David Mech’s Damage Has Been Done – Too Late to Attempt Reconciliation

It seems some readers are agog today over an article discovered to have been published at Daily Kos, discussing supposed errors made in attempts to understand wolf and wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. At the center of this article is David Mech, father of the Wolf Wars; the man who identifies with wolf studies and the introduction or reintroduction, depending on one’s perspective, of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

It’s always vengeful bliss to say, “I told you so,” but it’s just as important to understand that Mech’s seeming admission that some things might not have been right, is really no victory for anyone accept David Mech and the environmental hijackers; those destroyers of people’s rights, property destruction and confiscation, and the subjection of citizens to reduced levels of public health and safety.

On examination of certain statements made by Mech, on the surface I can see him saying the things that I have been writing about for several years on the myths of balance of nature and self regulation of the ecosystems.

…..at the very least, scientists now disagree about whether wolf related behaviorally mediated trophic cascades in Yellowstone are really occurring………. At most, that well-publicized claim may not be correct at all.

…..ecologists (and particularly conservation biologists) do seem obsessed to the point of blindness with predator-induced trophic cascades.

Two decades later after observing wolves and moose and whitetail in Minnesota, Mech denounced the “balance of nature” writing in (National Wildlife 23(1):54-59) he said nature “far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically”.

Consider, if you will, what Mech said and the comment made by the author of this piece.

In an interview Mech states that scientific conclusions may “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way,”. Because the meme of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone is so embedded in textbooks and popular media, it may never die, even if untrue.(Emboldening added)

It has taken how many decades of wolf study, combined with the numerous “scientific” papers written and distributed by Mech, perhaps walking around with a very large chip on his shoulder, swelling in his pride as being perceived as the wolf expert, approaching godliness in some people’s eyes, to decide to consult other scientists about wolves, or in general, balance of nature and trophic cascades?

It may appear that Mech has reached some scientific epiphany or maybe even remorse, complete with crocodile tears, so why should we be so thrilled at his comments about the dishonesty and corruption of money-starved, agenda-driven scientists who, “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way?”

I would have to agree with the author of the article who states that this meme, that is the false idea that has spread throughout the scientific community full of wolf loving, money hungry faux scientists, may never die, is, in fact, the outcome that Mech intended from the beginning.

It’s a bit easier to put up a front indicating wrongdoing when the damage has been done and you’ve achieved the goals intended. Are we then to forgive and forget? I think not. The actions of Mech and many others, those being the products of his own work, i.e. his following, his own “outright dishonesty” and what I believe to be him knowing his own bias, have caused such extreme damage, to not only the scientific community but the loss of other wildlife, the spread of disease and the destruction caused to humanity through his deceitful work to cause division and strife among the people. How does one measure that value and establish accountability? Should we just dismiss it because this man is sticking his big toe in contriteness?

The damage has been done and it probably never will get corrected. The lessons learned here will also not be all good. One would like to think that the scientific community would take a deep breath and reassess this evil approach toward political ends shrouded in spurious science, but unfortunately it will stand as a proving ground in how to make money while lying and cheating the American public, regardless of the potential of damage that can be done. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil.

The U.S. Government, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should never have given one man so much power and authority to carry out his work. To do wrong, the result of work going unchecked and unchallenged, some because Mech had the power to disregard information from others, for over 2 decades and THEN step forward indicating that things may have been wrong, isn’t something the American citizens should be so easily willing to accept. There is far more to Mech’s and other’s behavior over the years that goes a bit beyond “oops” and can rightly be described as a criminal enterprise.

As Christians we are taught to forgive, but that doesn’t mean we need forget. We must correct the wrong and seek rightful justice for the actions that go beyond scientific error. The American people will never get back into the scientific literature the truth about wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. It is my opinion that this “damage” was intentionally planned. It is also my opinion that as David Mech ages, he’s now, without much fear of punitive actions against him, willing to say what he may deem appropriate to save his own skin and play to the side of science and citizens who believed him wrong and corrupt from the beginning. We shouldn’t fall for it.

We should take his words and attach those words to the years of his work and then the task at hand for the activists is to begin a long and difficult task of reeducation. How do you counter the brainwashing being done by the most powerful?

The Reintroduction of Wolves in the Northern Rockies as a Method of Making Money Under the Guise of Ecological Restoration II

Read Part I

Wolves were extinct for decades and then Bruce Babbit and others “resurrected” them..

Really? From the Babylonian Looney bin;

“The reintroduction of the wolf after decades of extinction is an extraordinary statement for the American people. It reconnects our historical linkage with the wilderness that is so central to our national character. It admits to past errors and asserts our willingness to correct them” —Bruce Babbit

“Wolves were recovering and thriving under multi-use! That is the “main” objective the “greenies” in our IDFG and USFWS want to cover up, is the fact that both the wolves, and even more so the wolverines were making a “come-back” under multi-use.”—Tim Kemery

When we read about this history consider the human population of Idaho at the time compared to 1995-2013. Wolves were hardly extinct here in Idaho for decades as Bruce Babbit tried to claim. Lets look at a few forests the 1984 study “Wolves of Central Idaho” by Kaminsky and Hanson involved.

Study cooperators were; FWS, Endangered Species Program; Boise Field Office, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. Montana. U.S. Forest Service, Region 1 and 4. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

A hundred years ago, gray Wolves (Canis lupus) ranged over most of Idaho (Goldman 1944; Figure l). The last of these animals were believed to have been extirpated from the mountainous regions of the state by the late 1930s with the removal of wolves from elk and deer winter range near the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in 1938 (J.Harris, pers. caoum.). However, reports of wolves persisted, with observations varying from detailed descriptions of large gray canids to droppings consisting of ungulate hair and bone. Such reports, ranging in time from the early 1940s through the mid 1970s received little attention from state and federal resource agencies. Moreover, reports of wolves brought ridicule and cynicism from a doubting public, often peers or hunting companions of those reporting wolves.

