July 5, 2020

ESA and Hybridization: Dealing With It Case By Case

hybridwolfThe issue of wolves, the Endangered Species Act and “intercrosses”, i.e. cross breeding or hybridization, seems to have moved to the forefront in discussions about wolves. Before even getting to any discussion about what constitutes a hybridized wolf and how this is dealt with in the administering of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), consider some of the fallout and collateral damage protecting “intercrosses” can result in.

First, and probably foremost is the issue of actually protecting the purity of a species. As much as some have little or no use for the wolf, in parts of the world I believe a “pure” wolf and certain “pure” subspecies of wolves can be found (although I, personally, place little value in the notion of subspecies as it pertains to wild dogs). Is it therefore of importance to protect that species? Surely, although I recognize some might disagree. And also, to what degree and worthy effort is this protection to be carried out before it blows back in our faces as promoting further destruction of a species?

The question then becomes how do we protect a “pure” wolf species? Short of creating as much isolation from all other canines, wild and domestic, I’m not so inclined to think it honestly can be completely protected, at least not in some geographical locals, and that’s part of the problem that exists today. Attempting to force wild, and “pure,” wolves into heavily populated regions aren’t we begging for hybridization between wolves and feral and domestic dogs?

Secondly, we have learned that canines carry and transmit as many as 50 or more different kinds of diseases. In understanding the habits of wolves, we know that wolves travel great distances, sometimes extraordinary distances. With wolf populations being allowed to flourish, does this not force more wolves to disperse? Is not this flourishing also creating a situation in which wolves will find need to eat livestock, pets and basically hang out in people’s back yards? Isn’t this dispersal creating a better chance of perpetuating no fewer than two conditions: spreading of diseases into greater geographical regions and increasing the chances of “intercrosses?

Third, what then is becoming of the very institution of wildlife science and scholarship where it is known that protected species are interbreeding with other non protected species, and willingly this institution watches as the very species they claim to want to protect is being destroyed?

Fourth, of what value then, can be placed on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (with amendments)? It’s no secret what the purposes and plans of the ESA are:

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.

Is there mention here of protecting hybridized species? As a matter of fact there is no discussion or regulations in the ESA having anything to do with “intercrosses” of wolves. So, how do we stop this, or do we?

In email conversations over the past several days, I read comments from others far more expertise in these affairs than I am, repeating that the ESA does not protect mongrel species. I wanted to know where in the ESA it says that or by which Section of the Act one can interpret that is what it means?

Thanks to the help of Ted B. Lyon of Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C., and co-author of the brand new book, The Real Wolf: The Science, Politics, and Economics of Co-Existing with Wolves in Modern Times, I got some help. With the help of a law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, I was directed to some cases in law where it gives us perhaps a bit better understanding of how the courts, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, define and interpret “pure” species compared with “intercrosses” and how it is being dealt with.

As was given to me, here is a statement found in The Endangered Species Act: Static Law Meets Dynamic World by Holly Doremus

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS,” also known as NOAA Fisheries) (together “the Services”), do not currently have a formal policy on hybrids. The Interior Solicitor’s office waffled in the early days of the ESA, first concluding that any progeny of a protected entity was itself protected, then quickly reversing course to say that the progeny of interbreeding between species or even between subspecies were flatly ineligible for federal protection [70]. That stance was withdrawn as too “rigid” in 1990 [71]. A new policy was proposed in 1996 [72], but it was never finalized. FWS now evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis [73].”

The short of all of this appears to be that the Endangered Species Act was not drafted with the intent to protect hybridized (intercrossed) species, BUT the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis” because they granted themselves that authority to do so. And, we are squarely back to ground zero; the courts show deference to the Secretary and Congress gives the Secretary authoritative flexibility.

What does that then mean? That’s a good question. To me it means that if the USFWS has an agenda, aside from it’s written mission (Gasp!), and for political reasons, it can, on a case-by-case basis do whatever they want while running the risk of lawsuits from friends, what then is the rule of law worth? Realistically, the only lawsuits USFWS usually face come from animal rights and environmental groups. All too often, all of these groups work in unison with the same political (and financial) agendas.

