April 19, 2015

Germany’s Serious Wolf Problem

“Their comeback was initially attributed to the emptying of rural areas in what was formerly East Germany.
But with wolf packs settling amid wind-energy projects, along well-trodden nature trails and even on Berlin’s doorstep, it’s now clear that the European Union’s tough protection laws are responsible.”<<<Read More>>>

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

A Killing Spree by Wolves in France

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

“Residents of a village in the French Alps awoke to carnage this week after wolves killed almost two dozen sheep in an attack that took place just metres from the mayor’s house.”<<>>

Oregon Bill Proposal to Delist Wolves

“An effort to remove gray wolves from the state endangered species list is moving forward on multiple fronts.

State biologists said Tuesday that wolf numbers are high enough to justify removing them the state list, while Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to prohibit the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commission from listing wolves as threatened or endangered.

With four breeding pairs in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years and 77 known wolves statewide, ODFW biologists said there is little probability of wolves declining or going extinct.”<<<Read More>>>

Conserving Wildlife

WolfH8R

Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

For a signed copy

To order through Amazon

To order through Barnes and Noble

Moose Ticks Have Always Been Here…Or Have They?

WinterTicksFew will disagree that the moose tick, aka, winter tick (dermacentor albipictus) can be a problem and that an over-abundance kills moose. The claim I have heard for many years is that the moose tick has always been around. Has it? Is making the statement using “around” an honest depiction of more important site specificity? What also concerns me about such statements is that it gives people cause to throw up their hands as if to say that there is nothing that can be done about it now. That may be true, but if there is any hope of trying to discover whether there is some kind of effective cure, isn’t it important to have a complete understanding of this tick?

It is basic knowledge that when any specie of animal exists in abundance or is forced into living in close quarters, disease becomes prevalent. The only way a disease can become prevalent in any species, as I just described, is that somehow that disease, parasite, virus, worm, etc. had to have been introduced, or that it already existed.

Being that we are living in a post-normal or post-scientific world, the dishonest answer to everything is climate change, i.e. global warming. While moose populations in Maine have, until the last couple of years, been increasing in large quantities, this reality flies in the face of global warming arguments that because of a warming climate in Maine moose should be migrating out of the area. Doesn’t seem to be the case. This discussion isn’t necessarily about global warming. I bring it up because it is NOT an explanation that helps to discover facts about moose and winter ticks. These ticks live in the Yukon and the same ticks live in Texas.

From a science institution’s perspective, there can never be studies enough on anything. To go along with that, we humans have had our little brains manipulated in such a way that our response to far too many issues has become to demand a study or a working group to talk about it. Studies mean money and money means more incomplete studies in order that there be more demand for more studies. Very unfortunate.

Working groups are useless and a complete waste of time. Over the years I have seen them be created, propaganda presented and absolutely nothing getting accomplished.

Having said all this, then shouldn’t we question every time someone wants more studies and form more working groups? After all, it is OUR money. We should demand results…real results.

People in Maine want to know if ticks are really killing the moose. This is the same in New Hampshire and Minnesota. New Hampshire and Minnesota insist the problem is global warming. Global warming, in their wee bit of brains, is what is the cause of what they believe to be an increase in dermacentor albipictus.

We are also, perhaps incorrectly, told that these winter ticks don’t survive in cold climates and yet moose love cold climates and seem to be the one species most effected by the tick. If the winter tick doesn’t like cold climates, then why are these same tick regularly found in The Yukon? And in Texas?

One thing we all must understand, moose suck at grooming themselves. It is helpful knowledge to understand that because moose don’t groom themselves like lots of other wild and domestic animals, they carry around more ticks. We should be able to reasonably conclude that moose are more greatly effected by the tick than other ungulates, because they are poor groomers.

Another fact that is seldom discussed is which other animals play host to dermacentor albipictus? Here’s a few to add to your list: elk, caribou, deer, feral swine, wolves, coyotes, cattle and horses. In order to understand how to deal with the moose tick we need to understand other hosts and how the tick is spread. Bear in mind that elk and caribou migrate, sometimes over many, many miles. We know over the years feral swine are spreading all over the United States.

But, consider this fact. According to Gabriele Liebisch, Arndt Liebisch, Stephan Paufler in a study, a horse was transported by plane to Germany from Montana:

Already on arrival at the airport of Amsterdam about 30 fully engorged ticks dropped off the horse, and during the following 4 days in the stable in Germany more than 200 engorged ticks were collected. The tick species was identified as Dermacentor albipictus, which is also called ‘winter tick’.

This study refers to this tick as “New World Tick” because it is a different species than what might be found in Germany. Germany has moose but not necessarily the same problem with the tick and the moose…yet.

Other things found in studies already completed that should be considered, involve the feral swine. In a study published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, and published on BioOne, feral hogs found in New Hampshire were tested. Remember New Hampshire blames their problem with ticks on global warming.

The expansion of feral swine (Sus scrofa) populations into new geographic regions is of concern not only due to increased range but also because they carry diseases and parasites that pose a threat to humans, livestock, and wildlife into new areas. Recently, emerging feral swine populations have been reported in the northeastern US and due to their adaptive nature will likely continue to spread. During 2009–2012, 49 feral swine were removed from three counties in New Hampshire.

Infestations of winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) were also documented on two of the feral swine which had only been reported previously on feral swine in Texas. Feral swine may not only serve as an important host for an economically important commercial swine pathogen like PRV, but they could also increase host diversity for parasites such as the winter tick, a species that can regionally impact moose (Alces alces) survival.

There’s more. I had already mentioned that these winter ticks were found in the Yukon. Published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, a study on the origins of dermacentor albipictus, showed that perhaps the tick might have hitched a ride to the Yukon.

Winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) on elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) have recently increased in numbers in the Yukon, Canada, potentially posing risks to other indigenous host species in the region.

Based on our results, winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could have originated either by translocation from central Alberta or by northward range expansion of more geographically proximate populations in northern Alberta and British Columbia. Although there was some genetic structuring of winter ticks on different hosts in the same region, we found little evidence of host specificity in winter ticks from five ungulate host species, suggesting that the winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could potentially become established on other locally available host species such as moose (Alces alces).

While on the subject of referencing existing studies, consider that some scientist find that climate and weather have less effect on the growth and reduction of ticks than others believe.

With this knowledge in hand can we ask for a more definitive response to the origins of the moose tick than it’s always been around? Maybe it hasn’t always been around. Maybe it was brought into your state or region form someplace else or migrated there.

In reading all of this information, wildlife biologists, along with parasitologists should be asking whether or not it is a good and responsible practice to allow for the over protection of wild species and seek perhaps a better control over human translocation of wild and domestic animals.