In June 1978, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game research biologist observed and photographed a black wolf on the Clearwater National Forest in north central Idaho. During October 1978, a gray wolf was shot and killed 200 miles south on the Boise National Forest of west central Idaho. Newspaper accounts rewritten in review of wolves recent presence in Idaho, lending credibility to both past and present reports.

CHALLIS NATIONAL FOREST

1) STATUS

Twenty-two of 31 reports received since 1974 were rated probable on the Challis NF (Tables 20 and 21). Sixteen probable reports are received by resource agencies (regular reports) while 6 reports were received from elk hunters and none from outfitters during the course of this study. Twelve reports involved observations of wolves, 9 were of tracks and 1 report involved a scat.

DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS

Wolf reports on the Challis NF have been consistent over the past 10 years. Except for 1981 when 7 probable reports of wolves were received, probable reports of wolves have ranged between 0 and 3 since 1974. During 1974, wolves were seen near Soldier Mountain Lookout in August and along Knapp Creek during late September. No wolves are again observed on the Challis NF until 1977 near ungulate winter range along Rapid River. Wolves were observed twice in 1978 near the confluence of Cold and Loon creeks during January, and again during November along Little Loon Creek. Three wolf reports were received during 1979 from Big Baldy Mountain and Loon and Mortar creeks. Wolves were reported 3 times in 1980 and 7 times in 1981. Sightings of wolves were reported near Loon Creek and Cape Creek Summit in 1982 and in the vicinity of Seafoam R.S. in 1983. Nineteen of 22 reports of wolves on the Challis NF since 1974 have involved single animals. Two wolves traveling together were observed during 3 consecutive years from 1980-1982. In 12 probable reports involving 15 wolves, 4 predominately gray, 1 black, and 1 buff colored wolf were reported. Based on color differences described in probable reports and the widespread existence of wolf observations including 3 recent reports of 2 wolves together (1980- 82), apparently 3 to 6 wolves have periodically ranged over the Challis NF during the past l0 years. Read more

Tailoring Wolf “Science” to Justisfy Political Ends

By Jim Beers

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 10:58pm ·

Federal government wolf intervention in the Lower 48 United States was and is based on radical federal legislation that abolished historic State authority over all wolves, all grizzly bears and many state black bear populations such as Florida and Louisiana. This 30+ year intervention has established extensive wolf populations in 14 States and begun establishment of wolves through federal protection for wolves in 11 more States. Under current law, wolves can be expected to infest (the correct word) each of the Lower 48 United States in the coming decades. Also under current law, federal legal authority and jurisdiction over wolves (like grizzly bears and black bears in certain states) will never expire: one need only observe how as the federal government “returns management authority” to States like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, et al lawsuits to block such returns bloom in federal courts and federal agency wolf standards (10 packs, 500 wolves, whatever) prevent State’s from truly managing wolves in densities and distributions as demanded by ranchers, farmers, dog owners, hunters, and rural families in such States or the federal government simply seizes the authority back, thereby letting the states carry the costs as they hold the federal bag.

The legal authority for this wolf invasion (again the correct word) is The Endangered Species Act. The two subjects of this Act (i.e. “Endangered” and “Species) no more apply to wolves in fact than they apply to Norway rats or domestic cows.

Wolves (like Norway rats) are circumpolar and ubiquitous throughout Asia, Alaska and most of Canada. Wolves also occur in Northern Africa and are currently infesting Europe under a protection and spreading regime imposed by European Union politicians and bureaucrats using tyrannical methods much like those employed in the United States. Labeling them as “Endangered” is a cruel and profane joke.

Wolves (like domestic cows) are merely one breed or race of a larger true “species”. Wolves, again like domestic cows, breed with and produce fertile offspring with coyotes, domestic dogs, jackals (Africa) and dingoes (Australia). Offspring of such cross-breeding, again like domestic cows, display characteristics of each parent and will transmit the blended characteristics (from physical characteristics to behavioral traits) to their subsequent offspring. To expand the classification biology of this animal to a “Species” as “Species” has been historically defined (i.e. a unique animal group capable of producing fertile offspring) or as “Species” was defined or intended in an ESA that would “save” bald eagles and elephants is a travesty.

To further, as has been done, “spin” traditional classification biology of wolves (“gray” ones here,” timber” ones there, “coastal” ones like this,” desert” ones like that, etc.) into “Red” populations, “Mexican” populations, etc. was little more than a ploy using contrived “science” to justify federal programs to forcibly introduce “endangered” wolf “species” in every state based on baseless “historic” wolf numbers and distributions. (NOTE: Although federal “wolf experts” say what wolf belongs where because it is “native” to that state: when it came time to put wolves in Yellowstone Park the “experts” went to Alberta and the Yukon for wolves. Evidently what is good for the goose –i.e. the states- is not necessarily good for the gander, i.e. the feds.) That paid “scientists” assert that once (100 years ago?, 250 years ago?, amidst an undeveloped land mass?, among primitive societies?) X numbers of wolves existed here and there and therefore must be “restored” elevates a travesty to high dudgeon. To further complicate this essentially straightforward circumpolar animal into artificial “subspecies”, “races”, and “breeds”; in order to “define “populations”; in order to invent population “segments”; so that you might claim something called a “DISTINCT” “population segment” in order to completely baffle the public and courts as you seize state authorities is on a par with French phrenology (skull measurements that reveal “smartness and criminal tendencies) and German Racial Classifications that define Slavs, Jews, Aryans, etc. That is to say complete bunk.

All that said, this is not about classification baloney, excuse me “science”. This is about Ebola and bats in Africa.