In The Real Wolf book, an entire chapter covers the hybridization of captive wolves before and after Mexican wolves were introduced into the Southwest. This must be one of those case-by-case examples the USFWS says they will make determinations about. The information and facts presented are a clear and well-defined example of the United States Government spending millions of taxpayer dollars to protect a Heinz-57 mutt in the desert Southwest.

From my vantage point I see at least two seriously flawed examples here of what is wrong with the Endangered Species Act. One, that the Secretary has the authority, and that authority flexes its muscle knowing the Courts grant deference (and environmentalists, et. al., can cherry-pick the courts they want for the judges they will get). Secondly, the Secretary can bastardize the actual purpose of the ESA by playing games with intercrosses on a “case-by-case basis,” i.e. politics and agendas.

But the flaws date back to the very beginning of the ESA. With little or no definitions, establishment of actual authority and provisions to easily craft changes to the act based on the rapidly changing environments we live in, we can only expect the ESA to fail in protecting species and become a political tool of benefit for those who can see financial gains and abuse to promote causes. Can you say OUTDATED? I know you can.

Wolves were and never have been threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” Wolves and human populations cannot coexist. This has been proven over and over again. In addition to the threats these animals cause to humans, intercrosses are inevitable and are a threat to the protection of the pure wolf species. Why is that not being considered here? Or is it really NOT about the wolf?

Share

Sweden’s Problems With Reintroduced Wolves

From Yahoo! News:

“When you know a wolf can turn up on your land anytime, it changes your whole quality of life. You don’t dare let your dogs out in the yard … and people say you need to take a rifle when you walk in the forest!”

There are few differences between Sweden and the USA when it comes to problems with wolves. Sweden, no longer a sovereign state (some may live in denial over that), really has no say over the disease-ridden wolves raising hell in that country. The USA, no longer a sovereign state (many still live in denial of the fact), and the individual states that make up what was once a sovereign union, have no say over what becomes of wolves. All are forced by totalitarian communists to have their right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness snatched from them over the evil dictates of world rulers and powers, all of which we never see, hear and certainly do not elect.

As with news article after news article, this one from Yahoo! News fails miserably to even mention the human-threatening disease these government-sponsored terrorist wolves carry and disperse on the landscape. Just like when some lying, thieving, corrupt person says, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it…..PERIOD,” so too do we hear the same lying, thieving, corrupt people say these diseases are of no harm to humans.

Well, we know how Obamacare is turning out. You want to wait to get diseased before you do something about it?

Share

Emergence of Sylvatic Echinococcus granulosus as a Parasitic Zoonosis of Public Health Concern in an Indigenous Community in Canada

Within a remote Canadian Indigenous community, at least 11* of people had antibodies against Echinococcus granulosus and E. granulosus eggs were detected in 6* of environmentally collected canine fecal samples. Dog ownership, hunting, and trapping were not risk factors for seropositivity, suggesting that people are most likely exposed to E. granulosus through indirect contact with dog feces in the environment. In this situation, human exposure could be most effectively curtailed by preventing consumption of cervid viscera by free-roaming dogs.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Echinococcus multilocularis in Urban Coyotes, Alberta, Canada

From the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention:

Abstract

Echinococcus multilocularis is a zoonotic parasite in wild canids. We determined its frequency in urban coyotes (Canis latrans) in Alberta, Canada. We detected E. multilocularis in 23 of 91 coyotes in this region. This parasite is a public health concern throughout the Northern Hemisphere, partly because of increased urbanization of wild canids.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Spain Dealing With Attacking Wolves, Threat Exists for Disease

What may not be getting to these people is the information and education of the great risk they may have from diseases spread readily by wild canines. With so many accounts of so many wolves near people’s homes and along the highway, diseases such as Echinococcus granulosus threaten the health of all people. Wolves infected with the tapeworm, will leave dangerous spores in their feces. People in the outdoors and in particular domestic dogs and other animals can easily get these eggs on their fur and transport them into the homes where children and adults can easily ingest them.

Wolves attacking livestock, human beings and destroying wild animals and game, is a completely different subject than dealing with the disease aspect of wolves.

Wolves in Avila, Spain attack calf in broad daylight beside the highway.

