September 18, 2018

USFWS Promise: Red Wolves Don’t Kill Deer – Part 2 of 7

Below is Part II of a seven part series of emails being distributed by Jet Ferebee to Daniel Ashe, USFWS, et. al. about the introduction of wolves in portions of North Carolina. See part I here.

Director Ashe,

I looked for your response to the part one question. Maybe it went to my spam folder. I will check.

Part Two: Just one of many lies told by USFWS, but this one is relevant to our quest to determine the actual canid species captured on my trail cam

As Director of USFWS, why did the USFWS deem it necessary and appropriate to intentionally lie to the citizens of NC?

These lies were documented and published by T. Delene Beeland in her 2013 book “The Secret World of Red Wolves”:

– In the beginning, the Fish and Wildlife Service told people that the wolves would not eat deer. It was a partial truth – but also a partial lie. (Beeland) (pg 82)

– In the beginning, Jamin (Simmons) told folks he was “cautiously optimistic: about the program. But later he felt that the red wolf program made a large misstep by telling people that the reintroduced wolves would not eat deer. “As soon as the first wolves were out, people found skeletons or partially eaten ones, and we knew they were eating deer, especially the young ones,” he says. Folks in his community were upset and anxious about the deer herds. It added fodder to the government stigma that the wolves bore and widened the gulf of mistrust. (pg 84)

– As a biologist working at Lake Mattamuskeet, Kelly says her supervisors told her, “Don’t tell people the wolves eat deer.” (Kelly Davis, former biologist at Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge) (pg 84)

Mongrel

Maybe USFWS did not lie after all. Perhaps this mixed canine is a non-deer eating variety just returning the fawn to it’s mother?

Again, Director Ashe, just feel free to reply to all. I will change my spam settings.

Thanks,
Jett Ferebee

Share

Dr. David Mech “Creates” Wolf-Coyote Hybrid

This is classic isn’t it? Researchers, including the famous Dr. David Mech, modeler of the mythical “balance of nature,” say they have successfully crossed a wolf with a coyote – in captivity of course. Profound? Not really in that researchers announce a few years ago that wolves and coyotes and coy-dogs and domestic dogs and feral dogs were all interbreeding and blanketing much of the Eastern U.S.

According to the Field and Stream article, Mech says:

Our findings leave the eastern wolf debate open by adding further merit to the hybrid theory rather than disproving it.

There was some debate recently on this website with readers about Dr. Mech and his seemingly impeccable timing when it came to certain milestones in wolf research and major events affecting the animal. As an example was his “balance of nature” theory just about the time discussions were ongoing about whether wolves should be (re)introduced into Yellowstone and Central Idaho. Once wolves were dumped there, the balance of nature theory was found, by Mech, to be invalid. Convenient?

And now, he is announcing that the “theory” of hybridization of wild canines has been bolstered because a lab wolf and a lab coyote have been artificially bred to produce a hybrid. And all this happening at a time when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to delist the gray wolf in all of the Lower 48 but are considering creating a new subspecies of wolf they can list to protect under the ESA.

So the question for all of us should be, “What is Mech up to, why and for whom?”

Please see my Featured Article of yesterday about the topic of hybridization of wolves and other species and how this plays into the administration of the Endangered Species Act.

Share

IDFG: “How Little We Know About Animals That Live in Our Forests”

IdahoLynxAn Idaho wildlife biologist, part of a five-year program, “to collect information on 20 little-studied creatures in the Idaho Panhandle and northeastern Washington”, was quoted as saying after trappers captured a Canada lynx:

“I was surprised that there were lynx in the West Cabinets,” said Michael Lucid, who’s heading up the Multi-Species Baseline Initiative for Idaho Fish and Game. “It shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.” (Emphasis added)

I have no intention to pick on or embarrass any particular employee of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG) or even the department as a whole (I know. Shocking isn’t it?). The statement made probably has more truth to it than most people know and that some shouldn’t be too eager to make.

The article makes claim of two things. One, Canada lynx is at least one species that is “little-studied” in portions of Idaho. Two, the biologist admits “how little we know” about certain animals his department is responsible for managing and caring for.

But I’m not here to blame IDFG necessarily for not knowing anything about Canada lynx. Instead, I might suggest that one might think that it would be a good idea to have even more than casual knowledge about a species before it is placed on the Endangered Species Act list of endangered and/or threatened species.

Consider this. The Endangered Species Act(ESA), has something to say about what must exist before any species can be considered as being threatened or endangered and protected by law. Note: The ESA, once implemented, can cause severe limitations and restrictions on private property, property rights and even a state agency to effectively run their own wildlife management programs. In short, administering the ESA for any species in any state should be considered a most serious undertaking, due to the potentially devastating fallout it can cause.

Having said that, isn’t it reasonable to expect that any professional wildlife administrator/biologist, governmental and non governmental agency, politician, etc. would want to know more about a species than “how little we know” BEFORE a species is listed and costing so much?

So, what does the ESA say must be the conditions in order to consider listing of a species?

SEC. 4.[16 U.S.C. 1533] (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

I should also note right here that in order to remove a species from federal protection, ALL of the above criteria must be met.

I ask. Are the above five conditions that this law, enacted by Congress, something that fits the demand and execution of listing the Canada lynx in portions of Idaho that, according to one biologist was, “little-studied creatures” and “shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.”? In other words, how can one honestly administer to protect a species it knows nothing about?