The November 2012 Smithsonian magazine has a fascinating article titled The Hunt for Ebola (in Uganda). Long story short: Ebola emerged in 1976 in Zaire in Central Africa. It is a highly contagious and lethal disease that has killed at least one thousand Africans since that time. Several outbreaks since then in Sudan and Uganda have enabled doctors from Europe and the US to work with local governments to develop protocols to contain outbreaks and spread of the disease but the source of the outbreaks has proven elusive. The US Centers for Disease Control has worked for years and spent millions to identify the source of the outbreaks.

What they found is that Ebola is a Virus that infects human cells. The Virus is widely distributed in Ethiopian epauletted fruit bats that often reside in African dwellings. These bats are referred to as “viral reservoirs” (passive carriers of pathogenic organisms that occasionally leap into human beings). The virus can be transmitted in bites or in urine or in feces or even in saliva. During the course of these ongoing investigations a similar deadly viral disease (called a “sister virus”), Marburg bleeding fever, that similarly resides in Egyptian fruit bats was investigated. Both diseases can be transmitted by bats to other animals (like monkeys) that are termed “amplification hosts” and that in turn can also infect humans by a wide variety of means down to simple contact with their infected tissue.

In summary, after years of research there is still no vaccine and the investigators have identified two species of bats as “viral reservoirs” repeatedly infecting humans that die from the disease, in as yet undetermined ways. The investigators express a concern that when they find “how” the virus is transmitted, “Some people here might say, ‘Let’s kill them all’ but that would be destroying a valuable ecological resource. Our aim is to mitigate the interaction”.

Wow, read that last sentence again. “Some people HERE”? Like wolves and their effects HERE in the Lower 48 States, these visitors, these folks from elsewhere, know what’s best for the people “HERE”. Frankly, if I were someone living with these bats; my home, my children’s play area and school, my workplace, and my wife’s home range would be and would remain bat-free henceforth regardless of their “valuable ecological resource” value to those living elsewhere.

Ah, but what about wolves? Wolves were eradicated (by those folks that lived “HERE” where wolves lived) for over 50 years from the Lower 48 States for very good reason. Small remnant populations and the occasional wandering wolf from Canada persisted with state acquiescence in northern States like Minnesota, Montana, Idaho and Washington. All of the wolves in the Lower 48 States today are federal wolves; introduced, protected, and spread by federal force. Thus we are neither remiss nor unfair to say that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for what the wolves do.

The federal government is responsible for the cattle that wolves kill.

The federal government is responsible for the dogs that wolves kill.

The federal government is responsible for the loss of hunting opportunity, game animals and hunting revenue due to wolf predation on big game.

The federal government is responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by wolves.

The federal government is responsible for the increased dangers and loss of safety in rural living caused by wolves in yards or at school bus stops, etc.

The federal government is responsible for the economic losses in rural economies (animal husbandry cost increases, real estate losses due to safety concerns, etc. caused by wolves.

The federal government is responsible for the loss of freedom for rural children that can no longer camp, fish, hike, hunt, or even play with their dog alone where wolves are present.

Now the above are horrid effects of wolves that the federal government laughingly ignores because:

1. No one will or does hold them accountable. This is an extreme injustice in an increasingly unjust nation.

2. They are Political Ends that were intended all along. The bureaucrats, politicians and radicals responsible for this wolf travesty always desired and intended:

A. That hunting be eliminated.

B. That ranchers be run out of business.

C. That growing swaths of rural America come under federal ownership or easement control.

D. That Local Governments be eliminated.

E. That State governments and State bureaucrats become simple extensions (like contractors) of federal diktats.

F. That legal precedents be established for subsequent federal spread of harmful animals to expand federal land control as with free-roaming buffalo, grizzly bears, uncontrolled black bears and cougars, and even harmful exotic animals allowed to be legally imported by federal wildlife bureaucrats like pythons and Asian carp.

But there is one enormous effect of wolves that the federal government ignored and denies whenever it is mentioned. This effect has the potential to surpass all of the above combined. This effect is one that no one can explain because nothing is “proven” by the few “scientists” that might hazard an opinion. This effect requires scientific research (that should have been conducted before the first wolf was ever left out of its’ cage). This effect is the transmission and spread of deadly diseases and infections that affect humans, domestic animals, and other wildlife.

Consider, wolves:

- Host (in their bodies, on their fur, and in the ticks they carry) many diseases caused by bacteria, viruses and prions (deformed proteins) as well as tapeworms and their eggs.

- Eat and mouth guts, brains, bone marrow, organs, and body fluids of the domestic and wild animals they kill. Injured, sick, or dead animals or humans are also fair game and food when encountered by wolves.

- Visit human residences, towns, garbage areas, etc. as they utilize paths and roads of all sorts as they wander, especially at night.

- Leave saliva on things they pick up, sneeze, bleed, urinate, and leave feces in yards, by buildings, on paths and other areas frequented by dogs (leashed and unleashed), kids, and adults.

- When killing deer, elk or moose tend to frequent one such area after another as they pick up and carry diseases from one game area to another. The same applies to wolves killing domestic animals like cattle and sheep wherein pastures and like areas are frequented and any exposure to livestock diseases is carried to other livestock areas.

- Far more than any other wildlife from coyotes and bears to skunks and raccoons, travel over vast areas routinely as they forage for food. From one day to the next they can move miles unlike big game animals or other wildlife. Thus wolf exposure to diseases is far greater and the areas they might contaminate are vaster by far.

- Carry, sluff, and pick up a much greater number and diversity of ticks as they move about thereby increasing their exposure to tick-borne diseases and mixing tick populations and diseases to a greater degree.

- Like bats, move, sleep, and feed in groups such that what one is infected with, others likely pick up.

- Do not lend themselves to mandatory, quick, lethal controls in areas of disease outbreaks from rabies and foot-and-mouth to Mad cow and Brucellosis. While more local animals can be poisoned and shot to contain the spread of infections, a pack of wolves or a lone wolf moving through a pasture infected with anthrax or a deer winter yard infected with Chronic Wasting Disease at 2 in the morning and then four miles away by sunup is unlikely to be traced as the disease or infection is transmitted.