Original Spanish edition:

“Just listen to the roars of the animal, the two men ran across the road. But despite arriving in a few minutes, allowing them to see in person the wolf, and could do nothing to save the calf, which had been attacked by the hindquarters.”

English Translation edition:

Sheep attack and kill 11 sheep in Las Navas del Marqués, in the place El Saltillo, Spain. This is the 15th attack in 3 months.

Original Spanish edition:

“The Young Farmers Agricultural Association (Asaja) Avila has denounced a new wolf attack in the town of Las Navas del Marqués, in the place El Saltillo, which caused early Thursday in the deaths of eleven sheep and caused numerous abortions in the flock.”

English Translation edition:

Share

Human Echinococcosis Mortality in the United States, 1990–2007

We identified 41 echinococcosis-related deaths among US residents during the period 1990–2007 (Table 1). Age-adjusted mortality rates were higher in males (0.012 per 106) than in females (0.005 per 106), with males more than 2 times as likely to die from echinococcosis than were females (adjusted rate ratio = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.9).

Although these data are population based and contain large numbers of observations, death certificates likely underreport causes of death and may contain errors, which have been attributed to a variety of factors.

Fatal echinococcosis may be more common in the United States than currently appreciated. Echinococcosis causes a mortality burden in the United States that may be modified by increased prevention and control efforts, including vaccine development for adult cestode carriers and livestock [13]. Given the presence of echinococcosis mortality in US-born persons, and the risk of travel-related exposure, hygiene precautions should be advised for individuals traveling to Echinococcus species endemic areas. Clinicians should be aware of the diagnosis, particularly in foreign-born patients from Echinococcus endemic areas, and should consider tropical infectious disease consultation early.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Are Wolves Here to Stay or Should They All Go?

redridinghoodWe are all pretty much aware of the old adage that history repeats itself, but what most don’t bother to think about is why that is so, if it is actually factual. The frontrunner in answering that question is that we repeat history, at least in bad ways(by somebody’s standards), because we fail to learn or willingly or unwillingly forget to remember. There is another possible reason for repeating history that, I’m sure, very few people even consider: we repeat history because that is what we are being programmed to do. All one really has to do is study history, I mean really study history, not the crap being shoved down our kids’ throats in our institutions of higher indoctrination, to gain an understanding of that truth.

If we know history and don’t err in forgetting that history and we actually learn from it, we discover that certain things occurred for a reason and had specific outcomes to them…..whether planned or not. Let’s examine wolves and their history for just a brief moment.

If we examine the word-of-mouth accounts of events surrounding wolves, i.e. journals, diaries, news accounts and anywhere official documents were kept of the days’ events, we learn that wolves existed in much of the territory of the Lower 48 states. How much, is still open to debate. Some believe in some sort of wildlife nirvana, pre-Columbian, but this theory doesn’t always or even consistently agree with the recorded events of the time.

Regardless wolves were on the landscape and I think few will argue that there have always been conflicts between wolves and people. Many years ago, as people sought better lives and there existed an expansion of populated areas, to coincide with a growing human population, settlers headed West and people headed deeper into the forest of the East to harvest timber, clear for farmland, etc. This brought on more conflict between wolves and humans, and other wildlife.

People discovered, sometimes the hard way, that wolves were not an animal they wanted around. Leftist, animal rights perverts tell us that the wolf is misunderstood and that stories such as Little Riding Hood were only fabricated to instill fear or just for entertainment value. However, real history places tales like Little Red Riding Hood, right in line with actual events on the ground. Disregarding of the truth is for sinister purposes only.

People quickly learned that wolves were dangerous, killed off their livestock and spread disease (rabies scared the dickens out of people then because they knew it killed most people and that wild dogs and other critters carried the disease. History also teaches us that wolves would bite unsuspecting children. Who wouldn’t be scared?). And thus began the effort to kill every wolf that could be found. In short, hundreds of years ago humans understood that wolves in human settlements was a terrible thing and something had to be done about it. And so, they killed them, nearly all, and it was a good thing.

