September 15, 2014

Maine/USFWS Plan for Canada Lynx Incidental Take Permit

Press Release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Agencies release revised plan, assessment for protecting Canada lynx affected by Maine trapping programs Maine to manage at least 4,785 acres for Canada lynx
August 5, 2014
Contacts:

USFWS, Meagan Racey, 413-253-8558
MDIFW, Mark Latti, 207-287-5216

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one step closer to making a decision on permitting Maine’s state-regulated trapping programs for effects to the federally protected Canada lynx. The Service and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife reviewed public comments on the necessary documents for the permit and have released revised versions for public review and comment through September 5, 2014.

The agencies previously released draft versions of MDIFW’s incidental take plan and the Service’s environmental assessment for public comment in November 2011, followed by three highly attended public information sessions. The Service received about 285 unique letters, 129 comment cards from public information sessions and 6,100 form letters commenting on issues from outreach and monitoring measures to lynx handling procedures and enforcement.

The revised plan describes measures proposed by MDIFW to minimize the effects of incidental trapping on lynx, such as increased trapper outreach, compliance monitoring by wardens and veterinary oversight, and it incorporates several new methods of trapping and new trapping regulations. MDIFW proposes to offset, or mitigate, for the effects on lynx by maintaining at least 4,785 acres of lynx habitat in the state’s Bureau of Parks and Lands Seboomook Unit in northern Maine. The agency has added the predator management and animal damage control programs as activities to be covered under the plan, but the addition has not changed the expected effect on lynx.

The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to “take”—meaning trap, capture, collect, harass, harm, wound or kill—federally threatened or endangered wildlife, such as the threatened Canada lynx. Some activities, such as trapping for common species like bobcat or fisher, have the risk of incidentally taking protected species. An incidental take permit would allow trapping through the recreational, predator management and animal damage control programs to continue as MDIFW undertakes practical measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of lynx.

Incidental take plans, known also as habitat conservation plans, identify the impacts to wildlife from a project or program; the steps the applicant will take to reduce or compensate for such impacts; what alternative actions were considered; and how conservation efforts will be funded.

To learn more and comment on the documents:

Visit the Maine Field Office website, http://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/, for questions and answers about the revised documents, species information and an archive of the draft documents.
Visit www.regulations.gov and enter docket FWS-R5-ES-2014-0020 to review comments submitted during the 2011-2012 comment period, the Service’s response to comments, and the revised plan and assessment.
Submit comments at www.regulations.gov or by hard copy to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2014-0020; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. Please reference the docket number for this notice.

After the comment period ends, the Service will determine whether the application meets the permit issuance requirements.

Copy of an email sent to various recipients from Mark McCollough of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has updated its draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) revised incidental take plan (ITP) for incidental trapping threatened Canada lynx. The agencies will make both available for a 30-day supplemental public comment period. They will be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 6. There will be a 30-day comment period ending September 5, 2014. No public meetings are planned.

In summary, from 1999 to 2013, 84 lynx have been reported incidentally trapped in Maine (seven were caught in killer-type traps and 77 in foothold traps). Under the revised plan, the MDIFW anticipates that up to 13 lynx per year, or 195 total, might be incidentally trapped in restraining traps (e.g., foothold, cage traps and cable restraints) following issuance of the 15-year permit. The MDIFW expects that the majority of lynx caught in these traps will be released with little to no injury. They are requesting the permit to allow for up to three lynx fatalities as the result of incidental trapping. The MDIFW does not anticipate take in killer-type traps and take of orphaned kittens. The MDIFW seeks incidental take coverage for lynx that might be trapped in fur trapping, predator management (coyote control), and animal damage control programs. The agency proposes to phase in cable restraints, a new form of trapping for Maine, rescind regulations governing the size of foothold traps, and resume use of cage traps in northern Maine. The MDIFW will conduct a number of minimization measures that include increasing trapper education; a trapper hotline; biologists responding to lynx trapping incidents; assessing, classifying, and treating injures; rehabilitating injured lynx; and a protocol to care for kittens in situations where a female is trapped and injured and must be removed from the wild for rehabilitation. To mitigate for potential lynx mortalities, the MDIFW will maintain and enhance at least 4,785 acres of lynx habitat on a 10,411-acre area in the Maine Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry, Bureau of Parks and Lands Seboomook Unit in northern Maine.

