June 22, 2017

Nature Balances Itself Unless I Say It Doesn’t (Fits My Narrative)

Stupid people want to believe what they want to believe because….well, they are stupid. One of the giant echo-chambers, ad nauseam, is that “nature balances itself.” Short of debating what nature and balance is, honestly educated people understand that balance in nature is not the idealistic Disney movie they have been taught…but few are capable.

Included in the echo-chambers of filthy perversion we also hear that wolves are an “apex” predator. There is only one apex predator and we walk upright on two legs…period. We are told that wolves are important and a necessary part of our ecosystems because they “balance out our ecosystems.” What fantasy! What nonsense! What hypocrisy!

However, somebody always has a “study” to prove their romantic, biological, perverse and extremely stupid assumptions about the role of wolves in our fields and forests.

But what nonsense, fantasy and hypocrisy. Consider the latest tripe about another new “study” that concludes that wolves need more room to do what wolves do. No, you can’t make this crap sandwich up. Somebody stupid has to dream it up and so they have. “Wirsing co-authored a new study in the journal Nature Communications. He said current land management policies don’t offer apex predators enough space, but that doesn’t mean he wants to see wolves roaming rampant across North America. ??

“We need to allow predators to occupy more landscapes than just remote, protected areas,” Wirsing said. “On the other hand, we also need to heavily manage them, recognizing that they do conflict with people.””

Unless you’re incapable of basic understanding, try to understand what this person is saying. First he calls the wolf an apex predator. In the context of what is written, there must be several “apex predators” in his mind. How can that be? He says wolves don’t have enough space, and that they need to be “allowed to roam” and be “heavily managed.”

What happened to balance of nature and the wolf that changes the paths of rivers and streams? Why does anything, according to the environmentally insane, need to be managed or heavily managed, if nature balances itself out? And if the wolf is so damned wonderful and powerful, and does all these clowns say it does, and is a necessary and important part of our ecosystems, why can’t the wolf create its own space?

If the wolf is an apex predator, that means the wolf is not prey to any other animal…I guess including man. I ask again, if this is at all true, why doesn’t the wolf create its own space?

Morons want their cake and eat it too. They want wolves to retain a status in excess of the existence of man. And yes, many prefer the lives of wolves over the lives of man. They mouth that “nature” balances itself and that when it is not in balance it is because of the evils of man. Once they have fought for that false idol, then they can manage everything else as it fits their narratives and fulfills their agendas – but somehow it’s not management and manipulation. This appears to be the ultimate in insanity, in which these gODS of the ecosystems kill anything, man, beast of plant, to save whatever the animal worship of the day might be.

A simple honest read-search of history, reveals to us that wolves did once exist in many places in North America. That was when essentially there were few people around. The environmentalists readily admit that man did a number on wolves as they settled the landscapes from East to West. It happened. It was going to happen. It could not be stopped. That is how things are. It sucks to hate man so much that you would prefer the existence of any animal over theirs. Now, with idiots in charge, although they won’t necessarily come right out and say it, we have a choice – either man goes or the wolves go.

Why do you think they are so persistent with forcing wolves into our backyards and onto our ranches and farms? Wolves DO NOT belong in man-settled landscapes.

Share

Life, Liberty and Happiness is Holding Hands with an Animal

It has always amazed me the amount of, not only ignorance (a case of failure to learn), but stupidity (it just cannot be corrected) that exists in the world today. One of the most revealing events in the revelation of ignorance and stupidity, all too often comes to us in the form of blind hypocrisy. Blind hypocrisy is the act of saying one thing, when it conveniently fits the present narrative, only moments later saying the opposite or disproving the original statement, and not having a clue as to what you have done. This clueless behavior is, most often, driven by willful ignorance and/or incurable stupidity.

When convenient, environmentalists and their associated animal perverts, in an attempt to extol their own self-proclaimed righteousness in everything to do with predators, heartily, and often from a position of mental instability, point a finger of blame at the hunter/trapper for what they believe to have been the “extirpation” of the gray wolf, grizzly bear, coyote, mountain lion, and any other animal that stands to pad their corrupt bank accounts all in the name of saving the world (wink, wink).

A brief lesson in history shows us that as settlers moved West, what existed for large predators at the time (not nearly so large as environmentalists want us to believe), often stood in the way of the settlers’ God-given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. And so, with the help of governments, the value of meat and furs, trappers and hunters set out to, at least, limit the extensive terror these large predators wielded. I cannot say, nor is there historic evidence, that the intent was to extirpate or cause extinction of any of the large and small prey that existed in many places.

This need to control and limit the damages of animals, and in particular, large prey, was not relegated to the West. Historic documents show us of the constant conflict between man’s desire for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and the existence of these animals in every part of the United States.

The need for all of this history and human behavior lecture is to make a point. I have said repeatedly, and did the same above, that when convenient, the environmentalists will point a finger of blame at the hunter/trapper for the serious reduction in large predators that took place nearly 200 years ago. When there appears to be – or probably more accurately stated – when pseudo-science, that is the science of convenience, is used to convince the American people of a wild animal “shortage,” that shortage is caused, in their small minds, by man and in particular, by hunters/trappers.

Let’s turn the table just for a moment. It is very common to read about serious problems that are presented due to too many of one or more wild animal species. Just recently, one tiny town in Downeast Maine, that is overrun with deer, had to create some sort of a means to rid the town of a reasonable number of deer in order to alleviate public safety concerns and property damage. The event is odd because overall Maine is void of an overabundant deer herd.

We are all subject to hearing about problems with coyotes. Coyotes present all kinds of problems from spreading disease, to killing pets and destroying game herds like deer, and livestock. We now witness abundant coyote populations living in our major cities. Presently, I live in a city of near 100,000 and within a metropolis of between 1 and 2 million people, depending on the time of year. People who live in my neighborhood, have been repeatedly warned that for several years a pack of coyotes has lived in the park next door and that those coyotes come into our area preying on dogs, cats and rabbits. The coyotes recently killed a dog when the owner broke the neighborhood rules and let their dog outside, without the restraint and control of a leash. This is but one example.

When the discussion comes up in all the “Fake News” media platforms about such problems, the image becomes one of emotional, ignorant and stupid people with head tossed back, back of hand on forehead, exclaiming, “What are we going to do?”

Brainwashing, propaganda, mind control and purposely-programmed education institution instruction,  results in severe ignorance and the inability to think and/or reason. In other words, people have become insane.

Today I am reading about the State of South Carolina that has a coyote problem. The article I have linked to states that deer hunters alone kill 30,000 coyotes a year and still there is a problem. So the state implemented a contest in which they tagged 16 coyotes and released them throughout the state. Anyone killing one of these coyotes can bring the animal to an official station and win a prize of a life-time hunting license.

An official with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is quoted as saying, “The legislators are trying to respond to the question of, ‘What are you going to do about these coyotes?’ ” said S.C. DNR’s Jay Butfiloski. “But there are no quick fixes. You could say you want less coyotes but how are you going to get there? The only real viable way is to convince people who are doing outdoor activities to take more coyotes.”

SHUCKS! What are they going to do? Either they(?) want less coyotes or they don’t want less coyotes. If they really want less coyotes, the answer to the problem already exists. The state seems to think the solution to the problem is to convince hunters and trappers to kill more coyotes. Hint: tagging 16 coyotes and offering a free license, isn’t going to do the trick.

