July 31, 2014

Idaho Allows Destruction of Game Herds, Then Discounts Tags

IDFGLogoIt is said that insanity is repeating the same process over and over and each time hoping for a different outcome. I think the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG) has gone insane.

IDFG has decided to offer discounted tag prices for second or surplus elk and deer tags. From the IDFG website, this is the reason they give for discounting the tags:

Q. Why the discount?

A. The Commission wanted to encourage more hunters to take advantage of additional hunting options that second tags provide. The sale of nonresident deer and elk tags provide significant revenue to fund the field operations of the Fish and Game Department. Reductions in nonresident tag sales since 2008 have resulted in less revenue to fund important management activities. Discounting these second tags will provide a mechanism for hunters who wish to increase their hunting options to also help recover necessary funding for important Fish and Game programs and operation.(emphasis added)

The real question of course should be why aren’t hunters buying tags? Another question would be; if IDFG has destroyed game herds by allowing for the protection and perpetuity of gray wolves, then why isn’t IDFG taking responsibility and reducing their department in numbers and size to stay in line with their failures to provide game for hunting as Idaho statute requires? Is there even ANY thought that their own department policies is what has driven hunters away and that is why they can’t sell tags?

With a seriously reduced game population and IDFG scrambling to find ways to fund their ineptitude, they have the audacity to claim that selling “unused” tags will have no affect on game herds(kind of reminds me of when these same fools claimed that 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs would have no affect on game herds):

Q. How will this affect game populations?

A. The level of harvest resulting from the issuance of unsold nonresident tags as second tags would be very similar to harvest occurring if the nonresident tag quotas were sold out to hunters prior to being made available as second tags.

In areas where population estimates or harvest rates fall below management objectives, seasons are adjusted accordingly. For example, hunting opportunity may be limited by shorter seasons, controlled hunts, or zone level tag quotas sold over the counter. These second tags cannot be used in controlled hunts and must fit within the nonresident portion of the existing tag cap levels.

Second tags may be used in hunts where there are currently no restrictions on the number of general deer or elk tags sold to Idaho residents in any given year or where their use would be included in previously established nonresident zone caps for elk. There are currently about 143,000 deer and 86,000 elk tags sold in Idaho each year.

Second tags will represent a very small proportion of the total tags available to hunters statewide and Fish and Game does not anticipate any negative effects to game populations as a result of a small level of overall increased harvest resulting from second tags.

So now it is official. IDFG manages their game populations according to the need to make payroll and fund their environmentally empowered programs of continued destruction of game herd against surplus harvest as required by law.

And where is the outrage?

Alaskan Romance Biology

Guest post by James Beers:

Regarding the following drivel presented as a quasi-book review/interview by Emily Schwing about Marybeth Holleman and wolves:

Wolves howl for “joy” like anthropomorphic biologists confuse the very human question (“How many and how much impacts of wolves can or will WE tolerate”) with the very judgmental ideology that somehow wolves are above, or superior to any human concerns.

While it is a testament to a free and prosperous nation that folks like Dr. Haber and Ms. Holleman can somehow spend (actually get paid for) a “lifelong effort to chronicle the lives of wolves”; too often the results are not HOW WE might better live with or manage said wolves, instead it becomes a social infection around which coalesces fevered movements to protect and sanctify the wolves in spite of human needs and desires where wolves exist. Invariably this modern saga is painted as below wherein the villains, i.e. the “old timers” and the “Board of Game” are fomenting a “dark future” for wolves and all that lies between them and Armageddon is the memory of a beloved Doctor, “environmental groups” and a lady’s paean to that memory. All that is missing is the interviewer closing with “Go Girl Go.”