The documents are available for review today at the Federal Register Reading Room at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/06/2014-18548/incidental-take-plan-maine-department-of-inland-fisheries-and-wildlifes-trapping-program. The Service is releasing the revised versions of the plan and the Environmental Assessment for a 30-day supplemental public comment period. We encourage you to submit comments. Written comments may be submitted electronically by September 5, 2014, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy, via U.S. mail, to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2014–0020; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. The docket number for this notice is FWS–R5–ES–2014–0020.

Following this comment period, the Service will evaluate the revised plan and comments we receive to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We will also evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit complies with ESA section 7 by conducting an intra-Service consultation and biological opinion.

All documents associated with MDIFW’s 2008 and 2014 incidental take permit applications (including the Service’s draft Environmental Assessments) will also be posted at the Service’s Maine Field Office website Canada lynx page: http://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/Canada_lynx.html. We are also posting public comments that we received during our 2011-2012 90-day public comment period. Responses to these public comments are appended to our 2014 draft Environmental Assessment.

The Service issued the attached press release and question-and-answer documents this afternoon.

Please contact Laury Zicari, field office supervisor (207 866-3344 x111, Laury_Zicari@fws.gov), or myself (contact information below) if you have any questions. We encourage you to comment through www.regulations.gov.

Please distribute to others who may be interested in this issue.

Sincerely, Mark McCollough

Mark McCollough, Ph.D.
Endangered Species Specialist
Maine Field Office
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Canada Lynx Incidental Take Plan and Permit Application for Maine Trapping Program
Questions and Answers

USFWS Publishes Draft EIS for Mexican Wolves

I’ve not had the opportunity to read this document yet but readers should be aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mexican Wolves(DEIS).

Readers should take note of what they might expect in this DEIS. If what I discovered, due to a reader pointing out certain information, is indicative of the entire DEIS, it is a typical action in the creation of fiction, promoted by outcome-based romance biology, all for the purpose of protecting wolves and filling the countryside with nasty, disease-ridden varmints.

Beginning on Page 64, an entire section is dedicated to public safety. The USFWS uses an outdated 2002 study, takes information out of context and presents statements declaring there have been no wolf attacks on humans and further claims that accounts of historic wolf attacks and human deaths caused by wolves worldwide, is based on unreliable information and cannot be substantiated. What lying bastards!

In addition, tiny steps appear to have been taken to MENTION that wolves carry Echinococcus granulosis but then repeats themselves that it is no threat to humans.

In short, if this one section is indicative of the rest of the DEIS, which I’m inclined to believe it is, just like the FEIS(Final Environmental Impact Statement) for Northern Rocky Mountain wolves, it is criminal and the drafters of this document should be charged with fraud.What lying bastards!

Will Feds Be Successful in Defining “Significant Portion of its Range?”

“The ESA defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” But the law didn’t define what qualifies as a significant portion.

Under this new policy, “significant” indicates that one portion of the species is so important to the survival of the species as a whole that, if it were lost, the species would likely go extinct.”<<<Read More>>>

Anybody Out There?

A guest post by James Beers:

Two hours ago I sent out a short article (Public Employees and Animal Rights) about how the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) was suing USFWS and the State of Alaska for “using federal wildlife restoration grants to illegally support killing wolves and bears to increase moose and caribou hunting”. What they call “grants” at this point on their website they later refer to as “federal funds” and later yet as “federal wildlife funds” and finally as “money from taxpayers in the other 49 states” are actually none of these.

Evidently in the time it took to mow my lawn and pull a few (native?) weeds in my garden I gained a significant number of new and unhappy readers. The hate mail is surprising and indicates a nerve has been struck.