If it is true that South Carolina deer hunters alone kill 30,000 coyotes a year, then the question should be asked, why do they kill that many coyotes. Surely it’s not for the value of the fur because coyotes’ pelts have very little value – at least most consistently the pelts are worthless. There are spikes when furs will jump up some but overall…worthless and very little incentive to expend the effort to kill them for profit.

I’m going to guess that hunters kill coyotes to help protect other game species, such as deer and turkey. I’m also going to guess that if deer hunters alone kill 30,000 coyotes a year and there is still a problem, there must be in excess of 250,000 in the State of South Carolina. Hint: tagging 16 coyotes and offering prizes of free licenses isn’t going to do the trick.

It appears the State is looking to find out what kind of additional interest this tagged coyote contest will generate. I might suggest the DNR not hold their breath in great expectation.

If the State of South Carolina is serious about getting rid of coyotes, the state needs to make the effort to kill coyotes worth hunters’ while. Nearly 200 years ago, hunters and trappers were killing wolves and coyotes and the government paid them more for the effort then than is done today.

The short of all of this is that these environmentalist-trained officials like to blame hunters and trappers when species go extinct, but when there are so many of a species it presents problems that even environmentalists are willing to acknowledge, suddenly they become ignorant and stupid – “What are we going to do?”

But the problems of dealing with predators go deeper than willful ignorance and the actions that cause it. Even hunters, trappers and outdoor people are often clueless.

Frank Miniter, writing in the American Hunter for the NRA, says, “Coyotes, after all, are an awesome part of the ecosystem.” With all of the lop-sided troubles that coyotes cause, with disease, destruction of species, public safety, attacks on pets and children, how can anyone with a straight face, who knows anything about this animal, call it “an awesome part of the ecosystem?”

I understand the perceived need of the National Rifle Association (NRA) to be as politically correct as possible, but how does such ridiculous political correctness benefit anyone? It doesn’t if and when you understand the true dynamics of predator behavior and the need for control to mitigate human conflict. People remain ignorant because they are taught that Nature balances itself. Even though that false claim has been disproved for several decades now, the convenience of perpetuating the lie remains alive in order to help fulfill the need to promote agendas and for environmental groups to make money.

Unfortunately for all of us, Frank Miniter’s article is nearly completely void of any links to the outdated claims he has made about coyotes. Calling coyotes awesome and making incomplete claims that coyotes, for the most part, have no impact on deer herds, and that it takes at least a 75% reduction in coyotes each year to have any impact, only provides disinformation to the animal rights perverts and environmentalists who want YOU, not them, to be just slightly inconvenienced by over-protected coyotes, killing your game animals, attacking your children and killing your livestock and pets.

What an AWESOME part of our ecosystems!

Blind ignorance refuses to allow anyone to see that after wolves and coyotes were seriously reduced in this country, for good reason, we got along just fine without this “awesome part of our ecosystem” for at least one century. Now, all of a sudden, we can’t live without them. We will all die without nasty, wild dogs.

Miniter’s information is outdated and useless.

A friend of mine, when commenting about South Carolina’s minuscule effort to reduce coyote populations and the American Hunter article about coyotes affecting deer herds, says, “Sometimes when you care you at least attempt to do something instead of spout outdated and useless stats and reasons why you do nothing.”

For a brief time a while ago, Maine attempted to limit coyote populations and targeted them in and around winter yarding areas. The effort showed signs of improvement, but that program soon died. At least they tried.

 

Share

Coyotes: The Mythical Miracle Workers

CoyoteDeerSparPeople are needlessly being misled about large predators and the role, or lack thereof, that these large, wild carnivores play in our forests, regularly referred to as ecosystems. The term ecosystem is even misleading but I’ll leave that for another day.

I was reading a short article the other day by a self-proclaimed expert/advocate of coyotes. In this interview, the question was asked about the role coyotes can play in reintroducing wolves to Maine and regions of the Northeast. The coyote advocate says that through “education” and teaching our children about the wonderful things about coyotes, will cause our children to be more welcoming of them. This “education” evidently will include such nonsense as how important it is “to the balance of the ecosystem.”

In addition:

“Wherever wolves are not in North America, coyotes are a keystone species. So whatever animals they kill to survive, whether it’s a deer or a rodent, they affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics. They’re making those species stronger in ways that we can only glimpse the complexity of.

Their major prey are herbivores, which eat green things that other species depend on. So if you have larger herbivores, like deer, eating massive amounts of the greens that birds, butterflies, bees, and salamanders depend on, then those species go down. Foresters are concerned about the number of deer in this country, and there are very few predators for them, so what’s happening is that they’re destroying our forests.”

Every ounce of that statement is false. The coyote “expert” is labeling wolves as the “keystone species” and if there are no coyotes present, then the coyote becomes the keystone species. (Evidently bears and mountain lions don’t count?) Utter nonsense.  The term “keystone species” is a fabricated, relative term, i.e. political, that carries no actual scientific backing. Call it a human term used to influence the way people see, hear and discuss subjects such as wildlife management and the environment. Google defines “keystone species” as: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.” And what, might I ask, would the “ecosystem” “change drastically” to? The answer probably lies within someone’s ideology. Does this also mean that if a “keystone species” is added to an ecosystem, things, “would change drastically?”

Those who buy into this nonsense, want others to believe that our forests, fields, and wild animals cannot function without “keystone species,” i.e. coyotes and wolves. Their premise is based on an unscientific term that has become a household word, one that is regularly and incorrectly taught in our education factories at all levels – natural regulation, or balance of nature. This, more than likely, the result of the poor and incorrect work of an Australian ecologist, Graeme Caughley. More on this in a bit.

If we consider “balance of nature” and that a coyote is a “keystone species” that without it, “the ecosystem would change drastically,” what was going on in our ecosystems before the proliferation of coyotes and the introduction of wolves? It must have been utter chaos. How did any of us or the animals and plants survive? The same question should be asked about introducing wolves in the Northern Rockies, the Southwest and the Southeast.

How can science (real science) determine anything about “natural regulation” when they don’t understand whether wildlife is driven by food, habitat or the existence of predators, all or a combination of any? It can’t. Therefore, one can only theorize and in doing so, all elements of influence of thought become value-driven. In other words, a person or group of persons sees something a particular way based on personal value and interpretation – that value and interpretation manipulated by brainwashing and propaganda. Combine that with a perception of how they would like the ecosystem to function and we then realize the creation of nonsensical, unscientific, and romantic notions of “balanced” life among plants, animals and humans. Few can see or are willing to see, that along with these scientismistic beliefs, man is in the way and thus billions of us need to be killed in order to protect the resources. Becoming the useful idiots of Environmentalism plays right into the hands of one’s own destruction. If we could but open our eyes.

Neither a coyote nor a wolf is necessary in order that a chunk of real estate, and all that is on it, is somehow balanced. What happens is a person or group of persons decides (value driven) that any “change” that occurs, due to the introduction of wolves or coyotes, is a good thing. I guarantee others will think it’s not (value-driven). With this then comes the bombardment of utter nonsense as is demonstrated above as to what coyotes do to an ecosystem – nonsense that is fabricated, romance, fake biology.

