May 28, 2017

Lies by Wildlife Experts Repeated by Ignorant Media

The Christian Science Monitor has an article about the 19 elk that were slaughtered by wolves at a feeding ground near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It is full of lies and ignorant repetitions, all void of any sort of journalistic effort to find truth…as they claim is their “responsibility.” (Note: Odd isn’t it that when someone tries to shut the Media up, they scream First Amendment, citing their responsibility to seek out the truth and report it to the people. And yet, they seldom practice anything that resembles the reporting of truth. All they are interested in is protecting their free political platform disguised as The Press.)

Here’s a breakdown of some of the things written in that article:

First, was this: “If you like wolves, you call it surplus killing,” said US Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rockies wolf coordinator Mike Jimenez to the Jackson Hole Daily. “If you don’t like wolves, you call it sport hunting.”

This just simply is not true. I am more inclined that the reason Jimenez opted to recite such nonsense is to perpetuate the divide and hatred between people in what most see as a wolf love/hate relationship. The existence of the false paradigm that people either hate wolves or loves wolves, is one of the reasons nothing constructive can be done, especially with dialogue to resolve negative wolf issues. But isn’t that just the way it is intended to be?

It matters not whether you like wolves, hate wolves, worship wolves or want to kill all wolves, wolves often kill far more prey than they ever intend to eat. For anyone to send up a huge distraction such as giving the event two names and pinning those names on one side of those who “like” wolves and those that “don’t like” wolves, is not only irresponsible but indicates a bent toward other sinister objectives.

Second, we read: “Wolves leaving such a large killing uneaten in a single night is unusual..” No, leaving a large kill scene without eating it is common and is an integral part of the existence, instincts and survival of wolves. It’s what they do. It is more than dishonest to attempt to cover up this reality and is irresponsible to print it in the Media in order to mislead or propagandize the masses.

Third, we observe this contradiction: “Mr. Jimenez said the spring snows may have weakened the elk herd, or perhaps the wolves were hungry at the end of winter and simply didn’t stop.”

If the wolves were “hungry” because it was the “end of winter” then that would be reason to understand that the wolves would have eaten their prey. They didn’t. They only killed! Get it? This is a typical tactic used as a way of convincing the public that the wolves did nothing wrong. Always protect the wolf. Always put down the man.

Fourth: “Since wolves usually kill only what they need to eat, the unusual hunt has spurred debate about wolf management.” 

This is yet another attempt to substantiate the criminal action of protecting a large predator that takes and threatens private property as well as the safety of the people. Wolves don’t “usually” only eat what they kill. That is established scientific evidence. They are opportunistic killers. Then when the Media echos the B.S. calling the wolf hunt “unusual,” followed by the lie that this “unusual hunt” is what spurs on debate about wolf management, we see the effort to protect the wolf. What spurs on debate about wolf management is corruption that existed at the time the wolves were illegally introduced into the Greater Yellowstone region, using money stolen from the excise taxes collected from outdoor sportsmen who thought that money was going to be used to enhance game, habit and opportunities, not on programs designed to end it all.

What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the continued lying, cheating and stealing that goes on with the Federal Government and their NGO partners in crime.

What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the endless onslaught of lawsuits that steals money from taxpayers and exposes the corrupt judicial system that crawls in bed with the environmentalists to carry out their large predator protection programs for the purpose of destroying private property rights and the right of people to grow food, be happy and eke out a living.

There are far, far bigger things that spur on wolf management debate than wanton, wasteful, mass-killing of prey by wolves. Surplus killing by wolves is no more unusual than the amount of disease that they spread and the cross-breeding with coyotes, domestic dogs and other hybrid canine animals.

Fifth, is this misleading statement: “Ranchers are gradually accepting that the wolves are there to stay…”

This is propaganda at its most obvious. If the media repeats this often enough, people actually begin to believe it to be truth. They want to believe. That’s what they have been programmed to want.

Are ranchers really accepting the wolf? I’ve not seen that. As a matter of fact, I see just the opposite. I see more and more ranchers organizing to fight against the protection and perpetuation of the destructive wolf – a creature that is a huge threat to the livestock industry. I see them demanding of their Congressional representatives to do something about controlling the numbers of large predators. I see them calling B.S. on the fake “compensation” programs that the public has been lied to about. Ranchers are NOT willing to accept the wolf and go away defeated by a bunch of perverted animal lovers, so ignorant they can’t recognize that they are destroying themselves.