Boys and girls, sorry but “killing wolves and bears” allows “moose and caribou hunting” to both increase and endure. FYI, those dollars the U of Alaska Prof and other bleeding heart public employees have gotten the “vapors” about are NOT “grants” or “federal funds” or “federal wildlife funds” or certainly not “money from taxpayers in the other 49 states”. Those Funds are EXCISE TAXES ON ARMS AND AMMUNITON AND CERTAIN SPORTING ITEMS USED FOR HUNTING. They are collected by the federal government for the exclusive use of state fish and wildlife programs for WILDLIFE RESTORATION. BY law the funds can only be used by State wildlife agencies and the states receive their share of the annual available funding BASED ON ½ THE SIZE (SQ. MILES) OF THE STATE AND ½ ON THE NUMBER OF HUNTING LICENSES SOLD IN THE STATE. These EXCISE TAXES and this Pittman Robertson Program were instituted in 1937 by hunters to perpetuate and enhance hunting opportunity under honest and professional state wildlife programs.

Curious, those words “Wildlife Restoration”: they replaced the words “Pittman Robertson” and “Wildlife Management” in the early 1990’s when the old P-R Law was retitled by Congress. At that time only a small group of hunting advocates raised any question and they were marginalized by the USFWS bureaucrats AND the State F&W Directors AND the hunting NGO’s. Why, you might be tempted to ask? Because that was the “Dawning of the Wildlife Age of Aquarius” when everyone believed hunting, trapping, and fishing were soon to be banned and “Chickadee Check-offs”, “Birdseed Taxes” and “Outdoor Taxes” (how about that last one Madame Secretary of the Interior and former “outdoor” Co. Exec?). The name change was unopposed by the very same State Directors and hunting NGO’s that lost their voices a few short years later when those same federal bureaucrats that led them forward into their Brave New World STOLE $45 to 60 Million from those funds to do 2 things Congress had (wisely) refused to either fund or authorize – 1. Release wolves into Yellowstone Park to spread all over the Mountain West, and 2. Open a new office in California for USFWS and all those radical environmental/animal rights groups that dwell there to cozy up together like some cheap Grade-B movie characters. So all those old, but valid, objections by a few hotheads like yours truly are hereby shown to have been true. Even wildlife “scientists” (OOOH) tell the entire nation that “their tax dollars” are going to something he dislikes and should be stopped and those doing it punished.

Well Herr Doctor and all the rest of you with your panties in a wad this “ain’t” healthcare where you can mandate it and then complain about old folks getting knee replacements or stints that “YOU PAY FOR.” First, if you want to complain start buying guns and ammunition and then whine as a real contributor, and then 2. whine about why anything that perpetuates and increases Alaskan moose and caribou hunting and license sales (short of turning over Christian children to Jihadists) is not a worthy use of those Excise Taxes.

This brings up two other items. First, this PEER lawsuit has USFWS fingerprints all over it. USFWS is always modifying the regulations and with the current crop of “Public Employees” would see this suit as right up their alley as a way to kill hunting. Their moral indignation and ignorance is only exceeded by the arrogance that bleeds all over this PEER lawsuit. Yet another reason to reduce bureaucratic power and the size of the federal “work” force.

Second, yesterday I received a Waterfowl & Retriever magazine in the mail. Page 5 reports “Hunting Expanded in National Wildlife Refuge System”. The “expansion” covers 6 new programs that I suspect are six new refuges and “expansion” on 20 other Refuges of indeterminate amounts. My first reaction was that this was a ploy for Democrats in tight re-election races to brag about bringing home some “bacon”; why else would this be done at this time by the current USFWS bureaucrats?

When I turned the page I saw why. Delta Waterfowl has “sent a letter” (one is tempted to ask if it was one of those “strong letters” said to follow a strong public verbal objection?) to USFWS opposing the USFWS California/Nevada Regional Office decision to “cease migratory bird programming (that means all waterfowl hunting programs Pilgrims) in California and Nevada in order to address a backlog of permitting, research and evaluation needs related to wind and solar energy projects.” So now USFWS is an energy apologist outfit as they exempt wind propeller operations from any prosecution for killing eagles that they will still send you and me to prison for. All of the waterfowl work for which they were founded is now set aside for “permitting, research and evaluation needs related to wind and solar energy projects.”