For someone to suggest that animals and plants in an ecosystem, if man would butt out, reach some sort of equilibrium, not only does that person not understand nature itself, but are somehow placing human qualities of “social regulation” as is written above. Are we seriously to believe that a coyote eats just the right amount of deer and rodents, hand-selecting the diseased ones first, and the ones with bad genes, leaving a perfectly “balanced” and healthy population of plants and animals? In those areas where wolves and coyotes don’t exist, the ecosystems must be overrun with wild canine prey animals, with poor genes and full of disease. Are they?

Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, once wrote: “Wolves [coyotes] do not socially regulate. Instead, wolves [coyotes] are in the business of turning prey animals into more wolves [coyotes] as quickly as they can without any regard for the health of prey populations.”

And the result is the wild fluctuations of prey animal species and predators, along with the “complexity” of the collateral changes. Uncontrolled large predators do not “balance” ecosystems. They are quite capable of turning them into utter chaos of scarcity, depending upon situations that exist and the influences in place.

Dr. David Mech, recognized as an authority on wolves and wolf behavior has been quoted as saying, “We would expect wolves to kill as many prey as possible. There is little for wolves to gain by being prudent about resources within their territory.”

This speaks directly to the romantic notion that coyotes, “affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics.” Wolves and coyotes, like all wild animals, eat to survive. Scientific research has determined that wolves and coyotes, kill to eat and kill for the sake of killing. They do not have the mental capacity to adapt human social agendas to their surroundings to ensure they live in a healthy ecosystem.

There are some pockets where there may possibly be too many ungulates that are actually “destroying” the forests but it is far from the norm and even in those cases, the idea of “destruction” is a value-driven, or in some cases, an economic-driven situation. Large predators must be controlled by man. That is how we can attain and sustain any semblance of “balance” – that “balance” of which is now being handled with a combination of science and social demands by the public. Demanding the protection of all animals, including predators, in search of that value-driven, natural equilibrium, is a product of political manipulation that begins with our children from the first day of life. It is a shame that they cannot be taught the truth.

We know that it is the goal of Environmentalism to change the science of wildlife management and how it is discussed. What that means is that ideology and political agendas, will take over the normal scientific process and replace it with outcome-based, post-normal scientism, which is what balance of nature is rooted in. Proven scientific research is abandoned and replaced with changed rhetoric and talking points based on ideology and other sinister plans.

When one considers the influences in our society that have most affected how people think and discuss wildlife management, and in particular that of predator wild canines, it is no wonder the public hasn’t any truthful understanding of those creature’s habits.

Dr. Kay also tells us that there where five events that took place, that because of terrible science, or the deliberate “changing of paradigms,” that have been used over the past 40 or so years that have manipulated and changed “the way we think about wildlife management.”

The five events were, 1. Farley Mowat’s book, “Never Cry Wolf” which has been proven to be a complete work of fiction. 2. Maurice Hornocker’s mountain lion study, which claimed that mountain lions had no effect on prey animals because the lions “socially regulated.” Social regulation, is of course, a myth. 3. Isle Royale’s wolf study, an event that while some elements of scientific study can be taken from the event, Isle Royale does not resemble any typical ecosystem because of it’s isolation from the rest of the world. 4. The Kaibab Deer Incident, another claim that predators had no effect on prey species. With predators removed, the mule deer population soared to over 100,000. 5. Graeme Caughley, an Australian ecologist who developed computer models to “prove” his notion that natural regulation was driven by food availability. It was proven that his modeling was unscientific and rigged to achieve a desired outcome.

Unfortunately, because his terrible work was accepted in the world of “Ecology”, Caughley co-authored a book about wildlife management – a piece of work that is still used today in universities. And we wonder why people make such ridiculous claims about coyotes.

So long as those with agendas, the power and the control, continue to teach wildlife management fiction, what hope is there for a world in which real science drives the actions?

The United States has become a society in which perverse notions exist about animals. Those notions include placing human traits and qualities on animals and thus people want to believe that animals socially adapt seeking an equilibrium with their surroundings, much like humans do. Animals are not humans and are not even closely related in any way shape or form and yet, someone believes that coyotes will do the work of men to achieve a socially desirable, “Balance of Nature.”

 

Share

Should wolves be introduced in Scotland? – BBC News

*Editor’s Note* – There is a video available at the below link. Unfortunately I am not able to bring it over here for viewing.

The myth spoken of, as it pertains to introducing wolves to the Scottish Highlands, is that the wolf is necessary for a “naturally balance ecosystem.” “Naturally balance ecosystem” is not a scientific term. Instead, it is political – a political tool used to shut down land and steal rights and property from people – to promote scarcity and limit access to land. This is part of a global power and control struggle that also employs the destruction of people through different forms of eugenics.

At the end of the video, the narrator says that, “this is about finding a balance between humans and the wild.” No, it is not. It is about the destruction of humans, their food supplies and right to eke out a living.

Wolves have been hunted to extinction across much of Europe but it seems where they have been thriving, their growing numbers may be causing problems.In France, the government has defied an EU law by licensing hunters to kill them to protect farmers’ livestock.

Source: Should wolves be introduced in Scotland? – BBC News

Share

Read How We Got Where We Are – Then Use Just Two Facts to Expose the Truth about Wolves

*Note* – The following article is published on this website with the consent of the author. Please support The Outdoorsman by clicking on the link to your right on the computer screen and subscribing to the print publication. The only way this honest and accurate work can continue is with your support. Thank you.

by George Dovel

If knowledgeable outdoorsmen had easy access to just two indisputable facts from bona fide wildlife experts, they could use just those facts to discredit the self-serving clichés from the quasi-environmentalists and self-proclaimed “wildlife conservationists.”

The two facts referenced in this article have been verified by long-term studies conducted by acknowledged wildlife experts on both sides of the wolf issue. This makes them virtually impossible to refute so the radical must resort to attacking you or your source of information.

If you go on the offensive for a change and arm yourself with just these two facts, and the names of the wildlife experts who provided them, there is no need to engage radical wolf preservationists in further discussion. Your job is to present facts – not to expose yourself or your sources to ridicule for errors in grammar, lack of academic credentials, etc.

Fact #1 – Failure to Properly Control Wolves to Maintain Healthy Balance with Their Prey Eventually Decimates Prey and Starving Wolves Kill Each Other

Thirty years ago, internationally recognized wolf authority L. David Mech published an article titled, “How Delicate is the Balance of Nature?” (see National Wildlife Vol. 23, No. 1, and the May 1985 Alaska Magazine). In that article, Mech admitted that his initial three year 1958-1962 wolf-moose study as a graduate student on Isle Royale helped fix the balance of nature idea in the public mind.

Mech wrote: “During two decades of wolf research, conducting studies in northern Minnesota and on Isle Royale in Michigan, I have learned that, far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically. Wolves may actually starve after killing off almost all the moose and deer in an area. This explains why wolf-control programs may sometimes ensure greater and more stable numbers of both wolves and the animals they hunt.”

Mech then described how the once famous white-tailed deer population in northeast Minnesota began to crash after wolf control was halted. He and his students flying in a ski-equipped plane radio-tracking collared wolves saw fewer deer every year.