During the process that led up to the illegal introduction of wolves, Ed Bangs, the government puppet who undertook the sales job of convincing the people wolves would be good and were necessary, said that the future of the wolves depended on the social acceptance of the nasty animal. If that is true, then why have the environmentalists done everything in their power to ensure and perpetuate a great divide between the wolf worshipers and everybody else?

When wolves, or any large predator, moves in and destroys livestock, there’s little good that can be said about the assailants. Nothing being done to stop the attacks (don’t be fooled to think that any stock grower is equitably compensated for any losses) is not a formula that will foment good public relations with the wolf.

The short of it is that for the environmentalist, it is never enough. If there were 100,000 wolves in the Lower 48, that wouldn’t be enough. If every livestock item was destroyed by wolves, that wouldn’t be enough. The bastards lied to us right from the beginning…and that includes the government liars. There was never any intention to stop protecting wolves when they reached 300. There is no intention to ever stop growing wolves, as there is never enough for them. Man must go. Wolves must grow. Wolves are one tool that destroys American heritage.

Share

The Cover-Up of Wolves and What They DO!

By James Beers

Please note the picture below.  It is a late-March of 2016 picture from Wyoming and you will probably never see it again nor even hear of it.  You see:

–       Wolves don’t do such things.

–       Elk, like Minnesota moose, are disappearing due to global warming and ticks and definitely not wolf predation.

–       It is a Myth (like the time Kermit the Frog yelled, “it’s a Myth, Myth” and Miss Piggy comes on stage saying, “Yeth, Yeth”) that wolves eradicate game animals and hunting.

–       Protecting livestock like sheep and cattle from wolves means simply exerting a Little Effort like 24/27 shepherds and guard dogs and electric fences and fladry and noise makers and taste aversion and tank traps (I just made that one up) –none of which work more than temporarily.

–       Wolves are good for “the ecosystem” (which is whatever you want to make of “it” from the ecosystem in your yard to the North American Continent).

–       Wolves are wonderful to hear howling, it is a sign of “wilderness”.  (Please note, everywhere wolves now occur in the Lower 48 States, coyotes were or are present.  Coyotes once howled and yipped in the evenings but in the presence of wolves they quickly learn to remain silent because when wolves hear them they zero in on them and kill them at every opportunity.)

All of the above are lies believed by an urban general public that: A.) Does not live with nor is not affected by wolves, B.) Feels guilty about European settlement of North America or the presence of plants and animals not present here before 1492 when Columbus set foot on a Caribbean beach, or C.) Desires to eliminate all human use or ownership of animals from hunting and animal husbandry to animal control and the right to bear arms.

Organizations that raise millions from such folks will do whatever they must to keep reporting of and especially such pictures of wolf carnage from being published or circulated.

Federal politicians that passed the unjust laws that began the wolf introductions and protections do not want such publicity to unmask the perfidy of what they have done.

Current federal politicians that ignore this issue and refuse to give any more than lip service (tsk, tsk, etc.) to solving what their predecessors wrought do not want such publicity about their ongoing cowardly betrayal of rural Americans.

Federal bureaucrats utilizing the wolf carnage and the un-Constitutional laws that give them powers superior to states and the Constitution simply lie, shrug and blame others like a professional boxer jokingly “sparring” with amateurs.  The increased power and salary and retirement this gives them; makes them ruthless in suppressing photos and reporting about such carnage.

State bureaucrats, likewise bob and weave with a “me-too” alibi that mimics their federal “partners” malarkey about “wolves never”, “wolves always”, “global warming”, phony “counts”, etc.  Like the drivers of the “getaway car” they are complicit up to their ears in the whole scam for their own benefit camouflaged as “ecosystem beneficence”.

The media (TV News, Newspapers, Documentaries, Magazines, etc.) have all bought in to the kindly wolf myths for reasons as diverse as; “it sells”, “we get money to do so”, “our staffs are all urban ideologues”, “our political ideology/Party supports this for votes”, to “our teachers filled our heads with so much mush in school that we are incapable of seeing the truth of the matter.”