By the way, this CA/NV Regional Office is the very same office that Congress refused to fund or authorize in the early 1990’s but for which USFWS STOLE $45 to 60 Million from the above EXCISE TAXES to open surreptitiously. Republicans, upon discovering what took place were all set to close that office but serendipity intervened when USFWS made the recently hired daughter of US Senator Ted Stevens, perhaps the most powerful Republican in the US Senate at that time, the office manager. Alas Congress was right when they said NIX to any new office in California but USFWS stole the money, did it anyway and all the “perps” went on to greater fame and glory in Earth Day Celebrations and on lists of great conservationists as their annual salaries reached dizzying heights.

So here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Ask your state fish and wildlife Director where he stands on the lawsuit to bar Alaska from using PR funds for predator control to improve moose and caribou hunting. Tell him you believe this is a very dangerous precedent to allow anti-hunting lawsuits to expand federal authority while diminishing state authority over the use of PR funds for hunting programs. Ask him what he is going to do.

2. Ask DU, PF, RMEF, and any other hunting organization you belong to the same questions as in #1.

3. Send a letter to USFWS in Washington with copies to every state and federal elected person you know, STRONGLY objecting to USFWS rejecting their Migratory Bird Management Responsibilities for which they receive Migratory Bird Funding AND then using those dollars and those employees to be little more than undeserved apologists for the wind energy industry that has consistently killed millions of birds while USFWS looked away and is now receiving exemptions to kill eagles from USFWS. USFWS has lost sight of their mission and the responsibilities for which they were created and exist.

4. If any of the worthies in #’s 1 & 2 tell you they won’t join with Alaska to defeat this lawsuit, or that it doesn’t affect waterfowl or pheasants, etc., or they just try to baffle you with BS — stop giving any money to such organizations and work for the dismissal or firing of your State Director and look to clean the state F&W house of anti-hunters regardless of any federal or state protections, preferences or powerful relatives.

Strong Letter to Follow!

Jim Beers
2 July 2014

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

The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves

*Scroll for Updates*

*Editor’s Note* The following was sent to me by a reader of this website. “He” said it was alright to post what he had written providing I not include his name.

(In response to this article posted at The Republic)

After three or four years of people reporting wolf sightings and wolves killing livestock, and finally someone’s dog, the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) will leap to their feet and exclaim “FIRST WOLF PACK in 70 years.” DNA test will be taken which will show that it’s one of OR-7’s pups [from Oregon's 'OR-7-named wolf pack], shock will be followed by more shock as the news hits mainstream media; story after story will be told about OR-7 and his amazing trip to California and back.

There will be several articles stating that the wolves had “Naturally Migrated,” – (not just migrated) they would have to throw the “natural” part in so there was no question that the wolves had not migrated to California in pickup trucks and horse trailers. I’m sure they will have a state picked out where the wolves had “naturally” migrated from (Grant’s Pass OR). There will never be anything mentioned about wolves dispersing. By then Washington and Oregon will be old wolf history and the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) crew along with CNW (Conservation Northwest), DoW (Defenders of Wildlife), and the rest of WDFW’s (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) friends will lope off to California for a brand-new wolf story. Of course CDFW will have to start new wolf studies, since wolves that “naturally migrate” change when they cross state lines and are confirmed. The same failed wolf predation prevention tactics will be used, and CDFW will tell the people of California not to worry, wolves are good, they make the aspen grow, balance the ecosystem and beavers flourish.

Biologists from CDFW will refuse to confirm naturally migrated wolves that pop up in all four corners of the state, or where wolves are to be delisted when they hit a certain number that CDFW’s pro-wolf group pulls from the sky. Game herds will hang in towns for protection and when CDFW are questioned about the impact wolves are having on the herds, they will say “for the amount of hunters that showed up, hunting was a great success”. Livestock kills will be blamed on everything except wolves; CDFW like WDFW will tell the public that you have to eat wolf scat in order to get Hydatid disease; and there have only been two people killed by wolves in North America, the wolves are shy, gentle creatures that avoid humans.