Here is a list of what unvaccinated dogs and wolves are known to carry and transmit. It is not as comprehensive as might be found in the research files (were they to exist) of honest researchers concerned about human health, human safety, livestock industry, hunting, game populations, dogs of all stripes, rural economies, rural families, private property, and limited government. Frankly, such “researchers do not currently exist.

1.PRION-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves, remembering that prions can exist for weeks on grass or on boots or on carpets or on fur or between toes as well as in bodies where they can re-infect other animals:

Mad Cow Disease

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the deadly human form of Mad Cow)

- Associated PRION-caused human diseases like Type II Diabetes, Artherosclerosis, Cataracts, Cystic Fibrosis, a type of Emphysema, Dementia, Alzheimers, and others.

Chronic Wasting Disease

2.BACTERIA-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves and/or the ticks they carry:

Bubonic Plague

Anthrax (A Bio Warfare agent)

Brucellosis

Undulant Fever (the human variant of Brucellosis and Bio Warfare agent)

Lyme Disease

Typhus

Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever

Relapsing Fever

Erlichia

Anaplasmosis

Babesiosis

Tick Paralysis

Dermatosis

3.VIRAL-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves:

Foot (Hoof)-and-Mouth

Rabies (55K die annually from this worldwide)

Distemper

Parvo

Encephalitis

4.TAPEWORM DISEASES (deadly and debilitating) that wolves carry:

Echinococcus granulosis

Echinococcus multilocularis

Neospora caninum (causes abortions)

GID or Sturdy that infects brains

5.MITE-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves:

Three kinds of mange or scabies.

This short list, composed by a retired wildlife biologist, is certainly incomplete yet it contains 28 separate diseases and infections. Most of these affect humans and all can infect domestic dogs that; like work boots, dogs or other objects can bring Prions, Bacteria, and Viruses into homes where children will be exposed to infected carpets, dog tongues and other things, much like the mysterious ways that Africans “get” Ebola from bats. – Only there won’t be any US CDC spending millions to figure out where the infection came from or how the kid or grandma came down with it before dying.

Even if someone did figure it out, just like the Ebola researchers, the US investigators would think first of the “valuable ecological resource”, i.e. wolves and how to avoid any contact in the future. Only just like “Fladry”, “Noisemakers”, “recordings”, night watchmen, and moving the remaining people elsewhere by totally destroying their communities; nothing short of the way our wise forefathers “managed” wolves will ever work. They might even, out of respect for Gaia (the Nature God they are being taught to worship), ignore the evidence and look elsewhere (more career-compatible) for the source.

You see, wolf “science” was and is tailored to achieve political ends and Americans that get in the way are just as expendable as those Africans that have the misfortune to live where bats infected with Ebola call home!

Jim Beers

USFWS Release Candidate’s List For ESA Protection

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a copy of a press release issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announcing their candidate list of species to be considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The attached link provides readers the opportunity to see a complete listing of species and proposals.

Most readers know that I have stated for years that the Endangered Species Act, as it is written and administered, needs to be destroyed as the abuses of the Act are so overwhelming that protection of species is mostly by happenstance than anything the Act accomplishes.

One of the real goals – or at least has become a significant tool for personal agendas – is the use of the ESA to strip Americans of their rights and freedom toward life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The USFWS is an entity controlled by the environmental movement. USFWS does what environmentalists tell them to do. You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure that out. Environmental impact statements are falsified and any studies done in support of any of these actions are outcome-based studies in which government agencies manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal to produce a study to support the demands of the environmentalists.

A clear cut example of this shows up in a recent USFWS proposal to remove dams along the Klamath River, in Oregon and Washington, for their stated purpose of restoring waterways for wild salmon, even though science can’t show that salmon runs in that river are historical. But let’s not let facts get in the way.

In the USFWS proposal to remove dams, their “studies” showed that removal of the dams would create very little impact on the people of region. Is this an accurate, or better yet, truthful assessment of how the people of that region actually think?

Not according to a one of kind “Public Impact Assessment” (PIA) that was done independent of the government or any other non governmental agency, non profit or individual paying for the assessment. While the people living in proximity to the Klamath River, where 4 dams are being discussed for removal, the majority of the people there find protecting the fish important and are concerned about flooding once the dams are removed. But more importantly, the people consider removing the dams as having a very high rate of impact on them as it pertains to “energy costs, agricultural water deliveries, hydropower, employment, local business income, farm and ranch income, per capita income, community water deliveries, and local tax revenue.”

So, it is an excellent idea to bear in mind when reviewing the USFWS’s proposed list of candidate species for protection, to consider that more than likely their assessment of impact to the environment and/or the people, is a crock of excrement.

For additional information on Obama’s planned use of the ESA to continue his destruction of property rights and the economy, read this article.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Releases Annual List of Candidates for Endangered Species Act Protection

November 20, 2012

Contacts:
Chris Tollefson
703-358-2222
chris_tollefson@fws.gov

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today released its Candidate Notice of Review, a yearly appraisal of the current status of plants and animals considered candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Three species have been removed from candidate status, two have been added, and nine have a change in priority from the last review conducted in October of 2011.

There are now 192 species recognized by the Service as candidates for ESA protection, the lowest number in more than 12 years. This reduction reflects the Service’s successful efforts to implement a court-approved work plan that resolves a series of lawsuits concerning the agency’s ESA Listing Program. Since its implementation, this agreement has significantly reduced litigation-driven workloads and allowed the agency to protect 25 candidate species under the ESA, and propose protection for 91 candidate species.

The agreement will continue to allow the agency to focus its resources on the species most in need of the ESA’s protections over the next five years, said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.

