September 22, 2017

D.C. Court of Appeals Overturns Wyoming Wolf Protection Ruling

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, overturned a previous ruling that had placed wolves in Wyoming back under protection of the Endangered Species Act. Gray wolves in Wyoming are now under the management of the State and the 2012 Wolf Management Plan has been reinstated. Below is a copy of the Court of Appeals ruling:

Appeals Court on Wyoming Wolves 2017
Share

By Funding Trophy Wolf Hunts, We’re Destroying Real Game Hunts

wolfutah*Editor’s Note* – This post first appeared on this website on October 8, 2014. It was requested of me to republish it as a means of updating the importance of the article as a prediction of the future.

It seems just a short while ago that wolf (re)introduction happened – 1995 and 1996. A lot of water has passed under the bridge and as the water moved downstream, it has blended in with a lot of other water, not becoming lost but perhaps unrecognizable.

As most of you know, I’m writing a book about wolves. Actually it’s really not about wolves other than to point out the obvious behaviors of the animal. The book is more about the corruption. However, in working to put all this information together, I’ve come across some things that I had written about in which I had actually forgotten.

It really began in early 2009, when there was a glimmer of hope that wolves might come off the Endangered list and residents in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could begin killing the animal to get it back down to 100 wolves as promised in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. What? Had you forgotten?

Around about that same time, I began reading about the plans Idaho was going to begin formulating in preparation for wolf hunts. I said then that utilizing a season for “trophy” wolf hunting would not work.

I wrote a five-part series that I know some of you have read, perhaps more than once, called “To Catch a Wolf” – an historical account of the extreme difficulty people had throughout history trying to control wolves to stop them from killing livestock and attacking people.

The real joke was when Idaho officials, in a fraudulent attempt to convince anyone who would blindly listen, that trophy hunting wolves, was going to protect the elk, deer and moose herds. This did not happen. As a matter of fact, it so much did not happen, that Idaho Fish and Game took to helicopters to gun down wolves in the Lolo Region because officials were willing to admit there was a wolf problem….or maybe they were just placating the sportsmen. They killed 5 wolves and yet somehow they want sportsmen to believe that a trophy hunting season will protect the game herds?

The myth here is that increasing or decreasing wolf tags will grow or shrink elk, deer and moose herds. Sorry, but controlling elk, deer and moose tags controls elk, deer and moose herds. Select-harvesting a handful of wolves does nothing to protect game herds.

Why, then, are Idaho sportsmen continuing to fund a fraudulent trophy wolf hunting season that may actually be causing the further destruction of the elk, deer and moose they so much wish to protect and grow?

On November 30, 2012, I wrote and published the following article. I took the liberty to embolden some statements I wish to now more fully draw your attention to.

Trophy Hunting Season on Wolves Destroying More Elk, Moose and Deer?

Recently I read a comment made by Bob Ream, chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Commission, state that:

We [MFWP] have implemented more and more aggressive wolf harvests. We also increased lion harvests considerably this year.

The word aggressive is certainly an overused adjective used much in the same fashion as say a male peacock when he displays his tail feathers. In the context used in the quote above, I’m assuming Mr. Ream intended his use of the word aggressive to mean something to be proud of, a feat of accomplishment or something related. But when talking about wolves, killing, attacks, predation, hunting, trapping, disease and every aspect associated with gray wolves, “implementing[ed] more and more aggressive wolf harvests” kind of rings a bit hollow.

In its simplest form, wolves, at least under the existing conditions in most of Montana, Idaho and Wildlife, grow and expand at a rate of anywhere between 20% and 30%, I am told and have read as well. Estimates of wolf populations mean little except in political and emotional battles because nobody knows how many there are and they are lying if they tell you otherwise. For the sake of argument, I have read that the tri-state region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have at least 6,000 wolves. On the top end I’ve heard 15,000 but I’m going to guess that might be high but then again I don’t live there and spend time in the woods.

If there were 6,000 wolves then math tells us that 1200 – 1800 wolves should be killed each year just to sustain the population at 6,000; and states like Montana, who according to Bob Ream, are aggressively killing more wolves.