By this time magic meatballs and SS would have been going on for several years, and the rural folks would have caught CDFW releasing wolves many times, and heard them denying it at wolf meetings every time. CDFW would have their biologists along with DoW’s flunkies on hunting sights trying to squelch any talk of CDFW releasing wolves, and coaching them to continually say the wolves migrated naturally, it was a natural migration, there won’t be a wolf mentioned by the pro-wolf crowd without first stating the wolves “naturally migrated” from some state.

Some guy taking an early morning jog will be attacked by some wolves, he will end up shooting one of them, and then being honest like he is, he will report it to the USFWS and CDFW. The story will make mainstream media with a big splash, after the investigation the story will disappear never to be heard about again. Eventually DoW, CNW, CDFW will put up a $50,000.00 reward for information leading to anyone shooting a wolf/wolves.

News Alert- California’s Solar-Q3 wolf has traveled into Nevada, it looks like she went right by Harry Reid’s solar ranch, trotted around and peed on Harry’s porch a few times and is now back in California>>>>Five years later after several reports of wolf sightings, some of Bundy’s cattle killed, and a Chinese solar inspector chewed up, NDOW comes out with First Wolf Pack in Seventy Years, DNA confirms it is one of Solar-Q3’s pups…………………..

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update

2008

Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Is there a difference between “southcentral British Columbia” and “northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada”?

Perhaps the USFWS and WDFW should have gotten their story straight as to where they were going to say the wolves came from? I guess they couldn’t say, we hauled them in from Idaho with horse trailers, it just wouldn’t fit the narrative of: (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )

*Update* – June 13, 2014:

“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

Fish and Wildlife Projects Canned In Favor of “Green” Projects

“It appears the federal agency entrusted with protecting fish and wildlife in the U.S. has a new mission – to promote and further wind and solar energy projects on public lands, despite the cost to fish and wildlife programs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is one of several agencies under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior (DOI). In recent years DOI has evolved into a vehicle to further the Obama administration’s push for “clean” energy, using the more than 500 million acres the Department manages to further this goal.”<<<Read More>>>

Wolf Rookies and Disregard of Global Wolf History Re: Wolf Introduction

FraudScienceOne of the complaints I have always had about gray wolf (re)introduction has been the fact that claims of using “best available science” was a sham and a deliberate con job right from the very beginning. For Best Available Science to be a viable tool, then science must be the driving factor. Science is science and it doesn’t work at all when personal agendas and politics are the driving forces behind such events as wolf (re)introduction.

I have stated before that it is easy to look back on what took place in order to learn going into the future. In so doing, researching has discovered many things about wolf (re)introduction; very little that was claimed and predicted has come true, those involved were inexperienced “rookies” and some very serious and important information was completely disregarded about wolf history globally and the dangers to public health from diseases, worms and parasites carried by wolves.

In a recent article on this website, I wrote about how, in my findings of researching the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), deliberate lying and misinformation was given to the public in order to influence public opinion that would support wolf (re)introduction. One has to wonder what the outcome of pre-introduction polls would have been if people had been told the truth.

One blaring example I gave was that everywhere Ed Bangs and his band of wolf marauders went that sold the public on what I believe was an intentionally misleading claim that within the three regions where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wanted wolf populations when 10 breeding pairs or 100~ wolves were confirmed for 3 consecutive years, wolves would be removed from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection and management of wolves turned over to the states. That, as we all now know, not only never happened but it never happened so badly that over protected wolves have destroyed far too much.

The other aspect I want to cover is the terrible disregard of valuable information and the fact that there was no experienced scientists available or made available in dealing with wolves, especially wolves being dumped into areas adjacent to human-settled landscapes. Those pushing to get the wolves were only guessing what wolves would do based on models from watching wolves in cages or in remote areas of Canada or Alaska. These same people refused to use any kind of historic documents about wolves claiming it was mostly fairy tales and folk lore. What puzzles me is that it is ONLY that information that is available to United States scientists who refuse to accept with or work with people and scientists in foreign countries who have dealt with wolves for centuries. Perhaps our elitist attitudes and desire to not use historic knowledge of wolves and wolf interactions with humans, for an agenda of getting wolves in this country, has cost the American people substantially.

