After nine years focusing on residential wildlife attractants, it’s time to look to the outback, says Squamish’s WildSafe B.C. coordinator.
With tourism advertizing highlighting Squamish’s outdoor recreation and new branding inviting people to come and share the adventure, Meg Toom is bracing herself for more calls regarding wildlife encounters.
“It is just going to be an ever-growing problem as we bring more people into our trail networks,” she said.
So far this year, conservation officers are busying warning people about an aggressive bobcat. A number of dogs were sent to veterinarians for stitches after unwelcome meetings with the bobcat. The dogs were off leash, Toom noted, adding the attacks took place near Fawn Lake and in the Coho Park Trail area.
“In the nine years working here, we have never had any calls coming in about aggressive bobcats,” Toom said, noting the cats usually go after smaller pets rather than approaching dogs.<<<Read More>>>
One of the complaints I have always had about gray wolf (re)introduction has been the fact that claims of using “best available science” was a sham and a deliberate con job right from the very beginning. For Best Available Science to be a viable tool, then science must be the driving factor. Science is science and it doesn’t work at all when personal agendas and politics are the driving forces behind such events as wolf (re)introduction.
I have stated before that it is easy to look back on what took place in order to learn going into the future. In so doing, researching has discovered many things about wolf (re)introduction; very little that was claimed and predicted has come true, those involved were inexperienced “rookies” and some very serious and important information was completely disregarded about wolf history globally and the dangers to public health from diseases, worms and parasites carried by wolves.
In a recent article on this website, I wrote about how, in my findings of researching the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), deliberate lying and misinformation was given to the public in order to influence public opinion that would support wolf (re)introduction. One has to wonder what the outcome of pre-introduction polls would have been if people had been told the truth.
One blaring example I gave was that everywhere Ed Bangs and his band of wolf marauders went that sold the public on what I believe was an intentionally misleading claim that within the three regions where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wanted wolf populations when 10 breeding pairs or 100~ wolves were confirmed for 3 consecutive years, wolves would be removed from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection and management of wolves turned over to the states. That, as we all now know, not only never happened but it never happened so badly that over protected wolves have destroyed far too much.
The other aspect I want to cover is the terrible disregard of valuable information and the fact that there was no experienced scientists available or made available in dealing with wolves, especially wolves being dumped into areas adjacent to human-settled landscapes. Those pushing to get the wolves were only guessing what wolves would do based on models from watching wolves in cages or in remote areas of Canada or Alaska. These same people refused to use any kind of historic documents about wolves claiming it was mostly fairy tales and folk lore. What puzzles me is that it is ONLY that information that is available to United States scientists who refuse to accept with or work with people and scientists in foreign countries who have dealt with wolves for centuries. Perhaps our elitist attitudes and desire to not use historic knowledge of wolves and wolf interactions with humans, for an agenda of getting wolves in this country, has cost the American people substantially.
To go back and review the FEIS and all associated documents is quite an eye-opening experience. Looking at this issue of “best available science” and what appears a deliberate disregard at the utilization of the best science and historic documents that were available at the time of wolf (re)introduction, we see disturbing claims that should have been troubling at the time.
On page 54 of Chapter 4 – FEIS – Consultation and coordination, we find this statement:
– Obtaining information through scientific techniques has lead to tremendous benefits to society. Wildlife management has been greatly improved through scientific investigations and research, including the use of radio telemetry technology. Any reintroduction of wolves would be closely monitored and new information used to improve the program. However, wolves have been intensively studied in many areas of North America and many of the basic questions about wolf biology and behavior are well documented. Currently, another massive research program is not needed to re-study the basic nature of wolves in the western United States. While there will certainly be some interesting and necessary questions that may arise from the actual reintroduction of a top predator into an ecosystem, more research or study is certainly not required before wolf restoration could proceed. The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.(emphasis added)
Did our scientific community fail this badly? When you honestly consider that very little predicted in the FEIS about wolves, their behavior and impacts that a recovered wolf population would have on the ecosystem and that of humans, materialized, can we look back on this event and not question what was behind wolf (re)introduction?
To claim just prior to wolf (re)introduction that Ed Bangs and his cohorts knew all there was to know about wolves, that they had “fully exhausted” everything that they could use to predict what was going to happen and then find the results we did, one has to view this as perhaps an agenda-driven, politically motivate event, designed to specifically deceive the American people. Or perhaps it is even something more sinister and/or criminal.
USFWS refused to examine or at least consider historic documents of wolf history that contain years and years of conflicts between humans and livestock, as well as wildlife impacts due to wolves. Their refusal was evidently based on some elitist notion that this history could not be substantiated and the most of it was lore and made up stories. Is this how we treat history? Will one hundred years from now, people look back at wolf (re)introduction and disregard it for many of the same reason this generation of fraudulent scientists did?