A few facts you won’t hear elsewhere:

–       Wolves frequently kill wintering deer or elk in large numbers without eating them just like a pack of domestic dogs that get loose will kill chickens or sheep they encounter for what we mistakenly call “fun” but is in reality the same thing Indians did when they drove buffalo over cliffs in numbers far exceeding what they could or ever eat or otherwise utilize.

–       A couple of years ago on the Wyoming/Idaho border a wolf pack killed a hundred and some sheep for “fun” one dark night.

–       Wolves have destroyed Minnesota moose hunting by depleting Minnesota moose.

–       Wolves have all but destroyed the once 20,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd just as they are doing to moose, elk and deer in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and will do in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Texas if the federal government forces them into those states.

–       It is not at all uncommon that wolves hamstring (tear the tendons in the rear legs thus causing the animal to collapse helplessly) pregnant elk, moose, cows, ewes, does, etc. with developed fetuses and then immediately while the adult female lives to begin tearing out the anal area to make a big enough hole to pull out and devour the fetus and then leave the cow, doe, ewe, etc. to die a horrible, lingering and painful (for all you animal rights/wolf advocates) death.

–       As big game goes in the West, so goes ranching and rural communities.

–       Wolves are spreading down through Illinois and Indiana and Missouri to infest Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee from which they are expected to “hook up with” (to coin a modern expression) government wolves and coyotes and dogs (making puppies along the way) in the Carolinas and in Oklahoma and Texas rolling Eastward from New Mexico.

The same things are happening in Europe.  As Europeans do their minuets with Islamic terrorists, wolves are all over now for the first time in a few hundred years and they are increasing in numbers and densities.  Formerly efficient use of suburban/rural forage by sheep and shepherds has been and is being violently and terminally (?) ended as wolf predation, mostly unarmed shepherds, and insane wolf protections combines to kill thousands of sheep annually and put many shepherds “on the dole”.  Rural life is, as in US “wolf country”, less profitable and more dangerous for unarmed citizens, children and the elderly.  When the Lufthansa pilot flew his airplane into the Alps, one of the policemen guarding the site for several days opined, “Our biggest worry was ALL THE WOLVES scavenging the site and consuming human body parts!”  Ask yourself; where else have you heard or will you hear any of this?

Jim Beers

25 March 2016

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. 

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

18DeadElk

Share

Feds Play With Their Wolves While Ranchers Suffer Losses

A livestock slaughtering wolf allowed to kill for 31 days while Feds play games.

Although the federal team had the frequency and had spotted the wolf, they needed to wait to see whether this particular wolf was traveling alone, Jimenez said.

A few years ago, when a wolf was spotted prowling in the Bighorn Mountains, she had a small pack with her that took out more than 100 head of livestock before her pack was killed, Jimenez said.

“Every time wolves have gotten into the Bighorns, it’s been a problem,” Jimenez said. “We do not want wolves in the Bighorns.”

So the delay this time increased the pressure on the ranching community, and stories of the wolf ran like wildfire, he said.

Still the recovery team waited.

Source: Kaycee lone wolf shot by feds

Share

Video: Results of Wolves Sport-Killing Sheep

Share

Hybrid Wolves Slaughter 10 Deer

“When he got to the scene, he witnessed two wolves killing his deer.

Ten of his 57 deer were killed before he shot and killed the wolves to stop them from killing his deer.

USDA trappers came to pick up the wolves, which they called “hybrid” wolves.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wolves in Maine in the 1800s – Part III (First Recorded Attacks on Humans)

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

The book, Early Maine Wildlife – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving, is proving to be an interesting addition to my library. I think the authors did a decent job of putting this information together; one, to make it readable, and, two, to give a reader a sense of the changes taking place across the lands over extended periods of time. I am glad they chose to list the entries in chronological order. Of course these changes come with no real explanations from the observers, often just recalling what it used to be like.

In 1860, J.G. Rich writes in the Bethel Courier about his hunts for caribou. He also explains that he has shot and killed two caribou in the previous 6 years and then states, “many hunters from different parts of the State have told me that the species [caribou] are almost extinct in Maine”. Obviously Rich wasn’t into conservation of wildlife, which most of us know came a bit later on after it was decided something needed to be done.