To go back and review the FEIS and all associated documents is quite an eye-opening experience. Looking at this issue of “best available science” and what appears a deliberate disregard at the utilization of the best science and historic documents that were available at the time of wolf (re)introduction, we see disturbing claims that should have been troubling at the time.

On page 54 of Chapter 4 – FEIS – Consultation and coordination, we find this statement:

Research
– Obtaining information through scientific techniques has lead to tremendous benefits to society. Wildlife management has been greatly improved through scientific investigations and research, including the use of radio telemetry technology. Any reintroduction of wolves would be closely monitored and new information used to improve the program. However, wolves have been intensively studied in many areas of North America and many of the basic questions about wolf biology and behavior are well documented. Currently, another massive research program is not needed to re-study the basic nature of wolves in the western United States. While there will certainly be some interesting and necessary questions that may arise from the actual reintroduction of a top predator into an ecosystem, more research or study is certainly not required before wolf restoration could proceed. The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.
(emphasis added)

Did our scientific community fail this badly? When you honestly consider that very little predicted in the FEIS about wolves, their behavior and impacts that a recovered wolf population would have on the ecosystem and that of humans, materialized, can we look back on this event and not question what was behind wolf (re)introduction?

To claim just prior to wolf (re)introduction that Ed Bangs and his cohorts knew all there was to know about wolves, that they had “fully exhausted” everything that they could use to predict what was going to happen and then find the results we did, one has to view this as perhaps an agenda-driven, politically motivate event, designed to specifically deceive the American people. Or perhaps it is even something more sinister and/or criminal.

USFWS refused to examine or at least consider historic documents of wolf history that contain years and years of conflicts between humans and livestock, as well as wildlife impacts due to wolves. Their refusal was evidently based on some elitist notion that this history could not be substantiated and the most of it was lore and made up stories. Is this how we treat history? Will one hundred years from now, people look back at wolf (re)introduction and disregard it for many of the same reason this generation of fraudulent scientists did?

Nobody involved in wolf (re)introduction had any kind of real experience and first hand knowledge of what it would be like living, as humans, with wolves. It’s not their fault. Wolves were mostly gotten rid of before any of these people were born. But, there are history books and there are and were at that time, many countries who were living with and dealing with wolves. Did we then disregard their knowledge and if so why? Did our scientists NOT want to learn the truth because they had an agenda?

Watching some wolves in a cage or documenting their behavior in remote forests and then creating “models” to GUESS what wolves will do, is not best available science and wolf (re)introduction should never have been allowed to happen. With zero actual knowledge and experience, and confirmation that wolves were recovering naturally in Northwest Montana and parts of Idaho, we should have left it alone and continued to learn first hand about wolves.

Here’s some more examples found in the FEIS that should have sent up red flares:

FEIS – Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination – page 22:

6. The Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 3, The Affected Environment, and average harvest is presented in Table 3-12. The analysis of wolf predation effects on the Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and cited in Boyce and Gaillard’s (1992) modeling of wolf predation on ungulates including the Jackson moose herd. Their models suggest a recovered wolf population may decrease the moose population about 7%.(emphasis added)

And this:

10. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 showed the effects a recovered wolf population would have on various ungulate populations throughout the primary analysis area. Additional ungulate herds or larger ungulate populations added to the analysis means more ungulates available to wolves and subsequent reduced effects of wolves on those ungulate populations. As stated in the analysis, the FWS recognizes ungulate populations can be quite different from one another in terms of population numbers, hunter harvests, and other physical and biological characteristics. Additionally, the FWS cannot predict exactly where wolf packs may establish territories, thus wolves will not impact all ungulate herds in the primary analysis area. However, the analyses and ranges of impacts presented would apply to most ungulate herds if wolves were associated with them.(emphasis added)