The reality of the presence of wolves; what that means; and what must humans do if they are to live with them is an important matter in constant need of research and (public) dialogue. This romance biology, that is also common in locations like Minnesota and the West Coast States, only quashes dialogue in the ooze of feelings and emotions intended to substitute fantasies in the minds of the widest and most far-away voting blocs to use raw government might on those living with and directly affected by not only wolves but bears and cougars and every other fish, fowl and critter that will:

1. Generate election donations and votes for accommodating politicians.

2. Generate donations for radical organizations and their subsidiaries from lawyers to “specialists.”

3. Generate budget and personnel increases, promotions, autonomy from control, bonuses and increased power to federal bureaucrats.

4. Generate #3 for State bureaucrats.

5. Generate greater and steadier cash flows from government to Universities.

My lifelong passion concerns those affected by wolves and what works and doesn’t work. So I will pass on a book about details concerning wolves and why WE should avoid affecting them despite what those humans being affected believe and experience.

The subject of either people manage wolves or wolves manage people is like the “question” of is a human fetus a “person” or a blob of tissue. Any sentient person know the answer to each question but persons with other agendas bob, weave and deny the answer so often and with such vehemence and threat of government retribution that too many of us stay quiet and watch our children come to believe the unbelievable as we smile and avoid comment. The only thing worse than this romance biology about wolves is the Quisling government “biologist” or the traitorous “hunter’ or “rancher” warbling about how WE should forego any management of wolves because of everything from “they belong or were here first” or “they only eat the old and infirm” to “fladry works” and when their “old and sick” food supply dwindles, they will too.

Take a stand or eventually be run over by these “concerned” romantic’s et al.

Jim Beers
22 July 2014

Predicting Human/Wolf Conflicts

Note: I’m still laughing!


Due to legislative protection, many species, including large carnivores, are currently recolonizing Europe. To address the impending human-wildlife conflicts in advance, predictive habitat models can be used to determine potentially suitable habitat and areas likely to be recolonized. As field data are often limited, quantitative rule based models or the extrapolation of results from other studies are often the techniques of choice. Using the wolf (Canis lupus) in Germany as a model for habitat generalists, we developed a habitat model based on the location and extent of twelve existing wolf home ranges in Eastern Germany, current knowledge on wolf biology, different habitat modeling techniques and various input data to analyze ten different input parameter sets and address the following questions: (1) How do a priori assumptions and different input data or habitat modeling techniques affect the abundance and distribution of potentially suitable wolf habitat and the number of wolf packs in Germany? (2) In a synthesis across input parameter sets, what areas are predicted to be most suitable? (3) Are existing wolf pack home ranges in Eastern Germany consistent with current knowledge on wolf biology and habitat relationships? Our results indicate that depending on which assumptions on habitat relationships are applied in the model and which modeling techniques are chosen, the amount of potentially suitable habitat estimated varies greatly. Depending on a priori assumptions, Germany could accommodate between 154 and 1769 wolf packs. The locations of the existing wolf pack home ranges in Eastern Germany indicate that wolves are able to adapt to areas densely populated by humans, but are limited to areas with low road densities. Our analysis suggests that predictive habitat maps in general, should be interpreted with caution and illustrates the risk for habitat modelers to concentrate on only one selection of habitat factors or modeling technique.<<<Read More>>>

Wolves Are Just So Misunderstood

Nasty rotten events involving wolves that wolf lovers refuse to accept as reality, lead us to this news story. A man, who 56 years ago was attacked by a wolf, begins corrective surgery to fix a disfigured face.<<<Read More>>>

“Vampires That Have Taken the Form of Dogs”

Wolves or vampires? Something is killing goats on a remote island in the Philippines and one mayor has ordered to “shoot those dogs.”

From the Manilla Standard Today:

“SIBALE ISLAND, Romblon—Gov. Eduardo Firmalo has ordered the police “to shoot on sight” an unknown animal that kills goats to suck its blood and eat its heart and liver after a new attack was reported on Saturday, a town official said.

Mayor Lemuel Cipriano said the governor reacted in anger when a resident reported that her pregnant goat and its kid was found dead with its intestines taken out and blood splattered in a coconut grove in Barangay Poblacion.