But now the question has been brought up that perhaps states offering hunting and trapping seasons, based on the principle of “trophy” and “big game” hunting and trapping, might be causing even more game animals, like elk, moose and deer, to be killed. Is this possible?

It was nearly 4 years ago that I wrote a series, “To Catch a Wolf“. Much of the purpose of that series and other related articles, was to explain how difficult it is to kill a wolf; historically and globally. It’s one of the hardest things to do over a prolonged period of time and that’s why I chuckle at comments like Bob Ream’s when he describes the MFWP actions toward killing wolves as aggressive. There is NOTHING aggressive about trophy hunting wolves.

The process was long and mostly wrought with illegal actions and corruption, but eventually, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming got the infamous and controversial gray wolf removed from protections of the Endangered Species Act and trophy hunting seasons commenced; after all, wasn’t that the target goals of each of the states’ fish and game departments?

And so how’s that “aggressive” hunting and trapping going to reduce wolf populations?

If any of this isn’t complicated and wrought with emotion and irrational thinking enough already, in an email exchange I received today, the idea was presented that hunting a token number of wolves, in other words, managing them as a game species and classified as a trophy animal, might actually be only amounting to breeding a healthier, less stressful wolf that will eat more elk, deer and moose and become an even larger creature than it already is, further capable of killing more and bigger prey.

This idea is based in science, although those who don’t like the science disregard it. The science is the topic of wolf size. Most people are of the thought that a wolf’s size is determined by the species or subspecies the wolf comes from. I’m not going to pretend I have a full grasp of this science but will pass on that the essence of wolf size is determined mostly by food supply.

Consider then this premise to manage wolves as a big game species, which is what is being done in Montana and Idaho. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes managing game for surplus harvest, has worked marvelously well over the years, producing in places too many of certain game species. We certainly don’t want that for wolves as the proportion of wolves to prey/game species will soon get all out of whack. Our only hope then, is that the fish and game departments will fail as miserably managing wolves as they have elk, moose and mule/whitetail deer.

There is a reason why honest wildlife managers classify bona fide game animals as such and coyotes (and it should be also wolves) varmints to be shot and killed on site. It’s the only way to keep them at bay. This would be considered an aggressive move toward wolf control. Anything, short of an all out organized program to extirpate the wolf, would work just dandy and would never danger the future existence of this animal.
End

In the years that I have written about wolves, wolf “management” and the political nonsense that goes hand in hand with it, it certainly appears to me that there has become quite an effort among sportsmen to protect THEIR “trophy” wolf hunts. Is that in the best interest of actually regaining a vibrant elk, deer and moose population, that is supposed to be managed for surplus harvest, according to Idaho code?

In its most basic form, at least ask yourself how that “aggressive” trophy wolf hunting is effecting the elk, deer and moose herds? At the same time, what has become and continues to become of those elk tags? There just aren’t enough “trophy” wolf hunters to be effective and supporting the farce perpetuated by Idaho Fish and Game isn’t helping. It’s the same as buying a fifth of gin for a gin-soaked homeless fool.

As was relayed to me today, it seems the, “participants are in a race for the final bull elk or big buck in various units.” That’s the direction it seems we are headed.

Here’s a mini refresher course in promised wolf management. When the Final Environmental Impact Statement was approved, leading to the Final Rule on Wolf Reintroduction, the citizens of the Northern Rocky Mountain Region, where wolves were to be (re)introduced, were promised several things. First, we were promised that wolves would be “recovered,” a viable, self-sustaining population, when 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves existed in three separate wolf management zones for three consecutive years. Those numbers were achieved by 2003. What happened? Nothing but lawsuits and wolves didn’t finally get delisted until 2011 due to legislative action.

All promises made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were based on 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves. They lied!

Second, citizens of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were promised that wolves would have no measurable impact on wild game herds. The only thing that might possibly be needed was a slight 10% or less reduction in cow elk tags should the occasion arise for the need to boost elk production in exceptional cases.

So, I ask. How many elk tags have been lost since those promises were made? As a matter of fact, all promises made were reneged on. There is no reason to believe or support anything promised us by government. Stop giving government money to run their con game. At this rate game animals will all be gone soon enough and no hunting opportunities will prevail….except possibly trophy wolf tags.