And these two items:

13. From the information available, nearly all elk, deer, and a few moose populations inhabiting areas in or near the Yellowstone National Park have population numbers in excess of several thousand. Also, harvests in many Wyoming herd units averaged hundreds of antlerless animals for elk and deer herds east and south of the park. For the herds having large antlerless harvests, reducing the antlerless harvest might be possible if wolf predation reduced ungulate numbers below objective levels. It is possible wolves could keep very small moose populations at low numbers in combination with severe winters, human harvest, and other factors (i.e., the predator pit theory) and affected the antlered harvest, but moose tend to be more difficult to kill than elk or deer and for areas east of the park, moose will not likely be a primary prey species compared to the more numerous elk and deer populations. Elk and deer because of their relative abundance will probably be the primary prey.

14. The primary analysis area was limited to places where wolves would most likely inhabit and to those ungulates wolves would most likely have impacts on at recovery levels. The FWS cannot predict exactly where wolves might set up territories. However, based on the population sizes of the ungulate herds near Dubois, if 1 pack of wolves lived in this area, it is unlikely the effects would be greater than demonstrated for other herds in the analyses presented. Indeed, with more ungulates available for wolves to prey on, overall impacts to some herds (and to associated hunter harvest) might be less than predicted. Overall impacts would be less because significantly more animals would be available and the impacts would be spread among more herds. The FWS also recognized wolf predation might severely impact some ungulate herds because of increased vulnerability (i.e., Whiskey Mountain sheep herd) and that wolf presence might inhibit the states and tribes from meeting their wildlife management objectives. The FWS believes the states and tribes are better able to determine those rare instances where wolves might severely impact wildlife populations and the FWS will work closely with those agencies in developing plans that promote wolf recovery and provide flexible management options when state and tribal objectives are being compromised.(emphasis added)

If, as the USFWS claims above, that they have “intensively studied” and that all wolf behavior is “well documented” and that “predictive models” have been “fully exhausted,” then why all the waffling in these last statements about how they can’t predict this about wolves and that about wolves? In these same claims, officials said, in effect, they knew all there was to know about wolf behavior and yet history has shown us the huge failure. This has to be a gigantic failure of science or a criminal act to deliberately mislead the people to promote an agenda to play with wolves.

It is just as disturbing to look at this evidence about poor science and deliberate disregard of facts, as it is this one statement contained in the quotes above: “The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.”

This tells me that Ed Bangs and his gang of thieves were no longer, or probably never were, interested in knowing anything more about wolves, as it might spoil their party. They didn’t care. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on humans. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on game herds. They didn’t care about disease. They didn’t care about wolves in Russia, or Finland, Norway, Germany, India or anywhere else in the world. They want wolves to play with in Yellowstone and Idaho and they didn’t much care how they got them there. They admitted they couldn’t predict what was going to happen until they put wolves in there to find out. They called it “real progress.” And that is what they call “best available science?”

Among many terrible things this wolf (re)introduction has caused, it’s a travesty on the science community. This effort has done more to create complete distrust of government officials and the administering of the Endangered Species Act. One can only wonder, knowing and discovering the shameful acts and actions involved with wolf (re)introduction, what other ESA projects are as anti science and crooked as wolf (re)introduction?

Misleading Information by Feds in Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Reintroduction

100WolvesIt is numerous times through the 414-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho, that we can find this repeated statement:

No modifications in harvest of deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be
required to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves.
Conclusions
– Harvest of cow elk may have to be reduced 10%-15% in central Idaho (396-594 fewer
cows killed than in 1991) to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves. No changes in management of
harvest for deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be necessary.

While the statement in and of itself may be debatable in its accuracy, at best it is misleading and done in what I believe to be the intent of the Federal Government and those behind and promoting wolf reintroduction. It drives home the notion that little, if anything, the Federal Government does can be trusted.