Nobody involved in wolf (re)introduction had any kind of real experience and first hand knowledge of what it would be like living, as humans, with wolves. It’s not their fault. Wolves were mostly gotten rid of before any of these people were born. But, there are history books and there are and were at that time, many countries who were living with and dealing with wolves. Did we then disregard their knowledge and if so why? Did our scientists NOT want to learn the truth because they had an agenda?
Watching some wolves in a cage or documenting their behavior in remote forests and then creating “models” to GUESS what wolves will do, is not best available science and wolf (re)introduction should never have been allowed to happen. With zero actual knowledge and experience, and confirmation that wolves were recovering naturally in Northwest Montana and parts of Idaho, we should have left it alone and continued to learn first hand about wolves.
Here’s some more examples found in the FEIS that should have sent up red flares:
FEIS – Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination – page 22:
6. The Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 3, The Affected Environment, and average harvest is presented in Table 3-12. The analysis of wolf predation effects on the Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and cited in Boyce and Gaillard’s (1992) modeling of wolf predation on ungulates including the Jackson moose herd. Their models suggest a recovered wolf population may decrease the moose population about 7%.(emphasis added)
10. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 showed the effects a recovered wolf population would have on various ungulate populations throughout the primary analysis area. Additional ungulate herds or larger ungulate populations added to the analysis means more ungulates available to wolves and subsequent reduced effects of wolves on those ungulate populations. As stated in the analysis, the FWS recognizes ungulate populations can be quite different from one another in terms of population numbers, hunter harvests, and other physical and biological characteristics. Additionally, the FWS cannot predict exactly where wolf packs may establish territories, thus wolves will not impact all ungulate herds in the primary analysis area. However, the analyses and ranges of impacts presented would apply to most ungulate herds if wolves were associated with them.(emphasis added)
And these two items:
13. From the information available, nearly all elk, deer, and a few moose populations inhabiting areas in or near the Yellowstone National Park have population numbers in excess of several thousand. Also, harvests in many Wyoming herd units averaged hundreds of antlerless animals for elk and deer herds east and south of the park. For the herds having large antlerless harvests, reducing the antlerless harvest might be possible if wolf predation reduced ungulate numbers below objective levels. It is possible wolves could keep very small moose populations at low numbers in combination with severe winters, human harvest, and other factors (i.e., the predator pit theory) and affected the antlered harvest, but moose tend to be more difficult to kill than elk or deer and for areas east of the park, moose will not likely be a primary prey species compared to the more numerous elk and deer populations. Elk and deer because of their relative abundance will probably be the primary prey.
14. The primary analysis area was limited to places where wolves would most likely inhabit and to those ungulates wolves would most likely have impacts on at recovery levels. The FWS cannot predict exactly where wolves might set up territories. However, based on the population sizes of the ungulate herds near Dubois, if 1 pack of wolves lived in this area, it is unlikely the effects would be greater than demonstrated for other herds in the analyses presented. Indeed, with more ungulates available for wolves to prey on, overall impacts to some herds (and to associated hunter harvest) might be less than predicted. Overall impacts would be less because significantly more animals would be available and the impacts would be spread among more herds. The FWS also recognized wolf predation might severely impact some ungulate herds because of increased vulnerability (i.e., Whiskey Mountain sheep herd) and that wolf presence might inhibit the states and tribes from meeting their wildlife management objectives. The FWS believes the states and tribes are better able to determine those rare instances where wolves might severely impact wildlife populations and the FWS will work closely with those agencies in developing plans that promote wolf recovery and provide flexible management options when state and tribal objectives are being compromised.(emphasis added)
If, as the USFWS claims above, that they have “intensively studied” and that all wolf behavior is “well documented” and that “predictive models” have been “fully exhausted,” then why all the waffling in these last statements about how they can’t predict this about wolves and that about wolves? In these same claims, officials said, in effect, they knew all there was to know about wolf behavior and yet history has shown us the huge failure. This has to be a gigantic failure of science or a criminal act to deliberately mislead the people to promote an agenda to play with wolves.
It is just as disturbing to look at this evidence about poor science and deliberate disregard of facts, as it is this one statement contained in the quotes above: “The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.”
This tells me that Ed Bangs and his gang of thieves were no longer, or probably never were, interested in knowing anything more about wolves, as it might spoil their party. They didn’t care. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on humans. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on game herds. They didn’t care about disease. They didn’t care about wolves in Russia, or Finland, Norway, Germany, India or anywhere else in the world. They want wolves to play with in Yellowstone and Idaho and they didn’t much care how they got them there. They admitted they couldn’t predict what was going to happen until they put wolves in there to find out. They called it “real progress.” And that is what they call “best available science?”
Among many terrible things this wolf (re)introduction has caused, it’s a travesty on the science community. This effort has done more to create complete distrust of government officials and the administering of the Endangered Species Act. One can only wonder, knowing and discovering the shameful acts and actions involved with wolf (re)introduction, what other ESA projects are as anti science and crooked as wolf (re)introduction?