“We’re continuing to keep the commitments we made under this agreement, which has enabled us to be more efficient and effective in both protecting species under the ESA, as well as in working with our partners to recover species and get them off the list as soon as possible,” said Director Ashe. “Our ultimate goal is to have the smallest Candidate List possible, by addressing the needs of species before they require ESA protection and extending the ESA’s protections to species that truly need it.”

Ashe noted that the work plan will enable the agency to systematically review and address the needs of every species on the 2011 candidate list – a total of more than 250 unique species – over a period of six years to determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has enough information on their status and the threats they face to propose them as threatened or endangered, but developing a proposed listing rule is precluded by the need to address other higher priority listing actions. Candidate species do not receive protection under the ESA, although the Service works to conserve them. The annual review and identification of candidate species provides landowners and resource managers notice of species in need of conservation, allowing them to address threats and work to preclude the need to list the species. The Service is currently working with landowners and partners to implement voluntary conservation agreements covering 5 million acres of habitat for more than 130 candidate species.

Today’s notice identifies two new candidate species: Peñasco least chipmunk (Sacramento and White Mountains, New Mexico) and Cumberland arrow darter (Kentucky and Tennessee). All candidates are assigned a listing priority number based on the magnitude and imminence of the threats they face. When adding species to the list of threatened or endangered species, the Service addresses species with the highest listing priority first. The nine changes in priority announced in today’s notice are based on new information in the updated assessments of continuing candidates. These changes include five species that increased in priority and four that lowered in priority.

The three species removed from the candidate list include elongate mud meadow springsnail, Christ’s paintbrush, and bog asphodel. Based on protections for almost all sites, the identification of additional sites, and updated information on threats, the bog asphodel no longer needs the protection of the ESA. The removal of the springsnail and paintbrush is based on the successful conservation efforts by other federal agencies. Efforts by the Bureau of Land Management for the springsnail fully addressed the threats from recreational and livestock use of the springs where the snail exists. Also, three additional populations of the springsnail have been discovered, making this species less vulnerable to random, naturally occurring events than previously thought. For Christ’s paintbrush, the U.S. Forest Service has successfully implemented numerous conservation actions that have ameliorated most of the previously known threats and established long-term monitoring programs to document their effectiveness on conservation actions. There is a long-term commitment by the Forest Service, through a 2005 Candidate Conservation Agreement and 2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the Service, to continue to implement conservation actions for this species.

The Service is soliciting additional information on the candidate species, as well as information on other species that may warrant protection under the ESA. This information will be valuable in preparing listing documents and future revisions or supplements to the candidate notice of review.

The Service also has multiple tools for protecting candidate species and their habitats, including a grants program that funds conservation projects by private landowners, states and territories. In addition, the Service can enter into Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs), formal agreements between the Service and one or more public or private parties to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species, or species likely to become candidates, before they actually become listed as endangered or threatened. CCA participants voluntarily commit to implementing specific actions removing or reducing the threats to these species, thereby contributing to stabilizing or restoring the species. Through 110 CCAs, habitat for more than 100 species is managed on federal, state, local agency, tribal and private lands; many CAAs have multiple cooperators focusing conservation actions in an area supporting a single or multiple species.

Another similar tool is the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAAs). While these voluntary agreements are only between the Service and non-Federal landowners, they have the same goals as CCAs in addressing threats to candidate species, but with additional incentives for conservation actions on non-Federal lands. More than 71 landowners in 18 states have enrolled in CCAAs that cover over 1 million acres of habitat for 41 species.

The complete notice and list of proposed and candidate species appears in the Federal Register and can be found online at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.

Eastern Wolf Declared Full Species

*Editor’s Note* – I sent this email to several on my email list. I thought I would share it with readers.

Some of you might remember that back in March I warned that Maine should prepare itself for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to figure out a way to declare a species or subspecies of wolf that they could list as an endangered species here in Maine and all of the Northeast. http://tomremington.com/2012/03/03/maine-should-prepare-for-a-wolf-esa-listing-from-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service/

In May I explained, in a response to the Maine Wolf Coalition’s demand for wolf protection, what would happen to hunting and trapping in our state if a species of wolf was declared endangered and offered protection. http://tomremington.com/2012/05/15/protection-of-wolves-in-maine-would-destroy-what-is-left-of-fragile-economy-and-ecosystem/

Today, we are one step close to seeing this happen. Laugh at me if you wish but it is my opinion, based on historic evidence of how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with their non governmental environmentalist freaks partners, have operated to achieve their agendas. Today, the USFWS has concluded a study in which they claim that the Eastern wolf is a full, stand alone species of wolf. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/delisting/pdf/WolfTaxonomyByChambersEtAlSubmittedMS.pdf

It’s a mongrel! Nothing more. Never will be anything more unless reintroduction is done, and then it will still interbreed with the nasty dog we already have!

This study, the basis of which is rooted in the controversy that the USFWS have themselves created over species taxonomy, is a fraud and state governments, along with individual sportsmen and their organizations, need to call these criminals out on this. Historically, the USFWS, and just as recently, President Obama and Ken Salazaar, have used species and subspecies manipulation in order to create Distinct Population Segments where it is politically advantageous to do so.

I warned months ago that the USFWS was up to no good. I first saw this when the USFWS announced that it was removing the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list in the eastern third of the country. It wasn’t just coincidental that they did this and I brought it to people’s attention. I just wished they would pay attention.

I may be guilty at times of railing against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Their jobs can be difficult and with our future at stake, I feel compelled to keep the department on its toes. But when the Federal Government, is abusing science and manipulating species in order to gain control, it is flat out wrong and we all should be angry as hell. How can the MDIFW even think about implementing ways to protect the deer herd, Canada lynx, etc. when the USFWS declares eastern wolves a protected species in Maine?

Many years ago, the USFWS took up the torch for “nature balance” or “self-regulation” and along with it non-consumptive wildlife management. If this is the plan then I ask, what is the point of expending effort to protecting our hunting and fishing territory? Is anyone on our side anymore?