The lie that was the focal point of the entire FEIS was that when Yellowstone National Park, Central Idaho and Northwest Montana had all achieved verifiable breeding pairs of wolves (10 pairs) and/or approximately 100 wolves, the animal would be “delisted,” i.e. removed from the list of threatened of endangered species. We now know that benchmark was an intentional lie. It was never intended to be an actual benchmark in which “science” had determined what would constitute a recovered species. It was only created as a means of appeasing those people with legitimate concerns about how a recovered wolf population would impact existing wild game species and in particular the ungulate populations of deer, elk, moose, etc.

What was sold to the people, and what I believe they bought, hook, line and sinker, as can be supported in a review of the questions posed by the public to those traveling salesman who set up to become the essence of insurance salesmen. People believed that the intention was to introduce wolves, and what breed or subspecies was introduced didn’t make any difference, and monitor those wolves until all three regions in Northern Rockies had 10 breeding pairs or at least 100 wolves. The public bought the lie that with only 100 wolves, there would be no impact on hunting, with the exception of perhaps a slight decrease in elk cow permits. The public bought the con job that once each zone had 100 wolves, the wolves would be delisted and each state in the recovery area would take over managing the wolves, with the public believing that wolves would be managed at numbers representing 100.

The Feds and those NGOs involved with getting their way to bring wolves down from Canada, knowing it was never their intention to allow wolves to be delisted at 100, could not represent anything close to the truth as it pertains to recovery numbers within the scope and draft of the FEIS. It is for that reason we find repeatedly throughout the FEIS the above emboldened statement. Making a repeated statement as this one was reassuring to some that the goal was 100 wolves. After that delisting of the animal, state takeover of wolf management and no harm no foul.

The rest is history as the old saying goes and we know that even now with some made up number of 1,700 wolves, those who brought the wolves to the U.S. continue to sue or are threatening to sue to stop any kind of management of a diseased-ridden varmint that is destroying ecosystems, killing off game animals and threaten humans with disease. Wolves have destroyed hunting guide businesses, local economies and put undue stresses and strains on ranchers and their losses of livestock; all of these the people of the region were told would never happen with 100 wolves in their state.

It is unfortunate that somebody (or maybe they did) didn’t pose the question to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of what would be the impacts to humans and game species, etc. with 3,000 wolves.

It is my belief, as I said, due to a review of the FEIS, that the USFWS was able to successfully do a snow job on the public and therefore nobody believed it necessary to ask the tough questions of what if.

The Federal Government and all their lackeys should never be trusted……NEVER. Should this government or any other NGO suggest the introduction of any species anywhere in the world, it should be fought against tooth and nail if for no other reason than these people lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.

ESA and Hybridization: Dealing With It Case By Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite Claims of Wolf Taxonomy Game Playing, Agendas Shine Through

The article teased and linked to below provides some excellent points about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) game playing of wolf taxonomy in order to achieve some kind of political end game. The USFWS wants to “delist” the gray wolf in all the Lower 48 states. Their reasoning, or at least that which they are making public, is their fabricated claim of another breed of wolf, Canis lycaon, that once roamed the majority of the Eastern United States; a claim not too many others can agree with.

The USFWS has repeatedly played this subspecies game with wolves and it has repeatedly kept them in the dog house.

However, in this same article, comments expressed seem to show that despite reason about wolf taxonomy, some people just cannot get beyond their own ideological nonsense about wolves, the history of their abundance and where these varmints once ranged. The point being that for these wolf promoters, including their idiocy that wolves create some magical nirvana of our forests and fields, there will never be enough wolves. They choose to manipulate the Endangered Specie Act to fit their narratives and agendas and mislead the public about what is really going on presently and the long term history of this much undesirable animal.

This excerpt tells the story. You can read the entire article by following this link.

“I think probably over the decades at least a few of us were lulled into this sense of acceptance, that everything was getting better and that people now understood the importance of predators like wolves,” Barry said. But the debate over the delisting proposals has been a reminder of the residual anger towards wolves in the rural West, where influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock. “Merge that in with the whole tea party fervor against government, and what you end up with in the state legislatures is this race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf,” Barry said. “The biology of the thing gets thrown right out the window.”