Henry David Thoreau relates the reports he got from lumbermen and hunters in the mid-1800s through the late-1800s. In 1858 he writes, “The lumberers told me that there were many moose thereabouts, but no caribou or deer.”

It was in 1860 when M.R. Keep told the tale of when the French first settled in the Madawaska area in Northern Maine, along the St. John River, the Indians got angry because the French were killing their moose and caribou. The story goes that the Indians, out of spite, slaughtered all the moose, and, “For twenty years or more, not a moose was seen or heard from in all Northern Maine or the adjoining borders of New Brunswick[.]”

However, wolves were still an often talked about species. Thoreau often spent time “listening” throughout his travels in Maine to hear the wolves howl. While people howled about the threats and utter destruction the animal caused.

It was in 1855 that C. Hardy wrote about what he knew of the grey wolf.

“The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has but lately made its appearance in Nova Scotia, not as in other provinces, however, in company with his prey, the Canadian deer (Cervus virginianus). The gray wolf is a large, fierce, and powerful animal. In Maine and New Brunswick, several instances have been known of his attacking singly and destroying a human being. This animal sometimes grows to the length of six feet. The hair is long, fine, and of a silver grey. A broad band of black, here and there, showing shiny silvery hairs, extend from the head down the back. The tail is long and bushy, as the brush of a fox. A wolf skin forms a frequent decoration for the back of a sleigh.”

This is the first I have read in this book (although I am barely past page 100 of 500) of reports of wolves attacking and killing people. I should point out that in reading accounts of wolves beginning in the very early 1600s, most descriptions of wolves up to this point related that they were wary of humans and for the most part steered clear. While there were also reports of some savagery of wolves on livestock, the number of those reports paled in comparison to the accounts of how the wolves feed on available wild prey, such as deer, moose, rodents, etc.

At this juncture, it appears that we may be actually seeing a pattern take place. As the reports from observers seem to be passing on the reduction of game animals and in some cases the lack thereof, i.e. the extinction of the caribou, incidents of livestock kill and now reports of attacks on humans are on the increase.

In 1842, Z. Thompson, in his “History of Vermont”, writes about “The Common Wolf”.

“For some years after the settlement of this state was commenced, wolves were so numerous and made such havoc of the flocks of the sheep, that the keeping of sheep was a very precarious business. At some seasons particularly in the winter they would prowl through the settlements at night and large companies, destroying whole flocks in their way, and, after drinking their blood and perhaps eating a small portion of the choicest and tenderest parts, would leave the carcasses scattered about the enclosure and go in quest of new victims. Slaughter and instruction seemed their chief delight; and while marauding the country they kept up such horrid and prolonged howlings as were calculated, not only to thrill terror through their timorous victims, but to appall the hearts of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Though sheep seems to be their favorite victim, wolves sometimes destroyed calves, dogs, and other domestic animals; and in the forest they prey upon deer, foxes, hares and other such animals as they can take. Impelled by hunger they have been known in this state to attack persons.”

Here is another account of attacks on people. And also notice that the indicator in the statement about attacks on people is, “Impelled by hunger”. If the accounts being recorded have much accuracy at all, we see that for what may be multiple reasons, the prey base for wolves is diminishing. This increases the incidents of livestock depredation and attacks on humans. I believe it only correct to make that assumption, knowing what we do about wolf behavior.

In addition, this account of Thompson’s, gives us our first glimpse into surplus killing or sport killing that protectors of predators such as the wolf and coyote so readily deny. Thompson describes the wolves’ actions as being anything but savage and pointless. Why has it been 150 years before these kinds of reports are showing up?

I am curious as to whether readers are surprised to learn of these incidences by wolves in Maine – their savagery of livestock and attacks on humans? I would guess they are, as they have been indoctrinated to believe that there has never been an attack on a human by wolves in the lower 48 states. These early observers and recorders of wildlife from the early 1600s, seem to have a differing set of facts.

Share

To Catch A Wolf – Part V

Links to Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV

If we are ever to consider “catching” a wolf, we need first to understand it. This has become a difficult task, especially here in the United States because most who advocate for wolves, seemingly those with all the money and resources to do so, aren’t at all interested in telling the truth about this animal. Why is it that in efforts to discover the truth about this large and sometimes vicious predator, advocates mount bigger campaigns to counter those truths with lies, information designed to mislead the public?