MDIFW: Preliminary Figures Released on 2011 Wildlife-Related Activities in Maine

Forty-nine percent of all Maine residents 16 years of age and older hunted, fished or watched wildlife in 2011 and a total of $1.4 billion were spent in the state on those activities, according to a preliminary report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, which is compiled every five years, looks at participation in and expenditures for hunting, fishing and wildlife watching by state, region and nation.

The preliminary survey also found that 1.1 million residents and nonresidents did some sort of wildlife-associated activity in Maine, including 838,000 wildlife watchers, 341,000 anglers and 181,000 hunters.

A total of $799 million were spent on wildlife watching in Maine, including $514 million in trip-related expenses and $172 million on equipment.

When it came to fishing and hunting, $644 million were spent in Maine, with $317 million going towards trips and $267 million being spent on equipment.

Residents and nonresidents spent a combined 7.3 million days watching wildlife away from their home, 3.9 million days fishing and 2.5 million days hunting in Maine.

Nationally, 38 percent of the U.S. population enjoyed some form of wildlife associated activity in 2011, spending a combined $145 billion on the activities.

The number of people who fished increased by 11 percent nationally between 2006 and 2011, while hunting participation increased by 9 percent during that time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service started releasing the survey in 1955, making this the 12th version of it.

The final national report for 2011 will be available in November and final state reports will be released in December.

Animal Protection Zealots Intend to Sue Montana to Protect Canada Lynx

While Maine and much of the eastern one-third of the United States waits in anticipation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to magically fabricate a new subspecies of wolf, groups calling themselves conservationists have announced their plans to sue the state of Montana to stop a proposed wolf trapping season that begins this fall.

Maine has been under strict guidelines for trapping in so-called lynx occupied habitat due to an agreement reached as the result of a lawsuit brought against the state of Maine several years ago. That agreement is to remain in place until such time as the state can obtain an Incidental Take Permit to cover liability in the case of incidental trapping of lynx in traps not intended for lynx. Maine has an extremely good record for not incidentally killing Canada lynx.

However, that doesn’t seem to stop the anti hunting zealots at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who have announced their intentions to pile on ridiculous and unnecessary restrictions to trapping based on no other reason than politically driven agendas.

This all may become a moot topic should the USFWS become successful in its concoction of a made-up subspecies of “eastern” wolf. Make no mistake about it. The intent here isn’t about protecting any wolves as it is about destroying the trapping industry. An invented canine, strategically placed on the Endangered Species List throughout all of Maine and New England, would systematically and effectively put an end to virtually all trapping of larger game.

I doubt that Montana can fight and win a lawsuit as Maine’s lawsuit has set precedence, which leads me to conclude that offering the wolf trapping season in Montana was an act intended to foster a lawsuit of this kind. This is the direction all fish and wildlife departments have taken over the years. They intend to no longer manage for surplus harvest of any species and are actively promoting what they have affectionately embraced; non consumptive wildlife management.

DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant

By George Dovel (Republished with Permission)

In the Jan-Mar 2008 Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 26, the lead articled titled, “What They Didn’t Tell You about Wolf Recovery,” described the ongoing deception by federal and state biologists in their scheme to fill rural areas in the lower 48 states with wolves.

The article referred to 20 years of Dept. of Interior Solicitors (lawyers) changing the number of N. American wolf subspecies covered in the Endangered Species Act from 24, finally to two and back to four – and then to any or all wolves called “gray wolves” or “Canis lupus”. Then it told how FWS reclassified ESA-listed wolves as members of two “Distinct Population Segments”, which it later changed to three until a federal judge denounced the obvious attempt to circumvent the ESA.

The ongoing debate between wildlife scientists who classify species, concerns whether subspecies of elk (red deer), North American bison, grey wolves, etc., exist. Bona fide expert taxonomists include Dr. Valerius Geist who points out that changes in location, habitat, size and appearance alone do not necessarily change the genetic make-up to qualify an animal as a separate sub-specie.

However the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf subspecies – C. l. Irremotus – was documented by physical comparisons of skulls, etc., from larger wolves in 1959:

Page 2 of the 146-page FWS Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan dated August 3, 1987, contains the map showing the historical distribution of Canis lupus Irremotus in the lower 48 states, plus the 1987 distribution in black. It depicts immigration of Irremotus from southern British Columbia into Idaho and from B.C. or southern Alberta into the northwest corner of Montana.

It also shows the two 1987 Irremotus population areas in central Idaho, one of which included the three wolf pack territories mapped by Tim Kimmery between 1988 and 1991 (see Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 35).

Historical Impact on Wolf Subspecies

During the most recent (Pleistocene) ice age, water evaporating from the oceans became part of the glacial ice covering the land. Ocean levels dropped 300 feet or more and the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska dried up.
The exposed land bridge with little snow, later named Beringia, became a refuge for hardy Siberian animals and plants for several thousand years (see below).

Many scientists believe Beringia included a small human population from Siberia that was prevented from continuing into North America for 5,000 years by the North American ice sheets. Geologists report these continental ice sheets were 5,000-10,000 feet in depth and extended south in some places to the 40th Parallel below what is now the U.S.-Canadian border.

The artists’ three views of Beringia published by “Wikipedia” illustrate the changes that have occurred in the “Bering Land Bridge” during the last 18,000 years. But there is still disagreement among biologists about when, where and how several current mammal species first arrived on the North American Continent.

Subspecies Had Limited Opportunity to Crossbreed

Since 1995 a number of wildlife biologists have accepted the determination by Nowak that five subspecies of gray wolf (Canus lupus) inhabited North America during the early 20th Century. There is also agreement that Canis lupus occidentalis (the large gray wolf transplanted to Yellowstone and Central Idaho by FWS in 1995) had virtually no opportunity to influence the genetic make-up of coastal wolves in SE Alaska and Yukon and portions of five other Canadian Provinces where it existed.