Just maybe what is also being realized here are some of the effects of practicing an ignorant, romantic notion of “balance of nature” where nature magically creates a healthy ecosystem where nothing is wrong. With continued and prolonged efforts to protect wild animal species at high levels, are we not promoting the spread of disease, including winter ticks? Nature allows for regulation via disease, starvation and cannibalism. The result is scarcity which is irresponsible stewardship of wildlife and benefits no human. It is the worst of all choices.

Instead of just throwing some grant money at another study to try to find out if ticks are killing moose, why not practice some good, old-fashioned, hard work and research of the information that is available. I don’t want to have somebody else tell me ticks are killing moose. I know they are. What I’m interested in is finding out if there’s a scientific (real scientific) answer for why there appears to be more ticks and how to stop them before more devastation occurs. It seems to me that nobody has a handle on this necessary information. The only cry is about global warming. Get over it!

If there’s more ticks because there’s too many moose, the solution is simple – we need to kill more moose. If the cause is due to translocation of ticks from outside the region, then let’s stop it. Finding the truth is what’s important. Global warming theory is NOT truth. Spending money to see whether or not ticks are killing moose is akin to spending money to discover if snow is cold.

Wolf Population in Denali Low, Blamed on Hunting and Trapping

*Scroll for Updates*

The Alaska Dispatch carried an article about a petition generated to shut down hunting and trapping in boundary areas of Denali Park because wolves in the park have dropped from a population of 143 to 50 in about 8 years. But hunting and trapping isn’t the problem.

It was great that the author pointed out how well the fish and game department managed wildlife in a Game Management Unit adjacent to the park but never would come out with an explanation of why there was no prey left for the wolves inside Denali. The author states that, “When prey is abundant, wolves flourish. When prey populations are low, wolf populations become low.” A true statement but what allows or what is responsible for prey populations becoming low? That’s the most important question that should be answered.

Anyone who knows wolves understands that the savage predator can destroy a prey base and then move on. Once the prey base is gone, basically one, or any combination of events, can occur – 1. Wolves move to other areas where prey exist and do the same thing. 2. Wolves die from starvation and disease. 3. Wolves resort to cannibalism.

Chances are pretty good that what is going on in Denali is that the wolves, and they are protected in the park, are effectively destroying their own prey base and thus themselves. If wolf populations have been cut by nearly two-thirds, it might allow for a short period for prey to respond positively, provided it isn’t below sustainable levels, which will bring wolves back for a time to bring the prey species back down very low again. This could be labeled a predator pit depending upon other factors.

The author also points out that the adjacent Game Management Unit, a mass of acreage considerably smaller than Denali, is being perpetuated by wildlife officials for 10,000 moose, 300 wolves and still humans can harvest moose meat. Denali is a protected park and we see the results.

Also of note: This article shows the author’s discovery to two things – people’s complete ignorance of wolves, wolf management and ecosystems and the obvious bias toward anti hunting and trapping and NOT pro wolf. Some of the comments he reveals are pretty funny.

*Update* (4/2/2015 10:01 am) – I was sent another article from Alaska that quotes the Alaska Board of Game director as saying, “[L]ow numbers of moose and caribou were to blame for low wolf population levels.”

Anecdotal Wolf Stories

Presented by James Beers:

I recently changed dentists and last week had my first appointment. The dentist asked me if I was the same person who writes about wolves in the Wisconsin Outdoor News. I said, yes, I am, and he proceeded to tell me how much he hates wolves and how frustrated he is with wolf-lovers. He said that he and friends had deer hunted in northern Wisconsin for years but they recently started hunting in central Wisconsin because the wolves have decimated the northern deer population (this confirms what I have heard and read from other sources). He said that the motel (Comfort Inn) where they stayed when deer hunting in the north was always full during deer season but now is down to 20% capacity due to the lack of hunters. He also said that another group of friends who traditionally hunted in a national forest in the north have not seen a single deer in the past five years.

The dentist told of an incident with a wolf when he was bird hunting with his dog. The wolf charged his dog and he shot the wolf at point-blank range. Fortunately for his dog, he was close enough to defend it from the wolf. This incident took place before wolves were put back on protected status.

Nothing like a real encounter to convince one of lethal wolf behavior.

XXXX

————————————————————–
XXXX,

Clearly, the N Wisconsin deer herd is seeking its “New Normal”, wherein global warming and climate change effects on plants; and those as yet unspecified diseases, fleas and ticks that Minnesota DNR “biologists” and University of Minnesota “perfessers” have yet to identify but are sure are causing the demise of N Minnesota deer and moose are spreading to our Eastern neighbors. All we can do in the meantime is give them more money and just hope they find the answers in time. Otherwise, soon the Central Wisconsin deer herd will similarly disappear as far as any hunting and what is left, Illinois???

Actually, a few more years of this lying and subterfuge from all these government experts and the possible political reaction from Wisconsin progressives that aren’t still hiding in Illinois and Indiana motels will give the Madison/Milwaukee/U of W wolf folks control of the State government (like Anthony Eden and Labour replaced Winston Churchill and the Conservatives in 1945 as soon as the War was over) and with Wisconsin deer hunters historical anomalies (like loggers and trappers); and rural Wisconsin dog owners filing out of the woods with their hands over their heads crying, “Comrade” like Italians surrendering in N Africa in 1942 or Germans surrendering at Stalingrad in 1943 – they can:

– Make the wolf the State Icon, State Mammal, State Predator, and place a 30’ high statue of a wolf in the Capitol Rotunda.

– Make dog ownership illegal since the opposition from remaining rural dog owners (those that actually derive other than emotional benefits from their dogs) will be about the size of the Hmong lobby.

– Revoke Concealed Carry and make the possession of rifles, shotguns and ammunition illegal without a permit issued by some young lady in Madison since deer hunters and rural residents that actually imagine hunting or defending themselves and their property from wolves and human predators will be moving to cities and leaving the rural precincts to federal and state realtors who will help the Local governments box up their records for the State Archivist and the State Historian since Local government revenue will dry up like speakeasies in 1933.

– Seize the fish and game agency revenues and authority for:

– “Protection” and “research” of all plant and animal species (not just the “hook and bullet” species).

– Extermination of all “NON-Native” plants and animals not documented as occurring in the State before 1492 AD.

– Restoration of all “Native” (as defined in Legislation) species of plants and animals throughout the state.

– When the old hunting and fishing revenue runs out quickly since there is no more hunting and fishing, the State Legislature and the US Congress will receive demands from the urban voters to spend tax dollars from all to make the State a Secular Nature Worship Cathedral as a model for other progressives elsewhere or else who will employ all those DNR worthies and “perfessers” that caused all this without a scintilla of responsibility or one qualm of a guilty conscience.

This sarcasm has more than a kernel of truth in it. I am saddened as I hear about your deer hunters as I hear about similar situations across this great country almost every day and, as they say, if you didn’t laugh you would have to cry once you understand what is happening.