In the West we love our stories about Nikki: Dog of the North and Jack London’s other creation of Call of the Wild. In our romantic fantasies we want to be friends with canines that are portrayed as our best friends, cute and cuddly. The reality is wolves are none of these and there are many other myths that we have been programmed to believe as true.

Most of us will never see a wolf in the wild. Most of us will never have a desire to “catch” a wolf. Some of us are going to be forced to at some point and hopefully we’ll never reach the degree of problems our ancestors faced all around the globe, the result of which was lack of wildlife management and the taking away of the God-given rights of people to self protection.

In the previous four parts in this series (see links above) we have traveled across parts of North American, Russia, France, Italy and made mention of other countries that historically have faced wolf problems. We now are going to travel to Scandinavia where we will take a look at two aspects of the wolves there – attacks on humans and methods used to kill wolves.

No matter where we traveled, we found out that wolves vary in sizes and color. We know that the characteristics of wolves also vary depending on several factors, including habitat, time of year and the influences of climate, to name a few.

One thing that I have discovered in reading the many accounts of wolves and hunting wolves is that often what and how the writer conveyed their message depended a great deal on their own experiences and perceptions of the events at hand. Let me give an example.

Scandinavian Adventures by Llewelyn Lloyd was written in 1854. It contains numerous accounts of wolf/human encounters and detailed descriptions of wolf habits and of course methods on how the people in Scandinavia captured and/or killed the beast they so much hated.

I chuckled at one point and then read on with my jaw agape, when Lloyd wrote that wolves seldom attack people.

Though wolves are so numerous in Scandinavia, and commit such considerable ravages amongst cattle, they do not often molest man.

I will concur here with Lloyd’s statement that wolves were numerous during this time in Scandinavia, having to this point already read what seems an unending accounting of the savage events involving wolves in this country and the destruction of private property.

After stating that wolves “do not often molest man”, Lloyd fills many pages documenting several of at least 20 accounts of wolves killing humans just during one winter. This doesn’t account for the attacks on humans that didn’t result in death.

I would assume we need to conclude that it is all relative as to what we become accustomed to in our everyday lives. That one man can so boldly state that wolves seldom attack man, yet view the deaths of at least 20 people, mostly children, as somehow insignificant, certainly baffles my mind but I’ve never had to live with wolves on a daily basis. In all of North America we struggle to accept the death of one man in Canada a couple years ago.

As with all the other countries we’ve visited, Lloyd tells us that the wolf is despised in Scandinavia too. He states that from the beginning of time, wolves have been hated and that they were the “plague and torment of the land”.

The Scandinavian wolf is characterized as having a “most ravenous appetite” and at times when food is not available to the wolf, he will actually ingest dirt and mud in order to quell the hunger pains. If all goes well, he will regurgitate the mud once he has killed prey to eat. The author tells us of instances when a wolf howls incessantly from the pain caused by eating and puking up the dirt.

“He can suffer hunger and hardships for a long time, which is common for beasts of prey, according to the Creator’s wise institution; for their provision is uncertain, and comes accidentally, and at irregular intervals. When his hunger becomes too great, he’ll eat clay if it is to be had; and this, as it is not to be digested, remains in his belly till he gets flesh, and that works it off violently; and then he is heard to howl most dismally for pain;

One farmer who killed a wolf, opened the animal’s stomach up to see what it had been eating and found it full of moss and the tops of birch trees.

Lloyd tells us that Scandinavia is “exempt from rabies”. I can’t confirm that to actually be the case but he is quite convinced there were never any cases of rabies recorded at least up until this time in history. Part of the reason for bringing this up is that in his list of wolf encounters, all occurred with what appear to be healthy animals. This dispels the myth that only diseased wolves will attack a human.

Like with all the other accounts we’ve examined, wolves in Scandinavia are most dangerous during the long winter months, when food is scare and the animals run in very large packs. People traveled most often by sleigh or horse and during these times some where allowed to have guns for protection as it was common for packs of wolves to attack and follow the travelers.

The author tells readers that when the wolf is hungry and in packs, they seem not afraid of anything, boldly entering barns and enclosed pastures taking whatever they wanted, sometimes barely reacting to the beating by farmers with clubs, sticks and rocks.