Patrick Murphy will deliver some great news tomorrow to the sportsmen of Maine. A survey of Maine voters conducted by Murphy’s company, Pan Atlantic SMS Group of Portland, found that 46.7 percent support a ban on hunting bears with bait and dogs and trapping bears, 48.1 percent oppose the ban, and 5.3 are undecided.<<<Read More>>>
April 14, 2014
American Genetic Association
Hybridization of wolves with shepherd dogs in the Caucasus region might be more common, and more recent, than previously thought, according to new research. Scientists found recent hybrid ancestry in about ten percent of the dogs and wolves sampled. About two to three percent of the sampled wolves and dogs were identified as first-generation hybrids.<<<Read More>>>
“These are very dangerous bears,”
But bears are shy, cute, cuddly. How can any wildlife official claim bears to be “very dangerous?”<<<Read More>>>
“We’re finding the cubs, their first year of live, about 80 percent of them survive, which for a wild animal is really, really high,” Rego says. “The adult females, their year-to-year survival is probably 95 percent.”
“For some people, having a bear walk through your yard can be concerning,” Rego says. “We have bears break into houses, kill livestock, attack pets.”<<<Read More>>>
It 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.
– 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.
And herein lies one of my biggest complaints about wildlife managers, animal rights ignoramuses and media. A Florida woman, upon spotting several bears in her yard went looking for her two kids who had just left the house on bicycles. One bear attacked the woman.
There’s a video below about the latest efforts to find and kill the bears. Here’s a link to a comment in a separate article from a neighbor about the bear attack.
“I am really surprised. I didn’t think a bear would really attack anybody,” said neighbor Argun Valay.
One has to ask why this person would say, “I didn’t think a bear would really attack anybody.” Perhaps it is because the repeated crap sandwich that has been fed to people all over the need people seem to have had driven into their brains that bears are harmless. My God! All animals have the potential to inflict harm onto humans. These people don’t trust the most intelligent of the animal species, man, but they seem to want to trust a bear to a point a person states they didn’t think a bear would really attack someone.
Maybe it’s time to change up the stupid talking points and teach people the truth about bears, predators and all wild and even domestic animals.
A Florida woman is attacked by a bear and dragged by the head toward the woods while taking out her garbage. So that must make Save NJ Bears absolutely brilliant? Why? Look at their outdated, incorrect, unsubstantiated, fairy tale “talking points” about why bears don’t attack people and if they do it’s because you didn’t take care of your garbage.
1. Peer-reviewed writings are worthless garbage these days. Anybody can find a “peer” who will endorse a piece of garbage written on toilet paper for the purpose of protecting bears or any other animal.
2. “The Nation’s Leading Experts?” Another worthless claim. Who decides who is an expert? This is much like Al Gore’s claim that the majority of scientists think he should make millions of dollars lying about global warming. This is just a dishonest misleading of the public.
3. Governor Corzine’s staff probably wouldn’t know science if it hit them in the face. Give me a break. If Corzine (that’s the crook that should be locked up in jail for stealing millions of dollars from people) wanted to protect bears because he’s an idiot, he should have said so and not hidden behind or allowed the bear loving radicals to make claims about his staff’s “scientific review.” One has to wonder if that is the peer reviewed articles referred to above.
4. So now that the state of New Jersey has a governor that extremists on the left think is a conservation (he’s a fake one), the guy and his DEP Commissioner aren’t any good because they believe, as the majority of the world does, that hunting is an integral part of wildlife management.
5. Bear hunting, when implemented as a means of reducing bear populations, works very well and history has proven it. The problem with making such a bogus claim is that hunting of bears is so heavily restricted population control is not allowed to work.
6. Who can argue that deaths by bear attacks are unusual. Encounters with bears is very common though and with increased bear numbers and morons controlling the media telling them to tell everybody bears are cute and cuddly animals will only enhance the chances of another “rare” attack. Let’s hope it’s not your child. And again, I say, if the state of New Jersey and other states would allow for hunting and other methods to control too many bears, any bear hunt will reduce the chances of somebody’s kid getting mauled and killed by a bear.
7. Garbage containment is very important but it does not cause bears to grow in population when they get into it. That’s just another unproven myth by people clueless as to reproduction science concerning bears. When bears come out of hibernation, they are hungry and at times there is little natural food. When natural food is abundant bears seldom bother anybody’s garbage, or people for that matter. However, the concern here is about too many bears WHEN natural food dries up. We know food supply is cyclical and when it is absent the landscape, bears still have to eat. If they can’t get in your garbage they will take what they can get; even an adult woman in a small town in Florida.
8. Correct, and when their choice of cuisine is not available, they still got to eat.
9. It is poor advice to tell people that bears are fuzzy little creatures scared of humans. Generally speaking it is true bears will run from humans. But they won’t when they are hungry and on other occasions. If the occasion presents itself, do what is necessary to scare the bear off – “look big” and make noise, use bear spray or a gun. Better advice is to let people know to never trust ANY animal. Bear attacks can a do happen and so it is better to be prepared than be sorry because somebody insisted bears rarely bother people.