————————————————-

Jim: There was a recent letter to the editor in WON written by a bird hunter/bird dog owner in NE WI. He complained to the DNR folks that he can’t/won’t bird hunt because the presence of wolves is too much of a threat to the safety of his dogs. So the ever-adaptive DNR told him to hunt in areas where there are fewer or no wolves (the DNR handily has a map of wolf territories on its website). The hunter pointed out two distinct and DNR-ignored facts: Wolves traverse a large territory and the packs are not always where the DNR says they should be, and, this DNR “advice” has effectively made areas of WI no-hunting zones. So here we go – exactly what the U.S. Humane Society wants – the death of hunting.

XXXX
—————————————————————

XXXX,

When I moved back to Minnesota 6 years ago, the St. Paul Pioneer Press was publishing unbelievable DNR/U of M drivel about wolves bi-weekly with front page stuff every few months about moose, and how ticks and global warming (I kid you not) were responsible for the disappearance of moose. Almost without fail, wolves were never mentioned and when mentioned they were just a throwaway reference to some people saying that predation was a factor. Those that were so noted were usually pictured as redneck, flat-earthers that were too dumb to accept global warming and were probably racists on top of it.

I wrote letter to the editor after letter to the editor trying in a few words and in measured tones (to get it accepted as a letter) to point out the lies in the articles but to no avail.

So I wrote the Outdoor Writer about it and tried to send him information but he dismissed me like a petulant child that didn’t like spinach.

My last e-mail to him concerned how in the short time (2 years?) since I returned I had met two Minnesota ruffed grouse hunters (one at Church and one while fishing in central Minnesota) that told me they no longer hunted grouse because they had had encounters with wolves that they drove off with their shotguns. Both said they hunted with the family dog and if they ever brought the dog home dead or all chewed up they didn’t think grouse were worth the reaction from their wives or kids. The outdoor writer said I was just making it up. He had lived in Minnesota all his life and never heard of such nonsense. He asked me to quit bothering him. About 6 months later he went to work as a Public Relations flak for the Minnesota DNR where so far as I know he labors away today.

His replacement was a young, urban enviro whose claim to fame, per himself, was he hadn’t hunted or fished before but he loved nature. He took up where his predecessor left off. I kept writing letters to the editor and when the outdoor guy wrote drivel about wolves I wrote him a measured e-mail which he quickly dismissed me with the words, we would just have to agree to disagree. He replied also that I was nuts for implying that I knew it was hard for him to be objective about such things and still maintain the DNR as a story source for articles or as a recommendation for keeping his job if he was too far off the wolf, et al, reservation. He clearly expected to hear from that old crank that had just moved to the state and was just a waste of time if you didn’t turn him off right away.

You are absolutely right about the perfidy of wolf “maps”: they are just like wolf depredation “compensation” that never materializes either fully or for an extended period. They are both placebos administered for temporary gain by neophytes that couldn’t even qualify as midwifes, and whose hidden agendas are despicable and responsible for much of the ongoing loss of rural American culture, communities, government and economies.

Jim Beers
28 March 2015

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 Mess Current Idaho F&G Commissioners Inherited is NOT Wildlife Conservation

*Editor’s Note* – The below is perhaps the most comprehensive, historic, and accurate account of events surrounding the introduction of wolves and Idaho wildlife management, ever presented. Readers should bookmark this page as a resource to reference facts in this regard. Thank you George Dovel.

By George Dovel – The Outdoorsman: Republished with permission, all rights reserved.

In October of 2007, Biology Letters published a research report by UCLA Professor Robert Wayne and his former PhD candidate Jennifer Leonard titled, “Native Great Lakes wolves were not restored.” It described two years of nuclear genetic testing of 68 Great Lakes area wolves, and finding that most were crossbreeds of coyotes and a Canadian subspecies of wolf.

The report said 69% of them did not have any of the same genes found in 17 wolves collected from the Great Lakes area between 1905 and 1912. Unlike the 17 100-year-old wolf samples, none of the 68 more recent wolves tested were all wolf.

The realization that protected wolf subspecies have been replaced with a Duke’s mixture of mongrel canids shocked many who read it for the first time, including the media. But when the media contacted Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team Leader Rolph Peterson for his comments concerning the “startling news”, he said they had known all along that the wolves were cross breeding with coyotes.

In fact both Peterson and wolf expert David Mech were members of Professor Wayne’s research team 17 years earlier when they published their conclusion that wolves in the wild often bred dogs or coyotes that produced fertile offspring. A 1970 study report by Mech was cited to help support that 1990 conclusion.

Mech Provided 24 Alleged North American Wolf Sub-species to American Society of Mammalogists in 1974

On May 2, 1974, the ASM published a list of 24 North American wolf subspecies provided by Mech, which was originally produced by Goldman from 1929-1941. Although many taxonomists argue there is only one gray wolf species, or at best a handful of gray wolf subspecies, having such a long list would have allowed more wolves to be listed as threatened or endangered in more locations.

Dr. Val Geist has often explained to hostile judges and lawyers that a different subspecies, regardless of changes in body size and/or appearance, can only exist if there is a genetic adaptation to a different environment. Temporary changes in appearance, body size, etc. occurring because of a change in environment, but not involving changes in genes, are simply adjustments that will be reversed after a few generations if the species returns to its original environment.

In a 1992 article in Great Britain’s prestigious Nature magazine, Geist warned that taxonomists’ failure to correctly identify species and subspecies would allow lawyers and judges to determine what species or subspecies are legal, and allow them to decide which listings will be protected. During the next 22 years, Geist and other senior scientists continued to publish the criteria for listing subspecies, but their expert advice has been largely ignored.

In Response to criticisms that some of the wolves on Mech’s 1974 ASM list did not qualify as separate subspecies, he agreed yet nothing changed. During the two decades before Canadian wolves were transplanted into Idaho and Yellowstone Park, Department of Interior solicitors (lawyers) changed the number of listed Gray Wolf subspecies to from five to only a single species.

Citizens often asked, “If there is only one or even a handful of grey wolf subspecies and biologists say there are up to 65,000 in North America, why are they endangered?” The vague answer was, “They create healthy ecosystems.”

Wolf/Dog Hybrids Officially Not Protected

In 1996 FWS began promoting a proposed rule to protect wolf hybrids if the hybrid’s actions and appearance resemble the parent that is being protected. But the proposal was never finalized so FWS withdrew it in February of 2001, and issued an official statement that wolf/dog hybrids would never be protected.

Throughout the West, that official position on wolf hybrids has been more or less adhered to. For example in Montana in 2006, two sheep ranchers in the Jordan, area experienced heavy adult ewe losses plus about a 60% reduction in their lamb crop.