Either we did not learn from history, we do not remember history or we are being programmed to repeat history, while at the same time being told non factual information (indoctrination/propaganda) for the purpose of misleading the people to gain public support for private agendas. Out of what appears to be ignorance, somebody came up with the idea that wolves and people could live together. It wasn’t ignorance. Can wolves and people live together? Can humans and wolves share the same landscape? Do wolves belong in wilderness areas only? Do wolves belong at all? And why should humans be forced to do this?

All the ins and outs of the so-called “Wolf Wars”, including the political wrangling, corruption, perversion, deceit and everything else that is no earthly good surrounding the existence of wolves, cannot be discussed in one article. I’m not even sure a full-length book could do it much justice, and so I’ll leave this part of it for future discussions as they present themselves.

However, from the moment the animal perverts began their assault on the rest of civilized humanity, wishing to force humans to live with wolves, refusing to consider history and the history of disease, bench marks, goals and lines drawn in the sand appeared around every corner. One of the grave mistakes, in my opinion, that the wolf perverts have done is never being satisfied with agreed-upon goals to measure success. An example of this would be the agreed upon number of wolves and breeding pairs that would be the benchmark of when wolf introduction would be a success and the nasty dog could be removed from protection under the Endangered Species Act. It didn’t stop there. It continued and shows no signs of ever stopping. As a consequence, more and more people are abandoning the stupid concept that humans and wolves can live together successfully.

Throughout the several years of debate, there has always been talked about the “what ifs” of when the first human in modern times, in the Lower 48, would be killed by a wolf or wolves. I’m not sure that there existed any official “line in the sand”, but often the talk would involve the tragedy that would exist, not if, but when, the first humans would be attacked and killed by wolves.

During the past few years I have been one of those who claimed that there would come a day when somebody and/or somebody’s child, would become table fare for a pack of wolves. What I was never able to come to terms with, is how such an event would effect how I felt about wolves.

In general terms, at least to this point in time, I came down on the side that wolves should not be extirpated, as they had been by early in the 20th Century, but that there needed to be strict control to keep numbers to a minimum in order to keep at a minimum the conflicts with humans, including but not limited to personal and private property injuries/destruction, spread of disease, and destruction of prey bases. I certainly don’t think I am in a minority of any kind with this kind of thinking.

How will that change, if at all, when the time arrives that wolves begin killing humans?

Such a terrible event may have already happened. One of the problems with being able to learn what precisely did happen, is there exist almost no news coverage of the particulars of what happened to two women in Idaho, supposedly out for a weekend of hiking. Amy Linkerts and Dr. Jo Elliot-Blakeslee have both been found dead at Craters Of The Moon National Monument & Preserve. Details are sketchy at best and to this point nothing at all has been released about those details and any autopsies that were performed. There are people demanding answers but, to my knowledge nobody else has any information other that the scant reports that can be found on line – here, here, here.

I have withheld any comment on the event until there at least exists official statements of cause of death and the events leading up to their deaths. I will not speculate on what might have happened.

What I will share is how, just reading about this event and knowing there is a possibility they may have been attacked by wolves, I felt about the entire event. I think it helped me to come to terms with whether or not my position on wolves, and how they should be controlled, would change. I have given this a few days so that I am not writing from a knee-jerk reactionary cause and have had a moment to think about it.

I am now seriously considering that once the day has come that any human in this country has been attacked and killed by wolves, that my attention and efforts will go toward an extirpation of the wolf…again. The animal is NOT extinct or any where near such globally. Wolves exist all over the world by the thousands and they have no place whatsoever living in close proximity to human beings.

Having now made this statement, and also stating more than once, that it’s only a matter of time before a human is attacked and killed by wolves, why is it that I/we must wait until somebody dies first? Yes, people have, for centuries, been attacked and killed by wolves. However, myself being guilty of what I accuse others of, this strikes close enough to home to cause changes of thoughts and consideration.

Perhaps it is the eminent death of some loving mother’s and father’s child that will be the wake up call but it shouldn’t have to be. It was a bad idea from the very beginning to force a nasty, historically unwanted, disease-ridden wild dog on innocent people.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I value one human life over that of every wild or domestic dog, or any other animal on this planet. It’s time for changes of thought and consideration.