For thousands of years the ice between interior Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia and the coastal area prevented the occidentalis wolves from mixing with the smaller wolves defined as C. lupis ligoni by Goldman in 1944. And the intensive efforts to kill all wolves in the early 1900s also left few of the large wolves alive in most areas where they might have mixed with the native wolves.

The map below in the study titled, “Legacy Lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated U.S. gray wolves (Canis lupis),” published by Leonard et al in the 2005 Vol. 14 issue of Molecular Ecology, shows the five primary subspecies that existed in the early 1900s. The bold black line indicates the northern limit of gray wolf eradication that occurred in the 48 contiguous United States and Canada.

In 1995, C.l. nubilus, the primary subspecies common in the U.S. and Canada mainland included ligoni from the west coast of Canada, irremotus from the Northern Rocky Mountains and labradorius from Labrador. The “a” to “z” letters scattered on the map represent original locations of the various museum specimens whose DNA were recorded in the study.

A similar study titled, “Phylogeography of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Pacific Northwest”, by Weckworth et al (published in the 2010 (2) issue of the Journal of Mammology) used basically the same map, along with an expanded inset to illustrate locations of testing for the genetic difference between the smaller coastal wolves and the 30% larger occidentalis wolves from the Alaska and Yukon interiors.

Both of these DNA studies emphasize that the nubilus wolves migrated northward to populate Canada as the ice sheets and glaciers melted. They point out that the smaller wolves existed in the south before the larger wolves migrated into northern Canada, and the Weckworth study suggests the coastal wolves should be listed as a separate individual subspecies.

Court Allows Transplants – Then Orders Removal

Readers who actively opposed the FWS option to import Canadian wolves may recall the following events:
In 1994 the Farm Bureau, Audubon Society and other plaintiffs asked the Wyoming Federal District Court to halt wolf introduction because it could not legally occur where naturally occurring wolves already existed per the 10J Rule. But instead of issuing an injunction to halt the process while the arguments were presented, Judge Downes allowed FWS to go ahead and transplant Canadian wolves into Central Idaho and Yellowstone Park for three years until he issued his ruling in December of 1997.

Then after setting aside the final wolf introduction rules as unlawful, Judge Downes ordered FWS to remove all Canadian wolves and their progeny from both experimental population areas. This ruling was met with loud criticism by the wolf activists, including the state and federal wildlife agencies who apparently believed they could get by with ignoring both state and federal laws when it suited their agenda.

Judge “Passes the Buck” to Appeals Court

They quickly pointed out that it would not be possible to even locate most of the wolves – much less capture them. But even if that were possible, both Canadian Provinces refused to allow the wolves to return and there were not enough zoos willing to accept several hundred wild wolves so killing most was the only option.

Judge Downes could have prevented this disaster from occurring by simply putting wolf introduction on hold three years earlier until his decision was reached. But the second time he did essentially the same thing by later staying execution of his removal order pending an appeals decision by the 10th Circuit Court.

On January 13, 2000, five years after the first large Canadian wolves were introduced, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the December 1998 Wyoming District Court ruling that the reintroduction program was unlawful and should be revoked. The appeals court admitted that the evidence showed native irremotus wolves already existed when the larger Canadian wolves were introduced, but said FWS had the authority to determine what constituted a population.
The fact that the resident wolves coexisted with abundant big game populations and with negligible impact on livestock and human activity was already a matter of record in 1994. But on August 12, 1994, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs sent a letter to Charles Lobdell telling him to stop issuing statements to the public advising that the number of reported resident wolves was increasing.

Bangs’ letter advised that FWS planned to introduce wolves from Canada and said: “From this day forward…confirmed wolf activity (will only include) individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radio-collared and monitored in the wild.” He also said he had transferred $9,000 to the FWS Boise Field Office to search for wolves and organize flights to locate any radio-collared wolves that might be in Idaho or the Yellowstone area during the summer and fall.

Bangs also included key issues to be presented to the public consistently by FWS:
“1. (I)t is likely that wolf populations would ultimately recover without reintroduction and breeding pairs of wolves would likely occur in Idaho before they would occur (in) Yellowstone.

4. Experimental populations will not knowingly contain a significant portion of the territory of any naturally occurring breeding pair that has successfully raised young. However once wolves are released all wolves in the area will be treated as experimental animals.”

Despite reported wolf sightings by more then 120 outfitters, trappers and others in less than two months, most in the same location where Kemery mapped three wolf pack areas from 1988-1991, and despite the USFS road closure to protect existing wolves (see Bulletin 35), Bangs dumped Canadian wolves halfway between the two known native wolf locations guaranteeing their extermination.

In February of 2012, I forwarded the Weckworth DNA study, without comment, to Dr. Valerius Geist. The following was his reply:

“Thank you, George, I have seen this study. To me it suggests that there was indeed a remnant of native wolves in Idaho that were finally done away with by introduced wolves from Canada. The native wolves would have been of the same clad as the coastal wolves. Anyway, that’s testable since some museum specimens of native Idaho wolves are still available for genetic analysis. However, somebody competent and trustworthy needs to do it. Cheers, Val Geist.”

Update on Maine Application for Incidental Take Permit

*Editor’s Note* Below is an email letter sent out by Skip Trask, head of the Maine Trappers Association, with an update on the recommendations of Dr. Mark McCollough from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), of what should be included as restrictive regulations for trapping in obtaining an Incidental Take Permit, intended to protect the Canada lynx.

It is clear from these recommendations that Dr. McCollough is completely disregarding the facts and science and is bent on the destruction of the trapping industry in the state of Maine. His agenda is so obvious that Dr. McCollough seems willing to threaten the actual species he is sworn to protect in order that he achieve his goal of ending trapping.