When the predator was verified to be a wolf, they each filed claims exceeding $20,000 in losses. But a DNA test reported it was a hybrid and neither claim was paid.

Further proof of biologists’ objection to the existence of hybrid wolves in the wild was seen in the NE corner of Washington State in March of 2014.

After learning that a large sheep guard dog had climbed a seven-foot “non-climbable” orchard fence twice to be with two female wolves in heat, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife biologists used a helicopter and a dart gun to capture the two radio-collared wolves to see if either wolf was pregnant. One pregnancy was confirmed, and WDFW Large Carnivore Manager Donny Martorello explained to the media that spaying her immediately was a better choice than trying to catch and kill all of the pups later after they were born.

But if the second female wolf was bred by the guard dog near the end of her estrous cycle, not enough time had passed for either ultrasound or blood tests to determine possible pregnancy. And what about other female wolves in heat where there are no high fences to keep them from mingling with other tame dogs?

Genetic Identification Required to Prove It’s a Wolf

X-Rays of a 97-pound wolf-like carcass found on private property and reported by a rancher in Oregon’s Grande Ronde Valley in March of 2012 did not establish the cause of death. An Oregon newspaper article later claimed that if DNA tests showed it was a wolf-dog hybrid, it was perfectly legal for an Oregon landowner or his/her agent to kill it. But if it contained only wolf genes, killing it was a “Class A” misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of one year in Jail and a maximum fine of $6,250.

Six weeks later, on May 3, 2012, newspapers from Maine to Oregon carried versions of the same story. A reported necropsy (autopsy) of the carcass by IDFG at Idaho’s Wildlife Health Lab in Caldwell, Idaho determined the death was caused by a “person” committing “a criminal act.”

On July 12, 2012 the Oregon State Police issued a bulletin that University of Idaho DNA testing proved it was a gray wolf that originated from the Imnaha, Oregon Pack, and solicited information about the killing from the public.

We see other “news” stories describing incidents in the West that match one of the three examples cited above. Yet with all of the opportunities wolf biologists have to collect samples for molecular DNA analysis, none appear willing to provide that information to the citizens who pay for management.

“Distinct Population” Wolf Designation by FWS – An Attempt to Cover up Extinction and Wolf Hybrids

By 2003, it was obvious to FWS that the New England wolf subspecies it had listed as endangered no longer existed. And once the word got out concerning the listed Great Lakes wolf subspecies that was now a crossbred mixture of Canadian and U.S. wolves and western coyotes including some dog genes, the mess it had created needed a quick solution.

Although FWS had proposed to list the Great Lakes and Northeastern wolves as separate small “Distinct Population Segments” in 2000, in 2003 it decided to try to “solve” the mushrooming mess it had created by down-listing all gray wolves in most of the lower 48 states. To do this, it proposed changing “Subspecies” gray wolf designations to the following three “DPSs” in the April 1, 2003 Federal Register:

1. Eastern Gray Wolf DPS – included all states in the East and Midwest, except for all or parts of 16 southern and eastern states that gray wolves reportedly did not occupy historically.

2. Western Gray Wolf DPS – included the remaining states in the West.

3. Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS – included the endangered Wolves in Mexico and small portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Wolf Activists’ Proposal Rejected by FWS

In that same Federal Register, FWS proposed that all of the gray wolves in the Eastern and Western DPSs that were still listed as “Endangered” would be downgraded to “Threatened”, with the intention to de-list them next. Wolf activists, who had been pretty much “calling the shots” in return for their support, told FWS they would not sue if it agreed to restore the separate 2000 DPS proposal to recover the Northeastern Timber Wolf.

FWS responded that the few “wolf-like” animals that were occasionally seen in the Northeast were either: dogs, coyotes, or wolf hybrids. It refused to return to its 2000 proposal so the activists sued.

Federal Courts in Oregon and Vermont Voided the FWS Scheme with Its Large DPSs

In 2005, two Federal District Court Judges, first in Oregon and eight months later in Vermont, sided with the Plaintiffs (wolf activists). They found that in 1978 FWS had used its authority to declare that gray wolves were endangered throughout their former range in at least 21 Eastern states and all or portions of 19 states in the West.

They also found that the FWS had not used sound science in creating the two large DPSs, but was using them as an excuse to illegally downlist and then delist gray wolves in most of the “Lower 48” states.
Both courts found that by claiming that gray wolf recovery in three Great Lakes states and three Northern Rocky Mountain states satisfied the FWS requirement for restoring the gray wolves in all 40 or so states where it had listed them as “Endangered,” was a willful action to ignore the ESA.

FWS argued the ESA did not require it to restore wolves where they no longer existed. Yet it had claimed just the opposite in the 1978 Federal Register when it suddenly listed nonexistent gray wolves as “Endangered” in more than two million square miles of the Lower 48.

At the risk of losing the readers I am trying to reach with an article that is too long for many to read in one sitting, it has been suggested that I cite examples of nearly 50 years of wolf research reports, Federal Registers and news releases to provide undisputed facts needed in order to understand and correct “the mess” that exists.

The Mess FWS Created – and Congress Approved

References to “The mess FWS created” began when Congress passed the Endangered Species Protection Act of 1966. In 1967 FWS decided to restore two subspecies of grey wolves that it said already existed in the Northern Rockies and the Great Lakes area.

In 1974, following passage of the new Endangered Species Act, FWS listed two wolf subspecies as endangered in five states, and as threatened in Minnesota. In 1976 it added two more subspecies, the so-called “red wolf” in the Southeast, and a gray wolf that reportedly had existed in Texas.

But in 1978 it suddenly ignored subspecies and listed the Gray Wolf as endangered in all but Minnesota in the lower 48 States. Declaring that extinct wolves have been “endangered” in the Lower 48 States for the past 37 years, yet with no chance to recover the non-hybrid wolf species that became extinct, is the mess with no solution that FWS created and Congress tacitly approved.

McClure, No Wolf Protection Outside of Core Areas

Idaho’s late U.S. Senator Jim McClure voted yes on all of the FWS wolf proposals and in 1988 he told the media, “Wolves are a natural part of an ecosystem that will function better with their presence.” But despite reports indicating there were already wolf packs and reproduction in both Idaho and Montana, FWS still had not submitted its revised plan to transplant Canadian wolves just into Yellowstone National Park.

In April 1990 McClure authored a bill to introduce a nonessential experimental population of wolves into YNP, and into core areas in Glacier National Park and the Idaho wilderness areas. It would have imported three breeding pairs in each location and removed all wolves from listing (protection) outside of those three core areas.

His legislation was strongly supported by wolf supporters in the media, and by most of the wolf activist groups, including Defenders of Wildlife. Although a few objected to the initial introduction of only three breeding pairs in each core area, they boldly publicized the fact that this could easily be increased later if it became necessary.