What will it be. As the old saying goes, “Pay me now or pay me later.”

Share

Letter to House Subcommittee on Natural Resources: RE: Wolf Management

September 29, 2016
The Honorable Louie Gohmert, Chairman
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Debbie Dingell, Ranking Democrat
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Gohmert and Congresswoman Dingell:
We write today to submit this letter for the record of the Subcommittee hearing of September 21, 2016, on “Federal Government Management of Wolves”. Our organizations represent millions of wildlife and hunter conservationists, wildlife scientists, and wildlife enthusiasts who strongly support management of wolves by the State fish and wildlife agencies.
Wolf populations in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lake States have far exceeded recovery objectives established by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in cooperation with the states, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is now time – and the FWS attempted – to return management of these populations to the exclusive authority of the states.
We support the FWS decisions to de-list the Rocky Mountain and Great Lake States wolf populations and we support Congressional action that directs the FWS to reinstate these decisions. Congress did so in 2011 for wolves in Montana and Idaho. It is time for Congress to do so again for Wyoming and the Great Lake States’ wolf populations.
Other wolf populations in the lower 48 states are establishing themselves outside the official administrative boundaries of the recovered wolf populations. Still other wolf populations – the Mexican wolf and red wolf – are still officially in the recovery process under ESA.
We urge the FWS – and not Congress – to reconsider its policy toward other wolves in the remaining lower 48 states so that future expansion and care for wolf populations of any species or subspecies be the responsibility of the states. We recognize that the outdated provisions of the ESA and the more recent FWS policies on defining populations will make such a re-consideration difficult, which is one of many reasons to update and modernize the ESA.
Congress can best assist nationwide wolf policy by working with the FWS and state fish and wildlife agencies to update and modernize the ESA, by reinstating FWS wolf decisions overturned by the courts, and by not superseding FWS on other wolf matters. The State fish and wildlife agencies have demonstrated great success in managing gray wolves in the Rocky Mountain West and Great Lake States populations, all of which far exceed recovery goals. Uninformed litigation, however, continues to impede the delisting of many of those populations by the FWS. Idaho and Montana have demonstrated that once wolf populations are delisted, science-based, state-led wolf management can achieve sustainable wolf populations where depredation on livestock is reduced, rebalance the predator-prey relationship between wolves and large ungulates, provide sustainable recreational opportunities for hunting and wolf watching, and diminish public anxiety about the recovery of large predators. It is far past time for wolf populations in Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to be delisted and assumed back under exclusive state management jurisdiction.
The Mexican wolf is on the periphery of its range in the southwestern United States. The majority of Mexican wolves are in Mexico, and the species cannot be biologically recovered only in the southwestern United States. The states of New Mexico and Arizona, working in cooperation with the FWS, are assisting Mexico in assessing habitat suitability and restoration success probabilities of its Mexican wolf population.

Once a population goal agreed-to by the states of New Mexico and Arizona and the FWS is achieved, the United States population must be delisted and exclusive authority returned to the states for managing this species in the US, and through working with the government of Mexico to restore the core population.
The genetics of the red wolf, currently found only in North Carolina, substantiate that the “species” is now hybridized with coyotes and feral dogs, and thus no longer satisfies the definition of “species”. This hybridization is unavoidable due to the high coyote population in the state and the inability to prevent hybridization of free-ranging red wolves across the landscape, further diluting red wolf genetics. The red wolf, because of its now diverse genetic character, must be delisted and returned to exclusive state authority to manage, thus addressing depredation problems, and improving human social tolerance of a large predator.
Our system of fish and wildlife conservation in the United States is the envy of the rest of the world. Based on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, the states are key and integral in delivering science-based on the ground conservation of fish and wildlife, which are managed as a public trust resource for our citizens and the benefit of future generations. The states’ have demonstrated their ability to sustainably manage wolves and the predator-prey relationships on which they depend to meet the needs of all of their citizens. If the FWS is unable to delist all US populations because of uninformed litigation, then Congress needs to remedy this and return the management of wolves exclusively to state fish and wildlife agency jurisdiction.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this letter for the hearing record.
Archery Trade Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Boone and Crockett Club
Catch a Dream Foundation
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports
Dallas Safari Club
Delta Waterfowl
Houston Safari Club
Masters of Foxhounds Association
Mule Deer Foundation
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Trappers’ Association
National Wild Turkey Federation
Orion the Hunters’ Institute
Pheasants Forever
Professional Outfitters and Guides Association
Quail Forever
Quality Deer Management Association
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Ruffed Grouse Society
Safari Club International
Shikar Safari Club
Sportsmen’s Alliance
Tread Lightly
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wildlife Forever
Whitetails Unlimited