Share

A Warning for Hunters, Trappers and all Outdoor Enthusiasts

hydatidcystsonelklungs

*Editor’s Note* – This article first appeared in the Bethel Citizen

Open Air
with Tom Remington
A Warning for Hunters, Trappers and all Outdoor Enthusiasts

Earlier in this news publication I shared an article about a potentially dangerous tapeworm that is being spread across the landscape by wild carnivores. In Maine it is mostly being done by the state’s version of wolf/coyote hybrid.

I realize Maine is in the midst or end of bear and moose hunting seasons, but trapping season is about to gear up, deer hunting season is on the doorstep and many people are taking to the fields and streams to peep at some leaves and get in some late summer and early fall hikes. This is perhaps the busiest time for people to be outside and in the forests and fields.

I would like to take a moment to alert readers to precautions they can take that will lesson any chances of contracting Hydatid disease, the result of infections perpetuated by Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) tapeworm eggs. It is these eggs found in the feces of wild canines that offers the greatest threat to humans in the outdoors. Perhaps I can put it in a perspective that’s more easily understood.

It has been estimated that during a 15-year period, the Greater Yellowstone area has probably been blessed with some 2.8 million wolf droppings (1,500-2,000 wolves). Add to that coyotes and other canines and the numbers skyrocket. The short of it is, that in areas where E.g. exists, the landscape is polluted with egg-infested wild canine droppings. Keep this in mind. While unofficial, some estimates put wolf/coyote populations in Maine between 20,000 and 30,000.

Here are my suggestions, and please visit tomremington.com and seek the menu near the top, “Wildlife Diseases” for more information.

These suggestions are mostly geared to hunters and trappers but apply the guidelines to your outdoor activity.

1. Never disturb wolf/coyote droppings. The E.g. eggs are tiny spores that cling and can become air-born if disturbed. They are viable in heat and cold as well as in water.
2. Handling game should be done with caution. Assume Hydatid cysts are present in all game and on the landscape. Use rubber gloves. Avoid any contact with mouth or eyes and open cuts. Although it is highly unlikely infections can be transmitted to humans by rupturing a cyst, it is possible. Therefore, try to avoid rupturing any cysts. Bear in mind some rupturing may have occurred from gun shot or trauma.
3. Make sure to properly cook any meat before consumption. Again the odds of ingesting fluid from a ruptured cyst are slim, heat will kill it.
4. Trappers must exercise extreme caution when handling coyotes/foxes/canines. Assume eggs persist on all parts of the animal’s fur and mouth/tongue.
5. Wash and sanitize outdoor clothing. Eggs can cling to shoes, boots, clothing, hands, hair, traps, etc.
6. If outdoors with dog, wash dog as soon as possible. You don’t know everything your dog has been into while outside. I suggest leaving the dog outdoors.
7. Realize that just a walk in the woods, the fields and forests, they are contaminated with millions of piles of scat. This gets picked up on the feet of animals and humans, gets spread around and is brought home on boots, pants, etc. Birds, flies, butterflies can spread the eggs.

Remember the biggest threat comes from getting the E.g. eggs into your mouth or lungs through breathing. Assume that in the outdoors, the eggs may be everywhere and on anything. Proceed accordingly.

While historically Hydatid disease has not been known to be a problem in the United States, it is in parts of the world where people have dealt with wolves and coyotes for centuries. In Romania, medical reports show that from 1979-1988, 8,557 people contracted Hydatid disease: 516 died.

Please use caution and take steps to reduce threats of infection.

You can find more information on this subject and many others dealing with hunting, fishing, trapping and the outdoors at tomremington.com.

Share

Spotlight on Nasty Parasites: Echinococcus granulosus

Did you know that some dogs might have a tapeworm in their small intestine that can cause the development of large cysts in people’s livers, lungs, and brains? This is not very common in the United States currently, though there are cases reported periodically (2), but in some areas of the world it is a huge problem. An infection that can spread from animals to humans or vice-versa is called a zoonotic infection.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Share

Wild Pigs Competing With and Destroying Wildlife Habitat

wildhogsToday a reader sent me some information of reports found in the media about wild hogs. CNN carried a story about the economic losses and destruction of the feral pigs.