Ranchers, hunters and legislators in Idaho and Wyoming did not trust the McClure bill despite the fact it only protected wolves inside the boundaries of three small core wolf areas. McClure’s Wolf Bill failed to pass but it provided FWS with the incentive to introduce wolves, but without McClure’s citizen protection outside of core areas.

A New Committee with a New Federal Wolf Plan

In Nov. of 1990, Congress directed appointment of a federal Wolf Management Committee, composed of three Federal and three State members plus four members representing special interests, to develop a new FWS plan for wolf introduction in Yellowstone Park and the Central Idaho wilderness areas. Most of those Committee members, including Idaho Fish and Game Director Jerry Conley, strongly supported severe FWS penalties for anyone who even threw a rock in the direction of wolves attacking their livestock!

As with all such committees representing diverse interests, the few members who disagreed with the extreme penalties and could not be convinced to support them were simply outvoted by the carefully chosen majority. Once the FWS plan was approved, Conley hired fledgling Montana wolf biologist Jon Rachael to help him convince Idaho’s 7-member Wolf Oversight Committee to copy the new FWS wolf plan in an Idaho Wolf Plan.

Conley also hired Montana biologist Jerome Hansen, a co-author of the 1984 Kaminski-Hansen Idaho wolf-prey study, and assigned him to help Rachael provide its 10-year-old deer and elk population statistics to the FWS Wolf Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Wolf Oversight Committee and FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs Refused to Correct Exaggerated Prey Claims
Massive Central Idaho mule deer and elk losses resulted from sustained over-harvesting during the 10 years following the 1984 Kaminski-Hansen research, and from IDFG refusal to use its dedicated emergency feeding fund properly during the extreme 1992-93 winter. But instead of using current 1993 and 1994 helicopter counts in the Wolf EIS, Idaho biologists used the 10-year-old information that was now grossly inaccurate.

As chairman of the Boise County Wildlife and Endangered Species Committee, I presented IDFG, FWS and the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee (WOC) with IDFG records showing the radical decline in the average total deer and elk density by 1993. But instead of complying with our request to halt the excessive harvest, IDFG added another 2,150 bonus deer permits and 3,955 bonus elk permits to 1993 Idaho hunting seasons.
And instead of correcting the Wolf EIS, as we requested in both 1993 and 1994, FWS and the IDFG biologists continued to publish the much larger figures from the 1984 study – claiming they were from 1994.

WOC Member Clower Told Us Lying was Justified

On Feb. 17, 1994, WOC member Don Clower arranged a meeting with Vice-Chairman Sandy Donley and me an hour before we were scheduled to testify before Rep. Golden Linford’s House Resources Committee. He told us Linford had suggested he come and talk to us (not verified) and Clower asked us not to air F&G’s “dirty linen” at the hearing.

In response to our questions, he said the WOC was aware that the deer and elk populations in the EIS were highly exaggerated. But he claimed that was necessary to “support” the rapid build-up of wolves that would occur in the FWS Nonessential Experimental Recovery option.

Both Clower and retired Boise Forest Supervisor Jack Lavin were appointed to the WOC by Conley. On March 19, 1994, WOC Co-Chairman Lavin sent a letter to FWS Wolf Team Leader Ed Bangs stating, “We would prefer wolf introduction with experimental status to no wolf introduction…”

In the August 16, 1994 Federal Register Bangs wrote: “Millions of acres of public lands contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates (Service 1994) and currently provide more than enough habitat to support a recovered wolf population in central Idaho.”

On Sept. 27, 1994 during the final FWS hearing on its plan to transplant Canadian wolves into Idaho, I spent an intermission with Bangs asking him to explain why he wrote “…contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates (Service 1994)” when he had proof it had not been true for 10 years – if ever. He responded that Congress had not yet approved funding for transplanting Canadian wolves, and said if it learned there were not enough elk and deer to maintain 100+ wolves, it would not fund the transplant.

Conley’s Written Support of the Strict FWS Wolf Plan and Permit Approving Five Years of Wolf Transplants Gave FWS Permission to Release Wolves in Idaho

At the same Sept. 27, 1994 FWS hearing by Bangs, IDFG Director Conley brazenly violated I. C. Sec. 36-107 by secretly providing Bangs with a signed and dated letter stating:

“For the record I would like to take this time to acknowledge our support for the Experimental Rules on proposed establishment of nonessential, experimental populations of gray wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Specifically, a nonessential, experimental population area would be established in Idaho through regulation by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act. In accordance with the Experimental Rule, we will work with the FWS, to the extent allowed by Idaho law, to reintroduce wolves from British Columbia and/or Alberta into the Idaho experimental population area.

“If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don’t hesitate to call me or one of my staff working on the wolf recovery program.”

A permit addressed to Bangs on that same day, authorized the release of a maximum of 15 wolves per year for up to five years from B.C. or Alberta, Canada at jointly agreeable Idaho release sites. It was signed and dated under Conley’s typewritten name and title by F&G Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker.

Conley Approved the Strict Plan He Helped Write

In other words, Conley signed unconditional Idaho approval of a federal wolf plan that allowed penalties of up to a $50,000 fine and/or one year in the penitentiary for ranchers who committed any one of multiple “offenses” they were not allowed to use to protect their livestock from “nonessential experimental” wolves in the act of killing them – even on their private property.

The Plan’s refusal to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves, or for reduced calf production and decline in weight gains from stress caused by wolves, was an obvious “taking” without compensation. And the candid admission by FWS biologists that there were more than 60,000 gray wolves in Canada and Alaska indicate they were neither endangered nor threatened.

The FWS Wolf Plan that Conley helped draft in 1990 also ignored the rural citizen protections that were part of the previous proposal. This became obvious when official requests from Ada, Owyhee and Boise Counties for inclusion of protections in the Idaho Wolf Plan were rejected by Jon Rachael, and publicly ridiculed by Don Clower.

Boise County Got Protection for Other Animals

But our County Endangered Species Committee continued to insist that other domestic animals (e.g. fowl, swine, goats, etc.) and pets (i.e. dogs or cats) on private land receive the same degree of protection as other livestock (i.e. cattle, sheep, horses and mules).

The FWS Final Rule published in the Federal Register on Nov. 22, 1994 included statements that a wolf attack on domestic animals taking place on private property twice within a one year period, after five or six breeding pairs of wolves had been documented, would result in declaring it as a problem wolf and it would be removed from the area. Another attack by the same wolf would result in removal from the wild or killing.

Today, with wolves delisted, owners or agents of domestic animals including pets have authority to kill wolves that present a threat to their animals on private property without obtaining permission from any agency.