Most of the deer in the 1,500-square-mile northeast region were not accessible to hunters during hunting season, and seven severe winters made the deer far more vulnerable to wolves. Mech and his students observed deer killed by wolves with little or nothing eaten, and the wolves increased and prospered until they ran out of deer.

Then a starving pack of wolves looking for prey invaded another pack’s territory resulting in wolves killing wolves. Meanwhile, malnourished juvenile wolves continued to starve to death or succumb to diseases instead of replacing adults that died.

The few wolves that survived had turned to killing moose and beaver and a similar scenario with the white-tailed deer and wolves in Northeast Minnesota was also playing out with moose and wolves on Michigan’s Isle Royale. Human killing was not a significant factor in either location.

In his 1985 article, Mech wrote: “However, there is little disputing the results of a recent well-controlled experiment in Central Alaska. Some 38 to 60 percent of the wolves were removed each year from a test area while wolves were not controlled in several adjoining areas. Moose and caribou calves and yearlings increased two- to four-fold where wolves had been taken compared with their numbers before wolf control and were consistently higher than in areas with no wolf removal. Actual moose and caribou herd sizes followed the same trends.”

“Control programs allow recovery of both prey and wolves so that each could live over a longer period. It is something I am reminded of every time I fly over my Minnesota study area and look at lake shores that were speckled with deer and wolves in the late 1960s, and that now lie empty.”

The following graph was photocopied from the 2014-2015 Isle Royale Report by Vucetich and Peterson:

IsleRoyaleMooseGraph

Contributors to the Balance of Nature Myth Starting on the left side of the graph, the first five black squares and five white diamonds indicate a four-year average of about 600 moose to feed an average of 22 wolves. That reflected an average ratio of only 27 moose per year per wolf but that ratio increased slightly to about 33 moose per year per wolf in 1963.

Using only the three years of wolves observed, and guessing the number of moose based on limited wolf kills that were mostly found by volunteers during the summer, did not prove Mech’s and Durward Allen’s National Geographic claim that wolves maintained a “balance.”

Mech’s bias was evident in two articles published in the June and July 1960 issues of Pennsylvania Game
News promoting the “Balance of Nature” as a supposed fact even before the brief Isle Royale study was completed.

In 1930, Charles Elton, the father of modern Wildlife Ecology, wrote, “The ‘balance of nature’ does not
exist and perhaps never has existed. The numbers of wild animals are constantly varying to a greater or less extent, and the variations are usually irregular in period and always irregular in amplitude (being ample).”

Yet 33 years later, an unproven hypothesis by Durward Allen and his student, catapulted them into instant fame and fortune when it was published in National Geographic. It also brought forth a series of “me too” biologists and others who ignored or altered facts to make it appear their favorite predator needed special protection.

The Craigheads “Sick and Crippled” Theory

In 1958, I spent several months transporting a USGS Tellurometer crew by helicopter between mountain peaks in Yellowstone National Park and adjacent high country. I became good friends with two Rangers and the YNP Biologist, who explained in detail how increasing grizzly bear numbers were reducing the little known YNP Madison-Firehole elk herd that wintered entirely in the Park on the upper Madison River.

He invited me back in May of 1959 to watch grizzlies and even a black bear pursue and easily catch and
kill those cow elk that were calving in late May and early June. That was the same year the Craighead twins, Frank and John, assisted by graduate student Maurice Hornocker, began to study grizzly bears in Yellowstone Park.

Each year the Craigheads were aware that after the grizzly bears emerged from hibernation, they were killing large numbers of Madison-Firehole cow elk that were ready to calve. Yet their 1968 National Geographic article included a photograph of a grizzly covering a bull elk carcass with dirt and grass with the following comment:

“The grizzly’s keen sense of smell enables it to detect and locate carrion from afar. Rarely does a grizzly kill a healthy adult elk, but it may fell a sick or disabled one.”

This change from managing our wild game to benefit humans, to researchers lying about the impact of
excessive predator-to-prey ratios, needed to be brought to the public. But the larger circulation national hunting and fishing magazines including Outdoor Life and Field and Stream declined to print factual articles about this, telling me they were “too controversial.”

In 1969 we began publishing The Outdoorsman and did what was necessary to send thousands of
complimentary copies to licensed hunters in the lower 48 states and Alaska. Our list of paid subscribers and their elected officials soon reached 30,000 and our publication of facts began to produce results.

In May of 1970 Rob Donley and I photographed grizzlies killing pregnant cow elk just before calving on the upper Madison, including evidence of bears ripping the fetus out of the womb and eating all but the lower legs of that delicacy. We invited outfitter Steve Jordan along to shoot 35 mm movies of a spectacular chase in the open during which a grizzly covered half a mile while the group of pregnant elk he was chasing ran little more than half that distance before the bear caught up with them.

Following the 1970 calving season, the biologist again contacted me to advise that he had recorded 90 of those elk killed by grizzlies. He also described how the bears killed all 11 calves from a small group of elk plus several of the adults.

He voiced his belief that the Craigheads’ failure to even mention bears killing the Madison-Firehole Elk was the result of their promoting the “sick and crippled” theory of academic biologists.

He also said the Craigheads were tagging and studying only those grizzlies habituated to garbage dumps rather than the wild grizzlies in remote areas in the Park. They opposed the Park Superintendent’s plan to close the remaining garbage dumps and eliminate black bear feeding by the public to cut down increasing injuries to humans. They recommended leaving two major garbage dumps open for another ten years plus shooting elk and bison to feed the bears.

But despite their efforts to discredit YNP officials, those same officials refused to issue their 1971 permit to conduct research in the Park which ended their bear study.

Outfitter Charges Hornocker Claims Not True

Back in 1964, the Craigheads’ assistant, Maurice Hornocker, secured his grants and hired local lion hunter Wilbur Wiles to study the relationship between mountain lions and deer in Idaho Unit 26 on Big Creek in the Idaho Primitive Area*. (*now the Frank Church Wilderness)

Deer and elk populations in Unit 26 had been severely depleted by multiple deer harvests and 90-day either-sex deer and elk seasons extending into the deep snows of mid-December. The ratio of mountain lions to deer far exceeded the healthy one lion per 360 deer that Leopold had recorded in his 1933 study in California.

Despite decreased hunter harvests, deer numbers continued to decline each year, and the study offered the opportunity to confirm whether excessive lion populations were a primary cause of that decline.

As the 3-year study unfolded during the 1965-1967 winters and was then extended for two more years, an ongoing letter-writing feud between outfitter Steve Jordan and Hornocker was published in the Idaho Statesman. Hornocker claimed the Unit 26 deer and elk populations were increasing while F&G helicopter counts continued to report sharp declines.

Governor Requests Evaluation of Big Creek Study

Idaho Governor Don Samuelson provided Rob Donley and me with a copy of Hornocker’s third-year and then his five-year study report, and asked us to investigate and report back to him with an evaluation by June 1, 1969. The June 1969 Outdoorsman contains a copy of our report as well as an article entitled, “The Great Cougar Controversy.”

In his research, Hornocker reported that 25-30 lions were captured repeatedly in the 200-square-mile study portion of Unit 26. He classified them as “residents” and said that any lion they captured only one time was considered a “transient.”

Rob Donley and I removed two large male cougar traveling together several miles outside of the study area boundary in Unit 27 (see photo below). Only one of them had been captured and tagged by the researchers once but was never seen by them again.