From agricultural fields and farmland to golf courses and playgrounds, no property is off limits to these chubby eating machines. From 2 to 6 million feral hogs are wreaking havoc in at least 39 states. Texas is said to be home to over half of the country’s feral hog population.

I was also reminded that in Maine just about a year ago, a Eurasian wild boar, was shot and killed raising the questions of how it got there and what this may mean to the State of Maine in future dealings with feral hogs.

All of this got me to thinking and asking myself some questions: “I wonder what the interactions are between wild hogs and deer? Texas seems to have more than it’s share of wild pigs and plenty of deer. I wonder if there is any correlation? I suppose it’s possible that pigs could improve deer habitat or destroy it or nothing at all.

I also wonder how wild pigs and coyotes/wolves would coexist?”

I’ll see if I can find at least some answers to my own questions.

According to the Texas A&M University website(TAMU), wild pigs are a problem in many ways: they destroy habitat; they force the changing of habitat; they compete with other animals, including deer; they don’t play well together with other wild animals; and, they spread 15 different kinds of diseases, some of which are harmful to humans.

TAMU states that wild pigs compete with deer for food sources.

Approximately 85% to 90% of their diet is believed to be composed of vegetation (including crops where available) and 10% animal matter.

This vegetation, it should be noted, readily includes the consumption of mast crops, i.e. acorns, and other various nuts that deer thrive on. Specifically, wild hogs compete with deer for food, supplemental foods (public feeding, including game crops) and when wild hogs move into an area, deer commence a mass exodus.

It seems that history tells us that wild hogs first began appearing in the Southeast and they have spread considerably to many states at varying degrees. Official established populations of wild hogs can be found as far north as New York; which prompted another question. How adaptable are wild hogs to cold weather?

I found some information on Berry Man Institute website.

Because wild pigs are highly adaptable, suitable habitat occurs throughout much of North America. Since their introduction in the southeastern United States, wild pigs have expanded their range to many other regions of the country, particularly in the past few decades. The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) has monitored wild pig populations since 1982 and has documented a steady advance into new regions (www.uga.edu/scwds/dist_maps.htm); currently, pigs exist in at least 39 states (Fogarty 2007, Gipson et al. 1998). Although many have presumed that pigs were a southern species and that harsh winters would limit their expansion northward, pig populations now exist in the northerly
climates of Michigan and North Dakota.

With this limited information, it would appear that with an unchecked growing expansion of wild hogs throughout the U.S., the future of deer and other species, doesn’t bode well, especially in states like Maine that is experiencing extreme difficulties in maintaining a deer herd. Will the expansion of wild hogs destroy those deer herds that are problematic now? Will wild hogs reduce the deer herds in other states? What kind of long term effect will these feral animals have on habitat, i.e. vegetation, forests, fields, agricultural crops and other native wildlife? One has to wonder, with the destruction to the landscape these animals are capable of, what effect will this have on water quality in those places where game fish require cold, clean water. Wild hogs can destroy trees because of their “rooting.”

Their rooting can accelerate leaf litter decomposition causing the loss of nutrients which can impact seedling survival of trees. Their rooting behavior can damage seedling tree growth and survival. Longleaf pine seedlings seem to be especially vulnerable to wild pigs. Research suggests that the pigs may actually root up seedlings of various tree species and chew the root system to obtain nutrients. They rub against individual trees (pines) that are capable of producing a lot of rosin (presumably as they rub to remove ectoparasites on their skin). Rubbing of selected pine trees has resulted in girdling of some mature trees which can eventually kill the tree.

And just as important, if not more, what kinds of diseases are other wildlife and humans going to have to deal with now and in the future?

I’m not sure the public understands hardly at all the seriousness of this issue. Where are the so-called conservationists on this issue? This sounds like a classic environmentalist’s dream problem to deal with, and yet, where are they?

Perhaps in states like Maine, the wild hogs will move in and destroy and/or run off the deer and moose, making for big game hunting and trapping of wild pigs. THEN, the environmentalists will step in to put a stop to the senseless killing of wild pigs for sport. Isn’t that about how it goes these days?

Share