Idaho Citizens and Their Elected Representatives Knew That F&G Officials Strongly Supported Recovery

It was no secret to anyone involved in the wolf issue, including Idaho legislators, that every IDFG official at the state or regional level strongly supported wolf recovery. That is why the Idaho Legislature included the following language in Idaho Code Sec. 36-715 in 1988, “Duties of the department of fish and game regarding the endangered species act:

“(1) Since wolf-dog hybridizations are known to exist in Idaho—and are not protected by the U.S. endangered species act, a biological evaluation shall be required of the animal to determine priority before IDFG may take action in accordance with the United States ESA.

(2) The department of fish and game shall not be authorized to expend funds, transfer assets, or enter into a cooperative agreement with any agency, department or entity of the U.S. government concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.

“(3) If a wolf is sighted, the burden of proof concerning the reported presence of a wolf within Idaho shall rest with the observer and the IDFG shall take no action to enforce the U.S. ESA regarding wolves in the absence of that proof.” concerning the reported presence of a wolf within Idaho shall rest with the observer and the IDFG shall take no action to enforce the U.S. ESA regarding wolves in the absence of that proof.”

Although the language restricting IDFG from participating in wolf management was eventually removed to support the legislature’s 2002 Idaho Wolf Plan, creation of the Governor’s “Office of Species Conservation” in 2000 gave the authority to negotiate ESA agreements with federal agencies to OSC – not to IDFG. It also required IDFG to work with the OSC Administrator – the primary voice in endangered species management decisions.

In other words, IDFG officials have not had legal authority to do what Conley and Reinecker did without legislative or OSC approval since early 1988 – nearly seven years before they committed the illegal acts.

Bombshell by Three of Seven WOC Voting Members Was Too Late to Undo Conley Letters to FWS

Copies of Conley’s letter to Bangs were sent to the members of the Wolf Oversight Committee. After a majority of four voting members declined to challenge his illegal actions, the minority of three voting and one non-voting member sent a strongly-worded four-page letter to the Gray Wolf Reintroduction HQ in Helena, Montana.

It was signed by WOC Co-Chairman George Bennett and by members Ted Hoffman, DVM, Stan Boyd, Idaho Woolgrowers, and non-voting member Lois VanHoover from the Independent Miners Association.

The letter stated that many hunters and hunter organizations had contacted them and expressed bitter opposition to the proposed plan because it allowed a wildlife experiment with the potential to plunder Idaho ungulate herds with no certain controls on the results. No provision was made for reversal in the event of excessive wolf numbers, and the assumption was made that wolf recovery is desirable contrary to historical outcomes.

The letter also stated the four signers’ belief that the proposed rule was illegal, failing to fulfill the requirements of Sec. 6 of the ESA which required cooperation with the states to the maximum extent practicable, and Sec. 17 50 CFR which required agreement to the maximum extent practicable.

It charged that the consultation and cooperation by FWS has been inadequate or nonexistent. It listed two pages of deficiencies that must be corrected to prevent the four WOC members from recommending to Idaho legislators that they reject the FWS proposal and retain the existing language in I.C. Sec. 36-715 that prohibited the IDFG from participating in any wolf recovery activities without approval of the legislature.

Their letter said they would urge the legislature to further prohibit any state agency from any activity supporting the federal wolf recovery effort and that also happened when FWS ignored their request. At that point, FWS NRM Wolf Recovery Official Ed Bangs had the consent he needed from Idaho to introduce Canadian wolves, but the opportunity to get Congressional funding was apparently lost.

FWS whistle-blower Jim Beers, whose past duties included apportioning the Pittman-Robertson funding to the states, later testified twice to Congress that FWS stole $45-$60 million of P-R excise taxes from the states and used part of the stolen money to fund the trapping and transplanting of Canadian wolves into Idaho and YNP.

Reader Seeks Proof and Takes It to Post Falls Commission Meeting to Get Answers

When one of my Outdoorsman articles reported the restriction in Idaho Code Sec. 36-715(2) prohibiting IDFG from entering into any cooperative agreement with any federal agency concerning wolves, and discussed the illegal letter and permit written by Conley, a reader from North Idaho sent me a letter asking if I had proof of this.

I mailed him photocopies of the documents and he brought them to the next F&G Commission hearing in Post Falls, demanding an explanation of why Conley was allowed to disobey the law. When former Director Steve Mealey was hired to replace Conley who was forced to resign, he explained why Idaho would not have wolves if Conley had not authorized FWS to bring them here.

But Mealey was no longer living in Idaho so F&G Commissioner Randy Budge, a lawyer, claimed that Idaho was going to get wolves anyway “because they were forced on us by the federal government.” He had already tried that excuse in testimony before the House Resources Committee but Rep. JoAn Wood firmly corrected him.

Yet during the January 2010 Commission meeting, Budge insisted the information provided by citizens at two previous hearings was not accurate and encouraged his fellow Commissioners to have a fact sheet to distribute before each hearing “proving” the charges were inaccurate.

Commissioner Wheeler Sets the Record Straight

At that point Commissioner Cameron Wheeler said, “I’d like to shed a little light on it. There was a document signed by Conley at that time and I’ve read it and I know a couple of Commissioners that were on the Commission at that time – they did not give him the authority to do that, but it was signed and I’ve seen it – several legislators got it. So that’s where this comes from.

“You can like it or not like it, but that’s the truth. The feds had to have some agency that was willing to put their ‘John Henry’ on it, that’s what he did. It’ll never die.”

Commissioner Wheeler was asked, “Cameron, was the agreement that he signed they were going to introduce them whether we like it or not and so this was an agreement we will participate in management?” Wheeler responded: “No. The agreement that he signed was an agreement to cooperate in the introduction.”

None of the other Commissioners had any personal knowledge of the history of wolf recovery but despite Wheeler’s explanation of the facts to them, three insisted on handing out a “fact” sheet with limited information before each public meeting to stop the public from lambasting the Commission – rather than admitting what actually happened.

Another Commissioner asked Wheeler, “So you agree that perhaps more disclosure might be best – and state all the facts – put as much sunshine on it as we can – and present that and live with it as a principle rather than, as Randy said, try to not necessarily hide it but to disclose less than the whole story?”
Groen interrupted Wheeler before he could answer and proceeded to verbally attack the individuals and groups who brought the issue up and said they weren’t interested in hearing facts. Trying to prevent full disclosure which could also have incriminated him, Groen said:

“And regarding that letter that came up at Post Falls – what that letter was, it states that we did not want to get ‘em (i.e. wolves) and we stood strong there for when they were ready to be put in no matter what. It was a letter that would keep our authority and the Director at that time signed that letter – I guess you’d call it, Jim, a ‘Transport Permit’ or whatever – and it was ‘kinda’ just to try to keep our hands in it.”

A small part of Groen’s claim was partly true concerning the desire to keep “their authority” – but they had absolutely no authority for years – only responsibility to assist in preparation of an Idaho Wolf Plan. The claim that Conley’s letter stated that F&G did not want to get wolves was simply a lie.