The story here gives us an indication of excess killing. In modern times, at least here in North America, we have coined the term “surplus killing” to characterize the act of wolves killing far more prey than they ever intend to eat.

The wolf is amongst the most voracious of beasts. The slaughter he commits in the fold is at times terrible; and he frequently kills ten times more than he can devour. Hence it would appear, he is impelled rather by a mere love of destroying, than by hunger.

I read recently the account of one wildlife biologist who said that surplus killing did occur with wolves and domestic animals but rarely happened with wild animals, particularly large game animals. Even though I have had the opportunity to read accounts of and view pictures of what seem to show surplus killings of deer and elk by wolves, biologists, for whatever their motives, seem quick to come to the rescue of the wolf and state that it may appear the wolves killed needlessly but will return at a later date and clean up the mess. This brings the discussion to one that now becomes quite subjective. If a pack of wolves during one attack session kills 20 elk and then leaves without eating any of them, one can argue that the wolves will return to clean up later, yet we have no way of knowing that.

I find it a tough pill to swallow that wolves will only “surplus kill” domestic animals and not wild ones. The game manager making the statement backed his theory by saying that most livestock have had all sense of fighting back bred out of them. I have never witnessed alive any attack by wolves on deer and elk, but in most of the video I’ve seen, the deer and elk aren’t fighting back. They may run and stand their ground for a time but are soon outnumbered or worn down to defeat.

I can concur that it would appear much easier, if I were a wolf, to enter an enclosed area housing 100 sheep and killing them all, than to run down and kill 100 elk or deer. This doesn’t however dispel the idea that wolves do not “surplus kill” elk and deer. The task may be more difficult but the voraciousness of the wolf is on display no matter what animal it is attempting to kill. If a pack kills any number of game animals they don’t consume or haul away, we can say there was surplus killing.

The landscape of much of Scandinavia provided excellent habitat for wolves and as a result, there were many to contend with. The habitat also prevented hunting the wolf in what is referred to as a common method – using dogs and people to drive wolves out of the thick forests into openings or fields where the wolves could be shot. There were just too many intermingled, dense forests where wolves could essentially hide forever. This brought extra challenges upon the citizenry to protect themselves and devise other means of killing wolves and killing as many as they could all at once.

The presence of wolves was an extreme burden on the people. It is described in some places as being the most difficult thing in life to deal with. Here in the West we think stories like Little Red Riding Hood were created from some fairy tale dreamed up by a fanciful writer.

Not only do our children’s books relate some of the experiences people had years ago, the angst and outright hatred that grew toward the wolf had people believing the the wolf was an incarnation of Satan himself. As backwards as this may seem to the modern West, we’ve never really had to deal with anything so frightful and controlling, with the dominance of a vicious predator. It was as bad or even worse than any plague.

The people persevered and one way that helped was the creation of devises and methods to catch, trap and kill wolves. In the northern areas of Scandinavia, the Lapps often strapped on their skis, or skidor they were called, armed themselves with a 12-foot long pointed spear and headed into areas thought to have wolves.

The conditions needed to be right so that the snow was such that wolves couldn’t run away and yet the hunters could remain on top of the snow with their skis and navigate to where the wolves were, spearing them to death. A good downhill run seemed a good opportunity.

Sooner or later, however, he is necessitated to quit the ” vantage-ground,” and betake himself once more to the forest or the fjall, as the case may be. Thus the chase may continue for a day or two, until the beast is fairly worn out with hunger and fatigue, when his pursuers are enabled to close with him—generally on the long slope of a hill—and to put an end to his miseries and his life.

Seldom would enough wolves be killed to have any real affect on limiting the wolf kills on the reindeer herds. However, under the right conditions, there is a recorded event of around 70 wolves being killed in one week using this method of skis and spears.

As I mentioned earlier, hunting wolves by foot or horseback in the “traditional” manner was quite ineffective. Lloyd explains it this way.

Little in the shape of wolf-hunting—such at least as accords with our notions of hunting—is practised in Sweden; and that little is, from necessity, always followed on foot. From the difficult nature of the ground, and the peculiar style of fence, it would be quite an impossibility to pursue that beast on horseback.

And thus the most effective means to deal with wolf populations was devised – locate the dens and kill the cubs. Lloyd goes to great lengths offering advice on how best to locate the dens. As a bonus, hunters would set a trap for the she-wolf and kill it when it returned to the den area.