Donley

 

These two adult male cougar had been preying on an isolated group of elk in my Unit 26 outfitter area that was inaccessible to hunters once Thanksgiving week or earlier snows closed the passes to horseback travel. The curious lions ran right at us and then tried to kill Rob’s dogs but that’s another story.

I mention this incident on the Unit 27 side of the pass in Marble Creek to point out one of several flaws in Hornocker’s study reports. He coined the term “Mutual avoidance behavioral mechanism,” to claim that male lions never fight each other or travel with one another.

During an earlier year, I discovered evidence of two cougar fighting in the summer, with one bleeding steadily. Hornocker’s coined phrase was another example of alleged but non-existent “social regulation” that was claimed by Allen and Mech, the Craigheads, and Canada’s wolf advocate-environmentalist, Douglas Pimlott.

Highly Inflated Deer Estimates in Big Creek Study

Instead of searching for facts to prove or disprove the hypothesis that uncontrolled cougar benefited deer and elk, Hornocker ignored the radical decline of both species reported in IDFG helicopter counts. He substituted his own set of “estimated” deer figures claiming that both prey populations were increasing dramatically.

In 1967 he claimed the Unit 26 deer population had increased from 1,099 in 1966 to 2,595 in 1967 yet a four-day IDFG helicopter count in 1967 recorded only 466 total deer. He also claimed there was a ratio of 163 deer and 71 elk to each one of the 25-30 resident cougar.

On a “biomass” (relative bulk) basis, this equaled 358 deer – almost exactly the healthy 360 deer per cougar Leopold had reported in California back in 1933.

But if Hornocker had multiplied the claimed 163 deer and 71 elk times even the minimum estimate of 25 resident cougar, it would have required a minimum of 4,075 deer plus 1,775 elk to equal his claimed healthy balance.

Conflicting Claims Re: Cougar “Social Regulation”

The February 1970 issue of Field and Stream included an article by Associate Editor Ted Trueblood praising Hornocker’s “myth-shattering conclusion” that “predation by lions is inconsequential in determining ultimate numbers of elk and deer.”

Trueblood described Wiles’ and Hornocker’s actions as the hounds trailed and then treed a lion that had killed a cow elk. He then offered conflicting statistics in a confusing attempt to support Hornocker’s false claim.

But 30 years later, following 10 years of research, two of Hornocker’s associates, Logan and Sweanor, repeatedly emphasized in their 2001 book “Desert Puma,” that mountain lions do not socially regulate. Yet in the material Hornocker has published and in his recent media interviews, he has continued to insist that the lions he studied in Big Creek did socially regulate themselves – allowing their prey to increase and prosper.

Starved Cougar Illustrates Lack of Prey

I stopped outfitting and guiding at the end of the 1966 season because my conscience would not allow me to charge hunters for such a slim chance to kill a branch-antlered bull elk or even a mature buck. The lack of deer was emphasized when Rob and I discovered a dead female cougar in Unit 27 that had left an odd track in the snow.

About one foot of the tip of its tail was encased in ice and had dragged in the snow and in the icy water when it waded out in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River to scavenge a deer skeleton. The skeleton, wedged in a pile of debris below the Mahoney airstrip, had already been picked clean by ravens, and we followed the emaciated cat’s back-trail for several miles for more clues to its fate.

It had hunted two side drainages from the mountain top to the river, but we did not see any deer tracks in either drainage. During the 1950s, several hundred deer were harvested and hauled from the Mahoney airstrip each season by pilots flying from dawn ‘til dark.

But in 1962, the deer harvest from Mahoney declined dramatically and I suggested the Commission stop selling the extra deer tags in Units 26 and 27, and cut a month off the tail end of both deer seasons. I was helping IDFG with a Bighorn sheep study at the time and I explained that the hunter-killed deer I examined had no fat reserves resulting from constant hunter-caused stress in a 90-day season, and that extra stress would cause many more to die even during only a moderately severe winter.

However Big Game Manager Roger Williams insisted that killing even more female deer would solve the problem. The Commissioners approved his suggestion to add a Middle Fork Antlerless tag in Unit 27 and leave the either-sex season open through mid-December in both units.

That allowed a hunter to kill three deer in Unit 27; four deer by also hunting in its Big Creek tributary; and five deer by also hunting in one of several other selected Idaho units. My USAFE courses in Forestry and Zoology had not prepared me for this massive exploitation of wild game, yet hunters could also kill up to five more mule deer by hunting in Nevada after they killed their limit in Idaho.

This is Pertinent Information – Not “Ancient History”

On Jan. 28, 1970, about 300 hunters attended an Idaho Senate Resources Committee hearing with one-third forced to stand or spill out into the Capitol rotunda hall. Although Chairman Sen. Warren Brown kept calling F&G “damage control” witnesses to praise the agency’s “professionalism,” hunters who had been waiting for several hours to testify angrily demanded he call the witnesses in the order they had signed up.

Like other politicians then and now, who protect the bureaucratic agencies and special interests rather than the citizens who elected them, Brown continued to try to limit testimony that described the wanton destruction of the wildlife resource. But when the marathon hearing ended at 1:00 A.M., the attendance by 300 citizens had convinced a majority of the Senators it was time to find facts.

Multiple Harvests of Bears & Lions Restored Game

A three-year performance audit by Legislative Auditor James Defenbach reported F&G had knowingly published highly exaggerated big game harvest statistics during the preceding 10 years. The F&G Director was forced to resign by a new Governor, and Joe Greenley, the new Director, ordered the inflated 10-year harvest statistics be replaced with only the actual kills reported by hunters.

He either closed or dramatically shortened deer and elk seasons, and eliminated all female and juvenile elk and deer harvests except in Idaho’s Panhandle. He also implemented multiple bear and lion harvests statewide to increase the number of surviving juvenile deer and elk.

During the 1972 Idaho legislative session, a bill authorizing payment of a $7.50 bounty on 10,000 Idaho coyotes over a two-year period passed the House by a 44-22 vote. Based on inflation to 2015, that would equal $42.45 per coyote today but the bill was held in the Senate Committee for several weeks while IDFG and other lobbyists mounted a massive campaign to defeat it.

Finally, according to woolgrower Senator John Peavey, the F&G Director agreed to double the amount spent by the Department for federal predator control, and the bounty bill failed 18-17 in the Senate based on that promise. But only $10,000 was added to the $25,000 paid to federal Wildlife Services for coyote control, and it was used solely to settle a dispute about whether coyotes or drownings were killing deer on Dworshak Reservoir ice.

Gubernatorial hopeful Peavey then sent a letter to the Idaho Statesman explaining why he had voted “no” on the coyote bounty. He said that he had talked with IDFG Director Joe Greenley, and, “unlike his predecessor, Greenley believed in active predator management as a tool in providing adequate game for Idaho hunters.”

But in a Statesman Guest Editorial, Greenley responded: “Although predator control has long been an integral part of wildlife management in Europe, it is a sensitive subject, particularly among ‘wildlifers’*…Most American wildlifers have a strong ecological background embracing the full diversity of the natural world – they are hesitant over extreme single value alteration of the biotic community for game.” (* “Wildlifer” is the name of the Wildlife Society’s weekly newsletter to its members who also call themselves “wildlifers”)

The Exploitation of Wild Game in North America

Back in 1946, Ira Gabrielson resigned as the first Director of the new U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to accept the position of President of the nonprofit Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). The manufacturers and service providers who had depended on Uncle Sam buying their products during four years of war, now realized they had to create a vast new market for their products.