I’m Not Real Sure We Want to Get in the Way of Truth

During the years that I attended Commission meetings, I often watched a similar scenario unfold. With the exception of Directors Greenley and Mealey, every Director or Acting Director manipulated the Commission to pass only those rules supported by IDFG, and quickly did whatever was necessary, including lying, to change the discussion if it appeared to be headed the wrong way.

Groen was brought to Idaho by Conley to organize and operate the Idaho chapter of The Nature Conservancy’s “NatureServe” international data base of Endangered and Threatened species. More than half of the total cost was paid for with license fees or excise tax dollars from hunters and the name was changed from “Natural Heritage Program” to “Natural Resource Policy Division” to make it sound more like a legitimate bureau hunters would support.

Wheeler stated, “The decision (by IDFG to help introduce wolves) really runs deep into the fiber of both the sportsmen and policy makers of this state.” He questioned use of a document on sportsmen who come to Commission meetings and said, “I’m not real sure that we want to get in the way of the truth.”

But, without bringing it up as a motion to be voted on, Commissioners Tony McDermott and Budge insisted the handout was a good idea and Chairman Wayne Wright directed Groen to prepare the handout advising they would use it with discretion.

Yet the minutes concerning consideration of the wolf testimony the following morning contained only two sentences:

1. “Comments about wolves and elk and the frustration people are feeling.”

2. “There is concern on inaccurate information from the public regarding wolves; suggestions of a fact statement regarding the history of wolves to be read at the beginning of a Commission meeting.”

In the next issue of The Outdoorsman – No. 38 – I published photocopies of Conley’s letter and permit, the appropriate Code Section prohibiting what he did, and part of the 4-page letter from the minority of Wolf Oversight Committee members citing the numerous requirements for protection of citizens that were ignored by FWS and IDFG.

F&G responded in its “Wolf Management/Status Timeline online by listing abbreviated comments regarding Idaho Code changes that confuse – rather than enlighten. Then it provided links to Conley’s Sept. 27, 1994 letter to Bangs emphasizing that IDFG will work with FWS “only” to the extent allowed by Idaho Law, to reintroduce wolves into Idaho under the experimental population rules.

Do people not realize that the entire letter violated Idaho law?

And the link to the Special Permit signed by Tom Reinecker says it was a courtesy by IDFG issued in accordance with state law and with the Idaho Wolf Plan currently being drafted by IDFG and the WOC.

In my opinion that is similar to a banker who is charged by law with protecting his depositors’ money, giving a permit to a gang of thieves to come in once a year and rob the bank.

There was no mention in the Permit of a plan “being drafted.” In fact a state wolf plan was not approved by the Idaho Legislature until 7-1/2 years later. Yet instead of admitting it violated Idaho law in its Timeline, IDFG blames the legislature and, by inference, the minority members of the Wolf Oversight Committee for the fact that it did not get to “manage” wolves sooner.

Even after Conley was forced to resign, given six months severance pay and hired as Director of the Missouri Conservation Dept., his co-conspirators in IDFG continued to sacrifice elk and deer to protect wolves and promote non-consumptive wildlife recreation. During the past nine years 11 IDFG Department heads, including Ex-Deputy Director Jim Unsworth and Sharon Kiefer, have taken a special nine-month course including two weeks at the FWS MAT training center in Shepherdstown W. Va.

They are now part of an “elite” national team of “NCLI Fellows” you will read about in The Outdoorsman.

Dingoes = Wolves = Coyotes = Dogs

By James Beers:

Dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs are all Canids. The name Canid comes from the Genus name Canis. All four of these animals are called species within the Genus Canis: Dingoes (Canis dingo); Wolves (Canis lupus); Coyotes (Canis latrans); and Dogs (Canis familiaris) but that identification of these as four “species” is misleading.

Species is a term that historically referred to animals with similar characteristics and the ability to freely interbreed and produce viable offspring. For instance, horses and mules are similar and do interbreed but their offspring are infertile and thus horses and mules are separate species. Our four “species” however (dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs) share similar characteristics, interbreed freely, and produce viable offspring. A dingo (despite their absence outside Australia) breeding with a wolf or a coyote or a dog will birth or sire pups with shared genes and behavioral tendencies of the parents. Theses pups will grow to adulthood and similarly have viable offspring from breeding with any of the other “species”. They will be as recognizable as to parentage of say a Lab crossed with a Golden retriever or a Staffordshire terrier (AKA Pit Bull) crossed with a Doberman. In addition to these outward similarities, behavioral tendencies like the unpredictability of Chows or the aggressiveness of Dobermans will likewise occur in the offspring of say a wolf crossed with a dog or a dingo crossed with a coyote.

Dingoes are Canids that were probably introduced to Australia by aboriginal immigrants many centuries ago. Question: Ask your favorite “Native Ecosystem” enthusiast, if dingoes were brought to Australia by aborigines; are they – the dingoes and the aborigines – “Native”???). But I digress. Dingoes are yellowish-brown “dogs” or “Canids” that are the size of a medium to small German shepherd. When covered in a semi thick coat of fur they appear like a lean Shepherd-type dog, and when covered in a short hair they look like a lean pointy-faced hound dog with upright ears like wolves and coyotes. Dingoes travel in groups and behave very much like wolves. They are bold and very dangerous predators that (in Australia) kill many sheep, “rabbits, kangaroos and emus” as well as children and elderly people. Anyone doubting this last need look no further than the somewhat recent case of the camping Australian family whose little boy disappeared and the mother was charged and found guilty of (killing?, abandoning? I am unsure) the child and sent to prison. Only after an appeal and thorough investigation was it clearly determined that dingoes or a dingo in the campground had killed and carried off the child to be devoured in some remote location. Just like wolves in India and coyotes and cougars attacking a child for food, it is not at all uncommon for the predator to lunge at the child after approaching quietly as close as possible and then seizing them by the neck to crush or break their neck and asphyxiate them, if still necessary: it is also not uncommon for a child so attacked to make no sound.

The news article below concerns a 5600 kilometer (3,480 mile) long fence that has for decades represented an attempt to seal off the SE ¼ of Australia FROM DINGOES. Like Europeans and North Americans of times past, Australians have sought to eradicate or at least minimize the dangers and costs of having to live with these dangerous and destructive “Canids” or predators in the settled or being-settled landscapes of Australia. Anyone denying the facts as understood by those LIVING WITH THESE ANIMALS DAY TO DAY is seriously and ignorantly meddling in the lives of others instead of respecting their fellow-citizens’ rights to what Americans refer to as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Dingoes, like wolves, do not belong in settled landscapes for many reasons.

European history back to and beyond the days of Sparta and Athens were centuries of necessary and persistent wolf control until wolves were little more than occasional wandering remnants. Islands like Britain and Ireland finally exterminated wolves much to the delight of the rich, the poor and their rural economies.