Share

Federal Wolf Management Fraught with Controversies and Failures

Press Release from the House Committee on Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 21, 2016

Today, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held an oversight hearing on the status of the federal government’s inconsistent and unsuccessful wolf management efforts in the United States. The panel, which included local and state witnesses, focused on red wolves in the Southeast, gray wolves in the Northwest and Western Great Lakes and Mexican wolves in the Southwest.

For decades, ineffective and sometimes destructive federal management of wolves has negatively impacted communities, economies, livestock, family businesses, recreationists and even family pets in vast swaths of our nation […]. Just last week the [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] announced that the 30 year red wolf recovery program in North Carolina is, for all intents and purposes, a failure,Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said.

Director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Alexandra Sandoval spoke about the failure of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to cooperate with the State of New Mexico in its Mexican wolf recovery efforts.

“Had the Service been more cooperative years ago […] we would likely be at a different place today than where we are – a court ordered injunction preventing [FWS] from releasing wolves in New Mexico in violation of state and federal law,” Sandoval stated.

It took over ten years and an act of Congress to delist gray wolves in Idaho and Montana despite the universally-acknowledged species recovery, according to Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Virgil Moore.

If species do not come off the endangered species list when science-based recovery criteria are achieved, states and local communities have no incentive to be active participants in recovery efforts,” Moore stated.

Executive Director of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Gordon Myers discussed the unsustainability of the red wolf recovery program, including the existential threat of hybridization, for which FWS has no solution. He also emphasized the inability of FWS to keep introduced wolves from encroaching on private property.

States have demonstrated that they are by far the best situated and equipped to manage wildlife and uphold the doctrine of multiple use on public lands within their borders. Management responsibility for recovered species must be transferred to states at the earliest possibly juncture. In the meantime, FWS must make every effort to work with states and stakeholders in its recovery efforts, and it must take responsibility for its failures, such as those in the red wolf program.

Click here to view full witness testimony.

Share

Senate Passes Important Sportsmen and Conservation Legislation

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation recognized the U.S. Senate for approving a comprehensive energy package that includes permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) as well as important provisions that benefit conservation, wildlife, sportsmen and women.

“We are grateful that Senators recognized LWCF is a vital conservation program that warranted permanent reauthorization,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Advancing part of the sportsmen package will also help hunters, anglers and shooters who use our federal lands. We are particularly pleased to see the bill also includes a change to the Equal Access to Justice Act, requiring reporting of decisions and awards of attorney fees. This statute has been abused by groups to stop land management projects while collecting attorney fees paid by taxpayers to sue the federal government.”

RMEF remains a longtime advocate for permanent reauthorization of LWCF which uses revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling to support the conservation of America’s lands and waters. It also provides funding to permanently protect and provide public access to important habitat for elk and other wildlife. To date, RMEF utilized more than $85 million in LWCF funding across 62 projects in ten different states in partnership with federal agencies to protect, conserve and open access to some of the nation’s most vital elk country. The 50 year-old program expired last September but was temporarily reauthorized by Congress in December.

The bill also includes several components of the bipartisan sportsmen legislative package passed by House of Representatives in February which directs federal agencies to enhance and increase public access for hunting, fishing and shooting on federal lands.

“While the Senate passed a number of provisions beneficial to sportsmen and women, it missed a tremendous opportunity regarding predator management. The sportsmen package passed by the House included language to restore state management of wolves in Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. There is simply no reason to prevent these states from managing these predators when they are fully recovered and flourishing.”

The Senate’s energy bill will now go to a conference committee where members will iron out differences between the versions passed by the House and Senate.

