June 24, 2017

Misleading Information by Feds in Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Reintroduction

100WolvesIt is numerous times through the 414-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho, that we can find this repeated statement:

No modifications in harvest of deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be
required to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves.
Conclusions
– Harvest of cow elk may have to be reduced 10%-15% in central Idaho (396-594 fewer
cows killed than in 1991) to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves. No changes in management of
harvest for deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be necessary.

While the statement in and of itself may be debatable in its accuracy, at best it is misleading and done in what I believe to be the intent of the Federal Government and those behind and promoting wolf reintroduction. It drives home the notion that little, if anything, the Federal Government does can be trusted.

The lie that was the focal point of the entire FEIS was that when Yellowstone National Park, Central Idaho and Northwest Montana had all achieved verifiable breeding pairs of wolves (10 pairs) and/or approximately 100 wolves, the animal would be “delisted,” i.e. removed from the list of threatened of endangered species. We now know that benchmark was an intentional lie. It was never intended to be an actual benchmark in which “science” had determined what would constitute a recovered species. It was only created as a means of appeasing those people with legitimate concerns about how a recovered wolf population would impact existing wild game species and in particular the ungulate populations of deer, elk, moose, etc.

What was sold to the people, and what I believe they bought, hook, line and sinker, as can be supported in a review of the questions posed by the public to those traveling salesman who set up to become the essence of insurance salesmen. People believed that the intention was to introduce wolves, and what breed or subspecies was introduced didn’t make any difference, and monitor those wolves until all three regions in Northern Rockies had 10 breeding pairs or at least 100 wolves. The public bought the lie that with only 100 wolves, there would be no impact on hunting, with the exception of perhaps a slight decrease in elk cow permits. The public bought the con job that once each zone had 100 wolves, the wolves would be delisted and each state in the recovery area would take over managing the wolves, with the public believing that wolves would be managed at numbers representing 100.

The Feds and those NGOs involved with getting their way to bring wolves down from Canada, knowing it was never their intention to allow wolves to be delisted at 100, could not represent anything close to the truth as it pertains to recovery numbers within the scope and draft of the FEIS. It is for that reason we find repeatedly throughout the FEIS the above emboldened statement. Making a repeated statement as this one was reassuring to some that the goal was 100 wolves. After that delisting of the animal, state takeover of wolf management and no harm no foul.

The rest is history as the old saying goes and we know that even now with some made up number of 1,700 wolves, those who brought the wolves to the U.S. continue to sue or are threatening to sue to stop any kind of management of a diseased-ridden varmint that is destroying ecosystems, killing off game animals and threaten humans with disease. Wolves have destroyed hunting guide businesses, local economies and put undue stresses and strains on ranchers and their losses of livestock; all of these the people of the region were told would never happen with 100 wolves in their state.

It is unfortunate that somebody (or maybe they did) didn’t pose the question to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of what would be the impacts to humans and game species, etc. with 3,000 wolves.

It is my belief, as I said, due to a review of the FEIS, that the USFWS was able to successfully do a snow job on the public and therefore nobody believed it necessary to ask the tough questions of what if.

The Federal Government and all their lackeys should never be trusted……NEVER. Should this government or any other NGO suggest the introduction of any species anywhere in the world, it should be fought against tooth and nail if for no other reason than these people lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.

Share
    • GoldDust

      Whats the difference between Conspiracy theories and Science theories? Not much, many of these theories end up being proven true, partly true, and some completely false. It’s called doing research, for some people it’s a full time occupation. For most people it’s emotional theories because they pick their theories and support them, most often based on faith on theories by other people that either do criminal or scientific research.

      So the majority of people going around on the internet don’t know much. Opinions don’t mean much either. And plenty of people jump to false conclusions. False entitlements are usually based on false beliefs.

      This article you’ve linked here is as much of a conspiracy theory as any conspiratorial misinformation I’ve bothered to read, source check, debunk. It’s 90% incorrect. With 10% of it not being worth researching because it’s gossip that may or may not be accurate.

      Here we like legal documentation that backs up historical events which some might call conspiracy theories when in fact what they’re admitting is they have miscomprehension issues of political/Scientific?Philosophical events taking place on the national and international world stage most often involving lawyers using legal terms.