North American is replete with the dangers and destruction that wolves presented to aboriginal Americans as well as European settlers and American and Canadian farmers, ranchers and other rural residents. With one or two minor exceptions, wolves were exterminated throughout the Lower 48 USA States by World War I and were being kept at tolerable levels or exterminated by government and private control in much of Canada that bordered the Lower 48 States and certain Maritime Island Provinces where farms, ranches and villages prevailed.

Russia and most of Asia have hosted the largest concentrations of wolves in the world from sweltering Indian villages across Central Asian scrublands to the forests of Siberia. To this day, wolves kill many people every year as well as destroy precious reindeer and other livestock and the dogs used as watchdogs for people and flocks. Dramatic controls like this Australian fence and techniques like killer dogs, poisons, shooting, traps, posses and other innovations have always been in short supply in these countries where weapons were banned; dictators Religious rulers and Czars kept rural people in helpless societies; and where effective, large-scale wolf controls have always been short-lived and susceptible to quick replacement of controlled wolf areas by the constant influx of wolves from robust wolf populations in surrounding areas.

Until recently, Europe, Asia and North Americans were in complete agreement with Australians about the undesirable nature of these large Canid predators in settled landscapes, especially where men and women are forced to go about unarmed. While Russians and Central Asians agree with these views to this day, when told of European and North American actions to introduce and protect wolves they are as stunned as if they were told that Americans were foregoing oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power in favor of windmills or that Europeans were happy with and celebrating the steady increase in livestock deaths, dog deaths and mental instability of European grazers (that support rural economies, reduce fire dangers, and manage European plant communities for many purposes like erosion control and suppression of undesirable plants by grazing their flocks) resulting from wolf increases in both population and habitats across Europe.

This recent wolf worship (the correct word) has spawned a fantasy/science library of articles by grant and publicity-seeking “scientists” claiming “discoveries” of wolf benefits like “wolves change rivers” by killing big game animals and dispersing remaining animals from river banks thus causing trees and shrubs to proliferate as well as “Native” fish, animals like frogs and plants like Indian paintbrush. I call this pseudo-“science” Romance Biology. Unmentioned in these writings are always:

* The loss of big game hunting and the revenue it once provided to conservation programs by wolf activities.

* The dangers to human safety from the recent wolf attack in a Minnesota campground to the deaths of a schoolteacher on the Alaskan Peninsula and a young Canadian man in Saskatchewan. The impact on children, the elderly and families is enormous.

* The loss of livestock and ranches to wolf predation.

* The huge loss of dogs of all stripes to wolf attacks.

* The financial losses to rural communities, rural businesses, rural families and rural government revenue and authority.

As an American, I am always fascinated (less and less of late) by American innovations copied by others. Europeans are grinding out Romance Biology lies as more and more justifications are needed both in the popular media and as justification for more and continued wolf protection in the face of increasing death and destruction from the wolves.

Now, I can add the Australians as copying this propaganda technique that I call Romance Biology. Note the last three paragraphs of the following short article replete with pictures. A professor at the University of Sydney claims that “reintroduced and existing dingo populations” will “restore the balance of nature” (a meaningless term).

The final picture below is a cleverly (just like in the US and now Europe) worded bit of anti-human society propaganda. The composer (very likely an environmental or animal “rights’” radical group) would have us believe that dingoes (or wolves or coyotes or feral dogs or cougars, etc.) killing all manner of wildlife and livestock is both good and offsets any destruction, mayhem or human pain or death otherwise inflicted by these Canids.

Whenever you see this dingoes increase “the biodiversity of small mammals, lizards, and grasses’ or wolves “change rivers” Romance Biology, ask yourself and anyone believing this, “And your point is?”

Any area can have more or less biodiversity and that is to be expected where man lives and raises his family. The priority should always be the welfare and benefit of man, saying that man must abandon places or community supports simply for the sake of more “small mammals, lizards and grasses” is both silly and a declaration that man and his needs are inferior to any and every mix of plants and animals desired by the rich and powerful. Our challenge is to create and maintain a high standard of living for all persons while simultaneously providing for the endurance of all species and a rich biodiversity of plants and animals WHEREVER POSSIBLE. The dingo/wolf et al enthusiast refutes the “simultaneously” part of the equation and ultimately substitutes “primarily” thereby making their “Native”, “Ecosystem”, “Ecology first” mantra superior to man and his society. That is not only nature “worship” it is the rule if tyrants based on their visions of “nature.

For instance, if riverbank diversity was so valuable (assuming wolves, dingoes et al really do what they say, an assumption akin to climate change justifying population control, and the justification on one world government without any checks or balances) why weren’t hunters simply told to kill more grazing wild animals over the years and then manage the remainder in consonance with human activities and “biodiversity” targets? Anyone that thinks unregulated predation that cyclically varies wildly as do the prey, the predators and the resulting “biodiversity” is in any sense comparable to continuous wildlife management of all species is incapable of grasping the issue in any understandable manner. The real answer is that the dingo/wolf et al protection is meant to ultimately vacate the rural landscape and convert it to closed-to-the-public real estate run by bureaucrats and managed for the benefit of powerful interest groups, the rich and politicians.

I am reminded of a luncheon I attended almost 20 years ago in Brussels. I was sitting next to a Russian (actually a western Siberian with the look of a Greenlander or Northern Alaskan) wildlife expert. He was from Magadan on the Pacific coast near the Kamchatka Peninsula. He leaned over and said to me in a low voice, “Beers, can I ask you a question?” I said sure, and he said, “Is it true that you are putting wolves back into areas where they were exterminated years ago and protecting them?” Somewhat embarrassingly I answered, “Yes that is true.” He shook his head and mumbled to me. “How did you ever win the Cold War?”

What a world when a guy from Siberia tells a guy from Illinois that our people are nuts; and the Illinois guy could do no more than nod and shrug his shoulders in agreement.

That Siberian and I have more in common with those that built the Australian fence than all the expert Romance Biology “experts that invent diversions and lies about things that do not matter, be they “scientific papers” or “signs”. Unless and until the autonomy of Local communities to determine what plants and what animals in what mixes are to exist in THEIR community and how that mix is to be maintained; this rule of far-off dictators, interest groups and bureaucracies will only sit and grow like mushrooms after a rain. Local authority like this has only existed intermittently for millenniums in Europe and Asia: it has only existed in Australia and North America for a few centuries and it is disappearing right before our eyes as you read this. The real trick is to enable the humans that live with these animals to manage them for their own good and to permanently abolish the ability of far-off governments to rule the rural people, in their broadest sense, on behalf of the fantasies and imaginings of rich and powerful blocs with both obvious and hidden agendas.

Jim Beers
23 March 2015

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