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has studied the Canada lynx extensively (enough to list a species honestly), then why is it necessary for the IDFG to conduct its own study of a species they say is “little-studied” and admittedly they know nothing about? One would think it sensible to contact the USFWS and get the critical information about the lynx that they MUST have compiled before making such a critical decision about whether or not to list the Canada lynx as a “threatened” species. They did do this, didn’t they? And it was specific to Northern Idaho, right?

If they did this in Idaho, who did the work? Obviously it must not have been IDFG employees because they say the lynx hasn’t been studied and they don’t know anything about it. If USFWS has the information, shouldn’t that be shared? And if so why spend more money to learn the same things? Or is this busy work being paid for through grants in order to keep more government employees at work?

Well, here’s the Canada Lynx Listing Decision page from the USFWS website. You go to work and find in there where studies were conducted and information gathered, specifically for Idaho, that would scientifically warrant placing the Canada lynx on the Endangered Species Act list where it has been designated. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, you can also find information on the IDFG website about the trapping of the lynx in Northern Idaho, but there’s nothing there that answers any of my questions.

And thus, I am left with an even bigger question of which I don’t suspect to get an answer for. Is there ever any real specific information gathered before listing ANY species or do USFWS “experts” just use the same regurgitated information available from Alaska, Colorado and West Canine, and only cherry pick through the information that fits their narrative and agenda and ignore the rest?

Maine is another state where the Canada lynx is listed as a threatened species. And like many species the lynx is not threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” But for political purposes, Canada lynx and other species recognize boundaries when it is convenient for USFWS to do so and ignored when it is not.

While the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources fakes their way though making people think they are seriously proposing changes to the Endangered Species Act, how about I suggest that before any species can be listed anywhere in the United States (and by the way, the United States thinks it has the right to list species in other countries.) specific studies must be done by third parties and paid for by those agencies requesting the listing, before any decisions can be made about federal restrictions.

I think it’s obvious nobody knows anything specific about Canada lynx in Northern Idaho and yet, the USFWS took it upon themselves to flex their muscle and blindly list portions of the Gem State as lynx critical habitat and historic range.

Had this effort been done correctly the first time, it would look something like this. Whoever the entity or agency seeking to list the Canada lynx as threatened or endangered, would have to be prepared to foot the bill to conduct the third party studies to support or refute the claims of those claiming the lynx was in danger. Then IDFG, in this case, could have taken the money and conducted the necessary studies on lynx to determine the existing population of lynx, the health and range, and condition of the habitat. This all being done BEFORE any proposals are drafted for consideration of listing.

Yes, we probably know very little about some or most animals in our forests, but when it comes to the politics of the Endangered Species Act and the money that can be made from it, it’s quite amazing how much information can be faked.

And don’t forget, this is Stop Government Abuse Week.

Share

Independent Review of Rule Proposal to Delist Wolves Nationally

The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis was asked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review a proposal being made by the USFWS to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list of protected animals. The link below will take readers to that 68-page report.

In short, the panel of so-called expert and independent scientists determined that the USFWS’s rule, “does not currently represent the ‘best available science’.”

While it may be that this report accurately describes the work of the USFWS in its proposed rule to delist wolves nationally, one has to wonder about the politics involved at every level. In my mind, I am highly skeptical about the overall plans of the USFWS and how they may be using this review for future purposes, some of which we know nothing about. Historically, the USFWS is notorious for manipulating “science” and utilizing court rulings to further their agenda, while taking advantage of their subsidiaries in wildlife crime, the environmental groups.

We will have to wait and see, I suppose, what kind of sinister effects this review will have on the management of gray wolves and other threatened or endangered species.

Here is the link to the review.

Share

75 Members of Congress Call for Wolf Delisting Nationwide

From the House Committee on Natural Resources web page:

75 Members Send Letter Calling for the Obama Admin to Fully Delist the Gray Wolf

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 13, 2013 –

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) and 74 Members of Congress sent a letter today to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe in support of the June 2013 proposed rule to nationally delist the Gray Wolf as “endangered” or “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act, and in opposition to a proposal to list the Mexican wolf as a separate, endangered sub-species. This is the second letter, led by Chairman Hastings, Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large), Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and more than five dozen other bipartisan and bicameral Members of Congress and Senators to Director Ashe calling for the delisting of the gray wolf. Despite issuing a proposed rule to delist the wolves five months ago, the Administration has yet to issue a final decision.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 2009 and in the Great Lake States in 2011. The current situation has created a confusing management and regulatory scheme that has left some states – including Washington, Oregon and Utah – in the unsustainable and random situation of having wolves listed on one side of a highway and delisted on the other.

“The statutory purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered ‘endangered’ or ‘threatened.’ The gray wolf is currently found in 46 countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of ‘least concern’ globally for risk of extinction by the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group. This is a clear indication that this species is not endangered or threatened with extinction.” wrote the Members in the letter.

In the letter, Members also express opposition to the proposed provision to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered sub-species: “Since wolves were first provided protections under the ESA, uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching and tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, big horn sheep and mule deer. This is why we believe it is critical that you reconsider your decision to list the Mexican wolf as a sub-species under ESA, which would have a severe impact on private landowners, including ranchers, in Arizona, New Mexico, and surrounding states. We believe that state governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities and wildlife populations.”

Click here to read the full letter.

Share