We live in a perverse, backwards and upside-down society now in which facts, science and reality are disregarded in exchange for the promotion of idealistic nonsense.

If Dr. McCollough gets his way with his recommendations, it will effectively end any trapping in Maine; the end result of which will be devastating. Idiots who espouse to “natural regulation” are determining themselves to learn lessons the hard way at a very steep expense.

It is up to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the State Government to fight these recommendations tooth and nail, but they won’t. They don’t have the spine nor the desire to do so. Much of the staff of MDIFW think the same as Dr. McCollough; all brainwashed in the same education factories. In addition, MDIFW isn’t interested in running the risk of angering and alienating the environmentalists who hold the threat of lawsuits over their heads on a daily basis.

In short, Maine can kiss trapping goodbye and chalk it up in the history books as something that used to be. Without the means to utilize trapping as a management tool – which MDIFW no longer believes to be necessary because Mother Nature will do it, the end result will be devastating for the state and the people who live there.

This is a crime!

From Norman “Skip” Trask:

Good afternoon – I wanted to give all of you a “heads up” about an upcoming meeting between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (the Feds) and the Maine F&W Department to try to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of the
Incidental Take Permit for lynx that the Feds appear on the verge of issuing to the State. At issue, of course, is what additional trapping restrictions (above and beyond those to which the State has already agreed in their ITP
application) the Feds will require. The meeting was originally scheduled for May, but that meeting was cancelled at the request of the Feds. The meeting is now scheduled to take place over a two or three day period next week.

Dr. Mark McCollough, who was largely responsible for overseeing the ITP public comment process on behalf of the USFWS, has completed his review of the comments submitted and has finalized his recommendations. Last week I was called to meet with John Boland, Director of Resource Management at the Department. (John took Ken Elowe’s place and is taking the lead in the upcoming ITP negotiations with the Feds.) At my meeting with John, I got a chance to look at the recommendations submitted by Dr. Mark McCollough. Those recommendations include numerous additional restrictions that Dr. McCollough believes should be included in the ITP. If there was ever any doubt that Dr. McCollough is philosophically opposed to trapping, the list of recommendations he submitted should settle that question once and for all. John Boland and I spent more than an hour discussing the upcoming meeting, the various recommendations submitted by McCollough and the potential impact to trappers if these recommendations were to be
implemented. Implementation of these recommendations, in my opinion, would spell the beginning of the end for land trapping in the northern half of the state. It is unclear whether McCollough’s superiors, who will be attending
next week’s meeting, share McCollough’s views about the need for these additional restrictions.

The list of additional restrictions submitted by McCollough is quite lengthy, but those that would have the greatest direct impact on trappers are as follows:

* “Recommend that all upland conibears be placed in enclosures to avoid death and severe injury of lynx.” (Based on additional wording in the recommendations, the word “enclosure” means the same as “lynx exclusion device”. This recommendation would apply to conibears both on the ground and elevated. If this recommendation were included as part of the ITP, the current “tree/leaning pole” rules would be eliminated – tree size, distance above ground, pole angle, etc. Given the million or so trap nights that conibears have been set on “trees/leaning poles” in lynx habitat since 2007 without any evidence that a single lynx has been caught in a conibear set in a manner that would comply with the current “tree/leaning pole” rules, I was astounded by comments made by McCollough in support of this recommendation, such as “no evidence to support hypothesis that lynx will not climb trees/leaning poles; no evidence that leaning poles are effective at excluding lynx”. It appears that this recommendation would also apply to blind sets – if so, blind sets would no longer be legal.)

* Recommend that trappers in WMDs containing lynx be required to “ phase in foothold traps meeting BMP standards for fox, coyote and bobcat over 5 years and rescind existing foothold trap size regulations once BMP traps are fully implemented”. The recommendation goes on to say that “all traps and trapping measures would comply with the new Canada lynx trapping BMPs published by AFWA in September of 2011 for the contiguous states”. “BMPs refer not only to traps, but other equipment standards such as use of swivels, in-line springs, stake and chain system”.

* Recommend elimination of drags and require staking with short chains, swivels or in-line springs for foothold traps.

* Recommend that pan tension devices be required on foothold traps. McCollough agreed with our assessment of this alternative that pan tension high enough to exclude lynx would exclude most other furbearers as well. However, he still believes this requirement should be included in the ITP with some lesser pan tension requirement “primarily as part of migratory bird avoidance and minimization measures and to increase trap selectivity”. (His recommendation to include this requirement in the ITP for lynx has nothing to do with lynx!)

* Recommended that all foothold traps be equipped with 3 swivels. (Current Department rule requires at least one chain swivel.)

* Recommend that trappers be required to report all incidental catches (both dead and released alive) as part of an annual trapping report. An incidental catch would involve any animal at any time you are not allowed to trap for that species.

At my meeting with John Boland, he indicated that the Department will be opposing all of these additional restrictions at their upcoming meeting with the Feds. If the Department and the Feds cannot reach agreement at this
meeting on what should be included in the ITP, it is unclear what the next step will be. In any event, John has promised that before the Department agrees to any additional trapping restrictions as part of the ITP (beyond those to which they have already agreed in their ITP application), he will contact us and seek our input. I’ll update you as soon as I have something further to report. Best, Skip

Maine Should Prepare for a Wolf ESA Listing From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

This is the opening paragraph from an article about the plans for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to remove gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act nationwide, while at the same time list “subspecies” of wolves as endangered in regions, including the Northeast.

Portland OR – infoZine – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended removing federal protections from gray wolves that remain on the endangered species list after wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest had their protections stripped last year. The move could be devastating to wolf recovery. Fish and Wildlife conceded it will still consider protection for subspecies or breeding populations (including Mexican gray wolves, a recognized subspecies) and for populations in the Pacific Northwest and Northeast; its recommendation came in a five-year review of the Endangered Species Act listing for gray wolves in the lower 48.

Next Page »