Share

Filth and Decadence to Prop Up Wolf Protection

It’s the way of the world. Filthy and perverted “Hollyweird” reprobates moronically speaking out against anything that someone has told them is inhumane treatment of animals, often while wearing furs and sporting alligator purses, etc. Treatment of animals is not “inhumane” because animals are not human and certainly are not men and were not created in that same image. If you choose to lower your standards to be equal to that of a filthy animal, have at it. None of this, however, stops the media from spreading and supporting the ignorance, hypocrisy and disgusting filth of Satan’s world. They are a large part of it.

I read an article yesterday that I just found so perverse I closed it out, because of my own desire to “come out of her.” And yet the topic and the approach bothered me. I feel it is important, if for no other reason, to try to expose the harvest of Satanic seed sowing. Perhaps, if just one person, can “come out of her” my tasks will not have been in vein.

The foundation of the article dealt with those upset because officials in British Columbia are killing wolves as part of their management plan partly to protect other threatened species, particularly those in danger from the actions of wolves. As is typically found in about 99.9% of media, we read about animals in a human context. The article isn’t clear as to the origins of the term, but those complaining use a term called a “Judas Wolf.” Evidently a Judas Wolf is some moron’s idea of one collared wolf used to “betray” the other wolves in his pack, i.e. giving up the location of the pack so government officials can more easily kill the wolves that need to be killed.

It’s not worth discussing the intellectual garbage offered by those who think animals are at or above the same social and ethical levels as man. Giving the action to kill wolves by the British Columbia government some sort of human characteristic, and in this case attempt to give it an extra bit of “umpf” by wrongly and ignorantly likening it to what tiny bit of Biblical history they might have remembered while studying to be a servant in Satan’s Service, is actually irrelevant. Scientific wolf management calls for the population control of wolves for the betterment of all species, including man, and it only makes sense that this task, like it or not, be carried out in the best way possible. If that results in using a collared wolf to locate the rest of the pack and destroying all in that pack, then so be it. Get over it. The wolves don’t know the difference…and I know for some this comes as a huge shock.

But here’s something that I don’t know just how much people can or want to see the disgusting nature of. In the article, it reads: “The wolf cull has been mired in controversy since it began. The province’s practice of using snipers in helicopters to gun down grey wolves has drawn criticism from the likes of pop star Miley Cyrus and film actress Pamela Anderson.”

This media outlet wants to support the idea that wolf management is not a good thing and so what better way to reveal their hand than to attempt to prop up their own perversion and misguided beliefs by invoking the names of two of the biggest and slimiest perverts of Hollyweird.

Somehow sane people are supposed to find comfort in having the support of Miley Cyrus and Pamela Anderson, standing up against sensible wildlife management? What? You can’t see my point? Miley Cyrus, once a Disney star (a great staging ground for Satan’s entertainment industry) has to her credit some of the most bizarre and perverse actions, enough to make any person with half a bag of morals vomit. She appears naked in public half of the time. She once staged an event where she, half clothed, appears to be giving Bill Clinton oral sex. She constantly grabs her crotch, kisses other women on the lips, eats fans underwear, and goes through the motions of having sex on stage (twerking).

Pamela Anderson, a woman who made her millions baring her breasts, is not much better. She once considered suicide because the renovations to one of her houses was costing too much and taking too long. All sane people think those things. She insists on only allowing her photograph to be taken by specific camera lenses, because those make her look better. She has tried suing people taking her picture with an “EYE” phone.

When you consider the combined mentality of these two bimbos and their entertainment history, only a brain-dead idiot would find any credibility in anything they had to say about wildlife management or even the treatment of animals. Perhaps the two would have more credibility if they went on stage and had sex with a wolf…but that would be inhumane treatment of the poor nasty dogs.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Action Needed to Delist the Wolf As a Federally Endangered Species in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, Michigan

US Senate Bill 659—The Bipartisan Sportsman’s Act of 2015 removes the wolf off the Federal Endangered Species List and returns management to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. [This bill includes returning management of wolves to the states of Wyoming, Minnesota, and Michigan. Sportsmen are urged to contact your state’s Congressional representatives on this vote.]