They became major financial supporters of the WMI and Ira Gabrielson returned the favor by directing WMI staff studies of the organization, authorities and programs of 31 state and two Canadian game agencies. Was it just a coincidence that the widespread WMI recommendations said excessive populations of game were destroying the habitat in remote areas, and non-resident hunters must be invited to harvest the surplus animals?

State Game Warden Expresses Concerns

In Idaho’s Twenty-First Biennial Report, the State Game Warden cited a 100% increase in non-resident hunters just from 1945-46 and warned that our big game is limited and expendable. He wrote: “The nation has had the greatest sales program for hunting that so far has been experienced. Resorts, dude ranches, airlines, railroads, sporting arms manufacturers, sporting magazines, and many other concerns have used game popularity in their advertising. Game and fish are definite attractions meriting public enthusiasm, but it is time to give some thought to how long we can meet the increasing demand.”

Now fast forward to 1970. After involving powerful international organizations, that he helped create and fund, in North American game management, Gabrielson retired as WMI President to head up its Board of Directors. He was replaced by Daniel Poole who, in his 1973 annual WMI workshop, criticized biologists for their failure to sell their “management” programs to the public.

The North American Wildlife Policy of 1973

Then Poole introduced Wolf Professor Durward Allen to present the “North American Wildlife Policy of 1973.” The New Policy emphasized the protection of all predators by either giving them game status or by prohibiting “indiscriminate” predator control.

In addition to outlawing predator bounties, and the use of poison except in emergencies such as a rabies epidemic, the 1973 Policy refused to recognize the need for predator control to benefit populations of game. Instead, it stressed the need to provide prey species to feed the predators which, it said, have high esthetic values.

Now fast forward 23 more years to the Idaho Deer and Elk Teams supposedly formed to halt declines in deer and elk populations and hunter harvests. On June 24, 1996, when Upper Snake Regional Biologist Ted Chu said one of the purposes in their Mission Statement was, “To provide elk and deer to feed bears and other large predators,” it was endorsed unanimously by all of the Team Biologists.

But when sportsman Elk Team Member Bill Chetwood suggested providing elk and deer for hunters to harvest (per I.C. Sec 36-103), none of the IDFG Biologists agreed and Facilitator John Gahl stated: “We’re not going to use anything that’s in the law as part of our Vision Statement or our Mission Statement.”

In the preceding 58 Outdoorsman Bulletins I’ve provided numerous examples of biologists’ refusal to control predators to protect and perpetuate game species. For a period of several years during the 1970s, desperate biologists even blamed families that vacationed together and harvested healthy wild game for the freezer for the lack of game caused by the biologists’ continued adherence to the WMI 1973 Wildlife Policy.

Hunting in Idaho Has Become a Sport for the Wealthy; Nearly Half of Households Can’t Afford Licenses, Tags

In their “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Reflections From a Non-Hunter” presentation to the Wildlife Management Institute Annual Workshop in Phoenix in 2008, and to the Idaho Chapter of the Wildlife Society meeting in Moscow in 2009, IDFG employees Michele Beucler and Gregg Servheen presented the following 2007 survey results:

Hunter retention rates declined sharply in the nearly half of Idaho households with annual incomes of $40,000 or less.

Zero decline in hunter retention of individuals from households with $100,000 or more annual income.

Instead of charging the hunter and fisherman the $11 in 1969 license and tag fees plus just the inflation since then (a 2007 grand total of $62.15), and using all of that money to manage our wild game and fish resource, he or she is now charged nearly three to four times that much* to hunt the same wild game species – but with even lower populations and harvests. (* depending on whether a $124.25 sportsmen’s package is purchased initially or more expensive licenses and tags are purchased separately)

Then the extra millions of dollars are robbed from license fees and used to help support the dozens of former “nongame” biologists on the Fish and Game payroll who refuse to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage our wild game as the law requires.

Instead of bragging about the travesty of so-called wolf recovery, they should be held accountable for feeding Idaho’s endangered Selkirk caribou to bears, mountain lions and wolves and for introducing multiple diseases into Idaho wildlife where there is no evidence they ever existed in or were spread by Idaho’s wild animals before.

The Compass Guaranteed Non-game “Management” Would Remain IDFG’s Number One Priority

In 2000, after 10 years of changing all state game agencies’ top priority from hunting and fishing to non-game activities, the [International] Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (later shortened to AFWA) used new Idaho F&G Director Rod Sando to implement “The Compass” – a 15-year Management Plan to make that change permanent.

During a 2001 Commission meeting, Natural Resource Policy Bureau Director Tracey Trent introduced Michele Beucler to the Commissioners. She gave them a presentation claiming that 85% of Idaho citizens supported increased emphasis on non-hunting/fishing as outlined in The Compass, while only a few “Utilitarians” supported only hunting and fishing and a few “Greens” did not support either.

Conspiracy to Get Hunters to Approve “The Compass”

Although Commissioners Nancy Hadley, Gary Power and John Watts supported The Compass, the other four Commissioners did not. Watts made a motion for outgoing Chairman Hadley to appoint two or three Commissioners to help Deputy Director Mansfield and Tracey Trent “tweak” The Compass to make it more acceptable to license buyers.

The motion passed and Hadley appointed Power and Watts and gave them instructions to make the necessary changes and get it back to her before her term as Chairman expired. On Dec. 23, 2004, with assistance from Mansfield and the two Commissioners, Tracey Trent changed the Funding and other portions of the controversial document, “The Compass,” in order to get license-buying sportsmen’s approval for the full Commission to pass it as follows:

“Page 8 – Funding
The Department’s main funding source comes from one segment of the population – hunters and anglers – primarily through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. This money has been – and will continue to be – used to manage fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

The Department will not use hunting and fishing license fees to meet all the desires of the public, other agencies and local governments for managing fish, wildlife and native plants.” (emphasis added)

“Page 10 – Objective
Maintain or improve game populations to meet the demand for hunting, fishing, and trapping.
? Manage predation to achieve a balance between game and predator populations.
? Collaborate with tribes, private landowners, and agencies to manage populations and harvest for long-term sustainability.

“Page 17 – Objective
Improve funding to meet legal mandates and public expectations.
? Continue to use revenue generated by hunters, anglers, and trappers for programs that benefit hunting, fishing, and trapping.”

The stipulations on Pages 8 and 17 that revenue generated by hunters, anglers and trappers would be used for programs that benefit hunting fishing and trapping are uniform and understandable.

Yet 2-1/2 years later, on July 3, 2007, F&G Commission Vice Chairman Wayne Wright, and IDFG Director Cal Groen told an ad hoc Legislative funding committee that Nongame funding provided only 25% of the money F&G was spending on non-game, and the rest was being taken from sportsmen license fee funding of law enforcement, fish stocking and other hunting and fishing programs. Then Director Groen candidly admitted this had been going on for the previous 15 years.

The license fee and predator-prey balance promises written into “The Compass” were not worth the paper they were printed on. The obvious solution was to stop stealing sportsmen’s license fees and reduce their license, tag and permit costs by at least 50% so the less affluent families could continue to hunt and fish. But that was not what Beucler had in mind.

