat grass.
Sage-grouse can survive and even flourish where there is no sagebrush at all.
Sage-grouse, in turn, are prey to ravens, coyotes, cougars, eagles, hawks and other predators higher up the food chain. Sagebrush does not protect sage-grouse from their predators.
We reported these wildlife biology facts a year ago [here].
In a remarkable about-face, researchers have determined that sage grouse are NOT limited by “loss of habitat.” It turns out that sage grouse populations are governed by PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS, just like all other animals. …
Idaho State University researchers found that ravens and badgers eat grouse eggs [here], but not ground squirrels. The clever scientists set up webcams near grouse nests and WATCHED as wild predators gobbled pre-hatched chicks. …
Real science, which is mainly concerned with reality, presents strong evidence that PREDATOR-PREY RELATIONS have everything to do with population dynamics, and that “loss of habitat” is a pile of bird crap.