It is critically important for you to contact Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Tammy Baldwin and ask them to vote for SB 659. [For Wisconsin Voters]

Senator Ron Johnson                                          Senator Tammy Baldwin

328 Hart Senate Office Building                        717 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-4905                            Washington, D.C. 20510-4906

202-224-5323                                                        202-224-5653

Also you can contact through                            Also you can contact through

Website: www.ronjohnson.senate.gov              Website: www.baldwin.senate.gov

 

The Bill also increases the amount of Pitman-Robertson Funds that can be used build shooting ranges.

Directs Federal Land Management Agencies to provide more access to Federal Lands.

Reauthorizes the North American Wetland Conservation Act  which funds wetland restoration for waterfowl and other species.

Removes permanently the authority of the USEPA to regulate lead for hunting and fishing equipment.

Reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which provides funding on a cost share basis for habitat improvement projects across the country.

Share

RMEF Praises Oregon Wolf Delisting

*Editor’s Note* – The state of Oregon opting to remove the gray wolf from state protection under the state’s endangered species program, is a first step that essentially only allows for more flexibility in protecting livestock. This is not a bad thing. What is bad is that the continued direction the state is headed, will not mitigate wolf and livestock interaction problems. Oregon wolf managers clearly state that the wolf will be “managed” in an Endangered Species Act-like manner. Wolves cannot be “managed.” They can only be controlled. Until states develop strict guidelines that include the rights of men over the fake rights of wolves, little will change.

Chances are also very good that Environmentalists will sue and win, padding their bank accounts while propping up scarcity, along with hands-off resource protectionism.

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation lauds the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for using scientific practices and procedures to remove wolves from state Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection.

“This is the right move. Oregon wolves are recovered,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “ODFW is successfully following its wolf management plan which provides protection both from and for wolves down the road.”

In essence, the status change means very little regarding current Oregon wolf management but it does open the door to the possibility of a wolf hunt in the future.

Biologists maintain there is a minimum population of 81 wolves in Oregon with the majority located in the northeast corner of the state.

According to the ODFW Wolf Plan, any take of wolves is tightly regulated with non-lethal preventive measures regarding wolf-livestock conflict being the first choice of action by wildlife managers. There is no general hunting season of wolves allowed in any phase of the current plan which is due to be updated in the near future. Wolves in the western two-thirds of Oregon will continue to be managed with ESA-like protections until they reach the conservation objective of four breeding pairs for three consecutive years. Ranchers in northeast Oregon can shoot a wolf caught in the act of wounding, biting, killing or chasing livestock.

“The wolf plan has been working well and you are all responsible for that,” said Michael Finley, ODFW Commission chair, at the conclusion of a recent public hearing. “We will remember the merits of the wolf plan and the next one will be as good or better. You can all help that happen.”

In light of the delisting, several environmental organizations are already threatening legal action.

“There are groups that do very little on-the-ground wildlife conservation work. They view the wolf as a fundraising tool and file lawsuit after lawsuit to gum up the process of proper, balanced wildlife management. The hysteria over this delisting is based on nothing more than ideology and fundraising. They need to allow state wildlife managers to do their job in looking out for what’s best for all species of wildlife,” added Allen.

Share

RMEF Grant Assists Idaho Wolf Management

*Editor’s Note* – The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is entitled to give their money in any way, shape or fashion. It is quite unfortunate the the RMEF and the State of Idaho are being extorted for funds and manpower in order to “manage” GI wolves that were forced onto Idaho landscapes with the collaboration of illegal acts by members of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, by circumventing the Legislature.

Now, the RMEF states they have given $350,000.00 in extortion payoffs for the “management” of a nasty animal that only brings death and destruction to the landscapes they inhabit. Because Idaho and surrounding states had NO options, after the fact, but to pay the extortion payments, the states now wrongly believe that at the end of the ESA 5-year period of wolf management assessment, things will actually change. How wrong they are. Nothing will change and so long as Idaho, and other states, enabled by donations from groups like the RMEF, continue to play into the hands of the Feds and their-one-of-a-kind environmentalists, protecting GI Wolves, elk will be destroyed down to scarce levels; all for protection of a nasty, disease-infested wild dog.

Insanity!

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) accepted a $50,000 grant from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to help firm up the state’s ability to maintain management of its wolf population.