Not long after the F&G officials confessed they had been robbing the excessive license fees – which forced lower income families to give up hunting – Beucler was recommending to The Wildlife Management Institute and the Wildlife Society that they recruit non-sportsmen to replace the license buyers who were being forced out of hunting by excessive costs and lack of game to harvest.

In 2010, as the new President of the Organization of Wildlife Planners, Beucler wrote an article titled, “The Death of Wildlife Management?” in which she proposed an end to wildlife management that benefits hunters and fishermen. She wrote, “Hunting and fishing will remain important threads of the American Tapestry regardless of how many people participate,” and cited false figures to claim that the percentage of licensed hunters and fishermen was already declining rapidly.

That, of course, proved to be another lie when the national survey showed an increase of 9% for hunters and 10% for combined hunters and fishermen. Yet she recently worked closely with Director Moore to have the Management Assistance Team teach IDFG employees to prepare for changes that reduce the number of hunters.

Legislative Investigation That Was Never Completed

The January 2009 Outdoorsman No. 32 published the unlawful use of $231,338 in P-R/D-J funds by just two IDFG Bureaus in FY 2008. An Idaho Legislator contacted me at the beginning of the 2010 session and said the Legislature was investigating F&G’s illegal use of Federal Excise Tax funds as a match for nongame/endangered species projects, and asked for additional proof.

I obtained and photocopied public documents that showed the illegal use of $427,534.00 in sportsman excise tax dollars in FY 2008 to match nongame and endangered species funding. In the June-Aug 2010 Outdoorsman No. 40, I published photocopies of these documents and described how alarmed Director Groen and Deputy Unsworth became when I requested additional information, and how they destroyed the original documents to hide their misuse of the P/R and D/J funds.

During the 2011 Legislative session I asked how the investigation was progressing but I’ve never received an answer.

Fee Increases since 1969 Nearly Triple Inflation Cost In order to understand what has happened since 1969, please study the following chart carefully, including the footnotes and the few comments. Once you understand what has happened, you will realize what must be done.

CostToHuntGraph

Except for a handful of game preserves with limited elk hunting, from 1966-1970 my wife and I and our older sons could each hunt and fish in any open season in Idaho for everything except trophy species for $11. It cost only $8 for my wife and sons who normally didn’t hunt elk, but if they chose to kill a second deer in limited units, they could by paying another $2.

When Joe Greenley was rebuilding Idaho’s wild game and fish populations during the 1970s, changing license & tag fees from $11 to about the $21.76 Consumer Price Index Cost of Living increase in 1979 was proper. But charging hunters to hunt lions and bears which had formerly cost nothing was not.

And giving muzzleloader and longbow hunters special early and late seasons when the game was far more vulnerable, and charging them extra money for that special privilege harvest opportunity established a bad precedent.

When Jerry Conley replaced Greenley for the next 15 years, and then a growing list of subsequent Directors replaced each other, Game Biologists threw science out the window and began creating all manner of bonus special privilege hunts/seasons requiring special weapons permits and/or drawings with a limited number of permits awarded.

Abundant Game Numbers = Abundant Nongame

For the first half of the 20th Century when so-called sport hunters and dedicated game wardens restored the game species that had been decimated by a small number of market hunters, everyone saw an abundance of non-game. It wasn’t until excessive game harvesting combined with refusal to maintain a healthy ratio of game to its predators, that declines in both game and non-game species became evident.

But instead of restoring that healthy balance, biologists continued to increase the hunting and fishing fees, but use the extra money in a futile attempt to rebuild nongame numbers by manipulating habitat.

Brave Commission Action Does Not End Corruption The ray of hope in all of this was when the F&G

Commission forced Deputy Director Jim Unsworth to seek employment elsewhere, and forced Director Moore to tell his employees to stop “stirring the pot” and obey the law to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage Idaho’s wild game and wild fish for hunters, fishermen and trappers to harvest (see Aug-Oct 2014 Outdoorsman No. 57).

I have provided all of the foregoing information to try to make the reader understand that these two corrective actions by the Idaho Commission were still not enough to dismantle the corrupt system that is dedicated to destroying our heritage of hunting (i.e. for all but the few wealthy individuals who may continue to support it).

The Commission’s next opportunity to restore IDFG’s lawful mandate to manage wild game and fish for hunting, fishing and trapping began as Agenda Item 13 in the May 20, 2015 Commission meeting in Lewiston. It is the process of re-writing the State Wildlife Action plan for another 10 years and Sagle resident Ed Lindahl recommended adding a statement describing the Department’s first priority as “providing surpluses of wild game and fish for those who hunt, fish and trap in Idaho.”

In March of 2004 when Rita Dixon gave her presentation about the federal grant money her group had already received to prepare Idaho’s first State Wildlife Action Plan, Commissioner John Burns asked her if any sportsman license dollars would be used. She responded that the matching funding had already been secured but failed to answer his question or mention the alleged source(s) or amounts of the alleged matching funds.

In the Lewiston Commission meeting on May 20, 2015, she bragged to the Commissioners about the millions of dollars in matching funds her nongame group has received to match the dollars it has received from the feds.

But what she failed to tell Burns in 2004 or the Commission in May 2015 was how much of that matching money has been stolen from license fees and excise taxes paid by Idaho sportsmen – a deliberate violation of the Congressional legislation that created the grants.

Despite all of the gimmicks (from “chipmunk” donations to specialty license plates) only a tiny handful of nongame supporters are willing to donate any money for their special privilege wildlife viewing areas, etc. Managing nongame endangered wildlife is NOT a function of a GAME Department and should be transferred to the Governors Office of Species Conservation – the Idaho agency that is legally mandated to handle them.

If you understand the chart comparing the radically increased fees charged to sport hunters and anglers with what they should be charged according to the Consumer Price Index, you must realize that state game management agencies are being destroyed from within by nongame and non-hunting activists posing as biologists.

Do not be deceived by their false claims that this expensive program was forced on them by the federal govt. Remember it was non-hunting activists posing as Idaho & Montana biologists who allowed wolf introduction.

Until we stop letting the non-governmental groups from the Washington, D.C. beltway and the MAT training center in West Virginia dictate what we manage and how we manage it, our Constitutional right to hunt, fish and trap will continue to be destroyed.

If enough concerned sportsmen from each state would take the time to write their elected representatives in Congress and ask them to stop voting to appropriate funding for the State Wildlife Grants, it could restore our hunting and fishing heritage. Why not give it a try?

More Research Supporting Fact No. 1

Dr. Val Geist’s study conclusion of wolves’ return to Vancouver Island resulted in the annual black-tailed deer harvest declining from about 25,000 to only 3,000.

The same scenario that has occurred with wolves in Idaho played out in Southern Alberta about 15 years earlier when the northern wolves repopulated SW Alberta. Initially they found abundant prey, but Canadian researcher Mark Hebblewhite spent 10 years documenting the destruction of the area’s big game herds by wolves in the Banff ecosystem.

He recorded a 90% decline in elk numbers, slightly less in moose populations, and extinction of several caribou herds. And after half a century of research involving Canadian wolves, Tom Bergerud’s undisputed conclusions that uncontrolled wolves destroy herd after herd of woodland caribou, are accepted even by those who advocate keeping big game herds in a predator pit.