The she-wolf does not, like the fox, litter in deep holes in the ground, where it is difficult to get at the cubs; but under boulders, under the stumps of uprooted trunks, in close thickets, or beneath spruce-pine trees, the branches of which hang to the very ground; and for this reason, when the Lya is found, one can readily take and destroy the cubs.

“One of the number, however, should be retained alive, that by means of its cries the mother may be killed also. The object is best effected by erecting a screen of boughs, near to the lair, where two of the hunting party (the rest retiring to a distance) secrete themselves, and shoot her on her return home. This is hastened by the piteous lament of her offspring, who at some four feet from the ground, is suspended by the hind leg to a neighbouring tree. But the men, at such times, should face in opposite directions, so that one or the other will be sure to see her when she first makes her appearance, as she then comes much nearer to the ambush than afterwards.”

The event of locating wolf lyas (lairs) and destroying the cubs is a community-wide event employing large groups of people. A continued effort each year to do this seemed somewhat effective in keeping wolf populations in check.

Another method used by the Scandinavians, particularly in areas overrun with wolves was called a Skall-platser. Essentially, an area is located in which bait is deposited in great amounts over long periods of time. This often consisted of dead animals.

During the time of year, mostly winter, when the wolves were both hungry and packing together in larger numbers, hunters, numbering as high as 600 hundred would surround the baited area where no wolf could escape. Canine slaughter ensued.

During a period of about 7 years, it is recorded that 35 of these Skalls took place, resulting in the killing of over 200 wolves, including cubs. This may have been the most effective means of killing larger numbers of wolves at one time but I believe the most effective long term was killing the cubs and she-wolves. One of the problems with carrying out the Skalls was the expense and the time commitment in keeping the area baited.

Scandinavia also employed the use of live, squealing pigs on a winter sleigh to lure the wolves out while hunters riding the sleigh shot them. I covered this in more detail in Part I.

In all of the stories covered in this multi-part article, people resorted to the creation and use of traps. Most of them to catch an individual wolf but as we learned earlier, elaborate contraptions were designed to capture many wolves at one time.

While individual traps served the purpose of maybe taking care of one or two problem wolves that were killing livestock, it did virtually nothing to control wolf populations.

What we should have at least learned through all of this is that wolves are most difficult to “catch”. We read here in Scandinavia that the terrain and habitat was such that much of it was impossible to hunt on foot or horseback. In all the stories, the authors made no bones about the fact that wolf population controls had to be done on a consistent basis and the only way to accomplish this was with the use of hunting dogs. There was nothing very scientific about any of it. They knew there were too many wolves and no matter what they did, there were always too many wolves.

I’ve pointed out numerous times that as the United States readies itself for a rapidly expanding population of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western Great Lakes, I have little confidence that we are prepared to handle the problem or at least take care of it in a timely matter.

Idaho, a state that is eager to get the federal government off its back and out of its state, has written up preliminary rules to govern wolf hunts. None of the rules allow for any of the methods I’ve described or provided for you from history past. I’m not advocating for the employment of these methods but we have to use history to teach us that a hunter alone with a gun is no good.

With a wolf population growing at a rate of near 30% in some places, sending a man and his rifle into the woods to kill a wolf will do nothing to stop or slow the rate of growth. With the proper management of wolves, it should be known whether the state wants to reduce, maintain or grow the wolf population in certain wildlife management areas. This is readily accomplished through the issuance of tags or quotas. When the quota is taken the hunt ends. If this be the case, then why put so many restrictions on the hunter? It really makes little sense?

We have areas now where the deer and elk are being killed by wolves at a rate that some fear is approaching or has surpassed recovery. Presently our hands are tied as wildlife managers are at the mercy of the federal government and having to be in compliance with an Endangered Species Act that has morphed into a political activists’ tool.

If the day comes when each state is granted permission to manage the wolf, we have to be ready, knowledgeable about the wolf and its habits and prepared to implement the necessary tools to accomplish the needed tasks.

I hope that this article and the other four parts can serve as a means of gaining a better, more truthful understanding of the wolf. Learning about the truth shouldn’t be something we fear. It is fought against only by those with hidden agendas.

Tom Remington

Share