“This is the fifth and final year of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s five-year monitoring period to evaluate the status of Idaho’s wolf population,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “The RMEF grant is designed to ensure wolves remain delisted so Idaho can continue to monitor the population and implement effective state-based management practices.”

The grant funding will be used to target two primary activities. The first is to hire a wolf tracking expert to assist in locating non-documented wolf packs while also assisting in collaring those packs in conjunction with a helicopter capture operation. The second activity is to document mid-winter pack composition through aerial tracking and remote camera work.

Idaho wildlife managers documented a minimum of 770 wolves in 2014 which is more than 400 percent above minimum recovery levels. The total includes 104 packs with an additional 23 border packs counted by Montana, Wyoming and Washington that established territories overlapping the Idaho state boundary. IDFG suspects there are even more packs but did not include them in the 2014 count due to lack of documentation.

“As per requirements under the Endangered Species Act, Idaho will continue to manage its wolf population under federal oversight until May 2016. We also know that wolves and other predators have a significant impact on elk in some parts of Idaho. Funding for this project allows the state to better address predator populations by maintaining state control of wolf management,” added Allen.

In the last three-plus years, RMEF awarded approximately $350,000 in grants specifically for wolf management, including $50,000 for Montana earlier this month.

Share

Montana Elk Habitat, Wolf Management Get Boost from RMEF Grants

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Grant funding provided by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation will improve 22,065 acres of wildlife habitat across 18 Montana counties.

The 2015 grants total $386,080 and directly impact Beaverhead, Broadwater, Carbon, Deer Lodge, Jefferson, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Madison, Missoula, Petroleum, Powder River, Powell, Rosebud, Sanders, Stillwater, Sweetgrass and Teton Counties. There are also several projects of statewide and regional benefit.

“Prescribed burning, meadow restoration and noxious weed treatments are just a few of the many projects funded by these grants that will enhance habitat for elk and other wildlife,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “In addition, wolves continue to remain well above minimum objectives and this funding will help managers better determine how many wolves are on the landscape and where they’re located so they can be better managed.”

Allen thanked Montana volunteers who raised funds for the on-the-ground projects through banquet activities, membership drives and other fundraising efforts. He also thanked RMEF volunteers and members around the country for their dedication to ensuring the future of elk, elk country and our hunting heritage.

Since 1985, RMEF and its partners have completed 841 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Montana with a combined value of more than $146 million. These projects have protected or enhanced 769,282 acres of habitat, of which 226,954 acres have been opened or secured for public access.

Here is a sampling of Montana’s 2015 projects:

Petroleum County—Conduct the largest prescribed burn carried out by the Bureau of Land Management in Montana to date on 6,700 acres of BLM and private lands northeast of Winnett to reduce conifer and juniper encroachment into native grass and sagebrush prairie thereby increasing production and diversity of forbs for elk and lowering the risk of high-severity, stand replacement wildfires. Mule deer, pronghorn, wild turkeys and other wildlife also benefit.

Powell County—Enhance native grasses, forbs and shrubs, and promote aspen regeneration in a transition area between grasslands and dry timber stands on the Helena National Forest approximately 10 miles west of Lincoln. Treatments include 335 acres of thinning/burning and 400 acres of weed treatments (with some overlap).

Stillwater County—Treat approximately 250 acres of noxious weeds on federal, state and private lands within the Upper Stillwater River Watershed. The project is coordinated by the Stillwater Valley Watershed Council and involves many landowners through a cost-share program; combining efforts to cooperatively control noxious weeds across a 184,000-acre landscape (also affects Carbon County).

Western Montana—Provide $50,000 in funding to assist Montana’s wolf management plan. The funding, $25,000 to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and $25,000 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides for additional collaring of wolves to expand the science related to wolf pack locations, size and home ranges as well as resolving wolf conflicts associated with livestock depredation.

Go here to see a complete listing of Montana’s 2015 projects (http://bit.ly/1QBDKcs).

Partners for the Montana projects include the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Custer, Flathead, Gallatin, Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo National Forests, Bureau of Land Management, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, private landowners and various sportsmen, wildlife, civic, and government organizations.

Share