“Shoot those dogs,” the governor said, referring to the suspected werewolves that killed 211 goats since 2012 in this isolated island in the central Philippines, which can be reached after a six-hour boat ride from the provincial capital of Romblon.

As news of attack spread of the attack on goats spread in across the island, Vincent Fajutagana, a farmer from Barangay Dalajican, reported to the mayor that the predator was about to attack his tethered goat when he arrived and came face to face “with a big, black dog with bloodshot eyes.” The dog fled.”<<<Read More>>>

Impacts of Wolf Hunting/Trapping on Tolerance of the Gray Wolf


The Public Trust Doctrine placed wildlife in trust, via state control and regulation, for the benefit of the people. Managing agencies that lose sight of the importance of public acceptance of predator policies and management actions may find themselves legislatively or judicially subverted. This study examines how the Montana public wolf hunting and trapping seasons have affected tolerance and acceptance of gray wolves (Canis lupus) among rural resident ranchers, hunters, and trappers. Twenty residents from the Blackfoot, Bitterroot, and Ninemile Valleys were qualitatively interviewed over the summer and fall of 2013. Potential participants were initially identified using purposive sampling, with subsequent interviewees located through snowball sampling. The presence or absence of the public wolf hunting and trapping seasons is not the sole determining factor of tolerance or intolerance of wolves in this sample population. The pattern of determinant factors instead more closely represents a web of influence than a direct line of cause and effect. Eight main nodes, or themes, were identified in interview transcription data identified based on frequency of occurrence in interview data and how essential they seemed in shaping attitudes of interviewees: 1) the consequences of political maneuvering (frustration, perceived inequity, and mistrust); 2) the need for management and control of the wolf population; 3) wolf-related impacts to interviewees’ livelihood and way of life; 4) personal beliefs, affects, and attitudes; 5) previous interactions with predators; 6) cultural influences; 7) the place and impact of wolves in the ecosystem; and 8) noted changes in opinion. Most themes were further divided into subthemes, and the connections between all themes and subthemes were examined from there. While the impacts of the seasons have not yet been great or entirely consistent across the sample population, statements made by interviewees suggest that removal of public wolf hunting and trapping liberties would greatly reduce tolerance and acceptance in these interest groups and increase an overall polarization of public opinions. Interview data reveal complex relationships between stakeholders, interest groups, and impacts from wolf re-establishment, as well as complex attitudes towards wolves that often incorporate some level of awe and admiration. Individual’s trust in managing agencies may be critical in moving forward. Data also shows that there will likely be more changes to come in this sample population’s acceptance and tolerance of wolves. Wolf tolerance and acceptance levels should be further monitored in Montana rural resident ranchers, trappers, and big game hunters, the stakeholder groups that are the most directly impacted by and most necessary for continued wolf management and recovery.<<<Download PDF Document>>>

Wolf/Coyote Hybirds Menacing D.C. Suburb Park

“We’ve known for a while that most Eastern coyotes are hybrids to some degree, and now we’re finding a greater degree of hybridization than anyone expected,”<<<Read More>>>

As Wolves Return to Switzerland, Life is Being Destroyed

“The shepherd points out tufts of black wool on the mountain path, evidence of the recent carnage. The wolf has been and gone. The rise in wolf numbers, boosted by a breeding pack, has raised the question whether man and predator can co-exist in Switzerland.”<<<Read More>>>

Wolves Kill 36 Sheep

“Wolves killed 36 sheep in the village of Akhuryan in Armenia’s Shirak province last night, the Ministry of Emergency Situation reported on Wednesday.”<<<Read More>>>

Wolf Slaughters 20 Sheep

“A blood-thirsty wolf in central Sweden went on a killing spree leaving seven animals dead, while a further 13 had to put down as a result of injuries sustained in the attack.”<<<Read More>>>