      We like real science with a proven history of success. And we like the legal language involved in historical events past and present that tell the real story of the direction these men and women on the world stage are directing the nations of the world. No emotional BS, just real evidence. And we don’t have time to suffer grown up humans acting like immature children.

      • Idaho_Roper

        lol……you are going to make her head explode with that many words in one reply. I suspect she is not of the fact evaluating segment of society and it is obvious she is as you pointed out an emotionally intoxicated shallow thinker.

        I would bet her reply is simply …….. “huh”

        • GoldDust

          “I think” was the best part.

          • Idaho_Roper

            Now you now that was a lie……

    • Idaho_Roper

      Oh brother…….I suppose you are another shallow thinker that does not realize conspiracy is actually the most commonly committed crime. But since some politically motivated propagandist utilized it as a ‘label’ for shallow thinkers……shallow thinkers now believe that all conspiracies are false. If the evidence and facts point out conspiracy, it is what is it, a crime.

      I swear there is no end to the ignorants in this country anymore.

  • TRemington

    Nothing that you have written here is factual. In your mind it is and for you that is all that matters.

    You concluded I hate wolves. Please explain to us how you derived that conclusion.

    I bow down to nobody but you don’t know that because you know nothing about me or what I do.

    Wolves are varmints carrying nasty diseases. Wolves are NOT a keystone predator. It is biologically impossible so long as man walks the planet.

    Peer review is fraudulent garbage and is used ONLY for political gain and promoting agendas. This is done by everybody on all sides.

    Who cares whether wolves occupy on a small portion of the range they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. Things have changed. Wolves have no place in human-settled landscapes. If you want to live with nasty, diseased wolves, move to the bush.

    You present no facts. Yours are just opinions because this is what you want to believe. You know nothing of facts because I question whether you have done any research other than reading what sounds good to you.

    The American people were sold a lie. That is the premise of this article of which I am guessing you didn’t read nor was willing to examine any parts of it for validity. That wouldn’t work well for you. When you poll people and the information they are given in order to base an opinion is a preplanned lie, why is there reason to believe any poll. But the results of a lie-based poll fits your narrative nicely therefore all Americans are in love with wolves and people like me are evil and full of hate.

    I don’t need to ask you what animal you want to kill next. You and your wolf lovers are responsible for the death and destruction of tens of thousands of animals caused by your nasty wolves and you want to ignorantly accuse me of wanting to kill more animals?

    • Guest

      Tom, you hunters are responsible for the death and destruction of millions of wild animals.

      • TRemington

        You are black listed now for signing on to this site at least three times under different names. That’s trolling and I don’t tolerate it.

      • Brandy Shale Davis

        Show your name and your face coward…or go away!-You know NOTHING!

    • Robert Fanning

      Thank you Tom for articulating exactly why I got into this 15 years ago.

  • Idaho_Roper

    Considering 100% of what you posted is outright lies or pure ignorance, I doubt there is any changing you.

    You are trying to argue law as science, then try and bitch that legal action is not science, when your argument is based in law, not science. But I would guess that obvious little detail is of no concern to you anyway.

    Here is a clue for you to start. Wolves have never scientifically even reached the population status of ‘threatened’ much less ‘endangered’, and ‘historic range’ is not a scientific term, but a political one.

    Please wise up, it is exactly people like you that have this situation so screwed up.

    • Brandy Shale Davis

      Just a good little Wolf Worshipers puppet spewing their propaganda.

      • Idaho_Roper

        Propaganda indeed. Effing lunatics is what they are.

  • Idaho_Roper

    I have no doubt in my mind that Ed Bangs intentionally falsified this federal document and the data within, as such a prison cell should be his reward.

    When one looks at the manner in which he quickly covered up and dismissed concerns over disease, the manner in which he attacked Charles Kay, the manner in which he illegally sought and accepted a permit from IDFG which he and they both knew IDFG had no legal authority to issue but did anyway, the falsified elk population numbers, the prank they called their search for native wolves, the manner in which they quickly ‘changed’ the subspecies ‘science’, as well as many other lies and coverups it is pretty hard to claim Ed was not complicit in a crime. His arrogance about it afterwards was even more despicable.