To learn why Dr. Charles Kay insists Isle Royale Research is not appropriate; to read the claim that moose were originally transported by train and boat to Isle Royale; and to read Fact #2 – Why Wolves Cannot Exist near Human Settlements, don’t miss “The Outdoorsman No. 60.”

Share

Gasp! A Mountain Lion is Killed

“Long study of eco-systems show that the idea of a “balance of nature” is a myth. There are feedback loops that mostly keep everything from dying off all at once, but the process is bumpy, dynamic, and the mix of species constantly changing. Everything dies in the end. The most that can be hoped for is that offspring have been produced and survive to produce their own.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Frank Murkowski Lives on a One-Way Street

Former Governor of Alaska and U.S. Senator, Frank Murkowski, in a rant about environmentalist lawsuits to stop timber harvesting in portions of Alaska, seems to invoke “balance of nature” in one breath about wolves, while holding his breath about “balance of nature” in the next.

In the Juneau Empire he writes:

To try to link timber harvest with reduction in deer population and thus a decline in the wolf population is nothing more than a fabricated argument to stop logging. If environmentalists really wanted to increase wolves they would instead support the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s proposal to reduce the cap allowing hunters to take 60 wolves per year. This would directly and immediately increase both deer and wolf populations. But, there is a balance in nature — an increase in wolves will result in a decrease in deer. The wolves will then move to where there are more deer. Logging has little to do with nature’s balancing in this regard.

If Murkowski is employing the “balance of nature” myth as it pertains to predator/prey relationships in order to protect timber harvesting, intimating that if man just left it alone it would be alright, then certainly if ecosystems balance themselves out then there is no need for timber and forest management (timber harvesting) other than the greed of consumptive use…right?

Perhaps there’s a need to better polish the argument here. Or double check with the Council on Foreign Relations and make sure he has his talking points right.

Share

An Example of Balance of Nature

“The population prior to 2000 increased significantly from low numbers in the late 1970-80s due to good forest cutting practices. Wolf numbers were kept in check due to an outbreak of mange, and black bear predation on calves was kept in check until the spring hunt was cancelled in 1999.

Then came the perfect storm of moose disasters.

From 1999 to 2004, 12,000 more bears moved into moose neighbourhoods due to the spring hunt cancellation, white-tailed deer numbers skyrocketed due to mild winters over the past 10 years, and the number of wolves climbed. It’s worth noting that at the same time, the MNR implemented licence fees for wolf hunting and subsequently lowered harvests as well.”<<<Read More>>>

OntarioWMUMap

Share

Nature Balancing Itself and Animal Rights Hypocrisy

An article that appears on the NBC12.com website, gives readers a glimpse into what most people believe to be “balance of nature” and proof they have no idea what their so-called “balance” looks like. In addition, the same article reveals the hypocrisy that drives animal rights and animal protection groups (actually anti hunting, control freaks).

What is being shown is an emaciated young black bear. The article states that this particular bear should have weighed about 100 pounds coming out of hibernation. Instead it tipped the scales at 15 pounds. The reason for the starvation was given as being the result of a lack of natural food last fall leading up to the time of hibernation when bears work hard at gorging themselves to build fat reserves.

This my friends is an example of “(un)balance of nature.” Most who believe this myth have been convinced or have convinced themselves that if man just dried up and went away, nature would always self-regulate and be in some kind of Disneyesque, fake balance that does not exist.

One has to ask which is more cruel/inhumane? To see young bears being starved to death “naturally,” or through population manipulation, employing hunting and trapping, to keep bear numbers at sustainable levels so that when those seasons come around when there is little natural food, this extreme kind of starvation is better avoided.

It won’t stop all situations but it could mitigate a very serious issue.

On the hypocrisy side of things, in the article we read, “It’s important not to feed bears if they come searching for food in your lawn. Call animal control, so the bears can be taken to a haven where they’re revived, and then released.”

The animal protectors, most of whom dislike hunters, say that using bait for hunting bears is cruel, unnatural and causes bear populations to grow too high for the carrying capacity of the forests. They also say feeding bears by baiting/feeding habituates them to humans and creates the nuisance problems we see on a regular basis.

Here we see hypocrisy at its finest. First we see that while many people claim “balance of nature” and that man should get out of the wildlife management business, we have man butting into wildlife management, creating a wildlife management business of their own, reviving starving bears (starving due to balance of nature?) and then sending them back into the forests again to starve and/or cause the starvation of other bears.

While the animal protectors claim that feeding/baiting bears teaches bears that humans are a food resource, it is somehow overlooked that “reviving” a starved bear cub and sending it back to the woods has not taught that bear to be dependent on humans for food?

In addition, the act of reviving a starved bear may, in fact, cause the starvation of another bear. The reason these dozen bears that have been found are starving is because of a “natural” phenomenon known as too many bears and not enough food. Sending a revived bear back to compete with other starving bears makes no sense at all.

They kinds of ignorant and hypocritical people love balance of nature, that is the kind they conjure up in their heads, when it nicely fits their narrative. And holding true to their totalitarian ways, rules they have insisted on having about feeding/baiting bears, apply to only those they dislike (hunters).

Share

The Traveling Wolf Medicine Tour

*Editor’s Note* – In an email exchange this morning to others on my email list, this is what I wrote (with a couple of edits) in regard to this piece of junk opinion that can easily be labeled as nothing more than a traveling medicine show.

“It is my opinion based on a few years of study, that when it comes to wildlife management and dealing with animals in general, we humans project our human and emotional rationale onto animals. When people, regardless of their education, place some kind of value onto an animal that is “human-like” it distorts rational thinking. I believe that a wolf is nothing more than an instinctive and opportunistic killer. If the opportunity is there, along with whatever drives a wolf to kill, it will…..period. We, as humans, attempt to rationalize a wolf (or any other animal) in some kind of human element, i.e. that a wolf can and does distinguish a “sick” prey species and picks that one over another. To form a conclusion that wolves “kill the old, the young, the sick and the weak,” can only be formed on human emotions and irrational thought.

Perhaps the “evidence to support” is there but it is probably supporting the wrong theory. If data shows, after the fact, that wolves ended up killing more “sick” prey, it happened, more than likely because there was opportunity NOT because a wolf processed in its mind that it would not have to work so hard to munch on a sick wolf versus a “healthy” one.[As certainly a wolf with that level of brain power would not willingly eat “sick” flesh.] I think this is what Jim B. calls, “Romance Biology.”

If anyone was to actually stand by their claims that wolves make prey species healthier, they would then struggle to answer the question as to why, if a wolf can distinguish a “sick” prey species from a healthy one, then surely they also can distinguish a healthy one and a healthy, pregnant female prey species and go for the gold.

I just think it is a bastardization of the scientific process when data is used to promote a humanistic-placed value on something because that’s what the human mind rationalizes…..irrationally!”

From the Jackson Hole News and Guide:

“In the main, the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the view that wolves generally kill the old, the young, the sick and the weak,” Mech began. “There’s so much documented field data behind it.”

All the things humans treasure about every wild prey species — their physiology, agility and resilience — are reflections of the predators that made them adapt and evolve over eons.<<<Read More>>>

Share