March 28, 2015

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:

The Fall from the Summit: The truth about the 2011-2014 Idaho Fish and Game Wildlife Summit’s real agenda

By Steve Alder
Executive Director, Idaho For Wildlife

Shortly after IDFG director Virgil Moore was recommended by the commission and appointed to be the new Director of Idaho Fish and Game, he began working on what would become his signature legacy, the IDFG Wildlife Summit.

Even though Moore touted that the summit was just an opportunity to “check in” on Idaho sportsmen, it was nothing but a deceptive tool to engage the non-hunting environmental groups to secure alternative, broad based funding.

The Summit was all about opening the dialog (Beginning the conversation) as Director Moore put it, with the environmental groups to acquire approval and validation from Sportsmen, policy and lawmakers to support the department’s environmental agenda. The Summit was about an effort to fundamentally transform Idaho Fish and Game away from its original 1938 core mission “of providing continued supplies of wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.” This is exactly what happened with the Summit as Director Moore “began the dialogue” with environmental group’s first and gave them precedence over long-term loyal paying sportsmen.

This dialog with the enviros has been open, alive and well and going on for decades within IDFG. The Summit was an opportunity to expose this radical dialog and hopefully send the appropriate signal to our IDFG commissioners, legislators, governors, ranchers, sportsmen and all citizens that we are fed up with a radical environmental agenda that is an enemy to Idaho’s long-term hunting heritage.

IDFG spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and employee time on the Summit with no positive outcome. The summit has been written off as a huge failure by Idaho Legislators, Sportsmen and even Director Moore’s environmental partners such as the Nature conservancy. While our IDFG conservation officers were having their travelling miles reduced to cut expenses, Director Moore was handing out $2,000 bonuses to the valiant IDFG employees that worked hard for his enviromental summit agenda.

Following are multiple subjects that cover from 2011-2014 regarding the IDFG pursuance of alignment away from traditional sportsmen and their efforts to embrace environmental and non-hunting groups and individuals. We recommend reading the articles in order to understand the ideology, mindset and narrative behind this dangerous agenda. Clicking any of the blue links below will take you to that article within the page. Many thanks to those that provided the thousands of hours and years of research that went into this project. Also a hat tip to the brave and courageous IDFG personnel that came forward providing information that they believe will put the IDFG back on the right track long-term.

Idaho’s conservative policies, people and leadership continue to protect Sportsmen and Ranchers:

Unholy Alliances: The danger of alignment with environmental and anti hunting groups:

IDFG Director Virgil Moore had the perfect team to begin the “Fundamental transformation” or “Death and Rebirth”of his agency.

2012 Idaho Fish and Game Wildlife Summit and 2013 Wildlife diversity meetings:

2014 Leaked Idaho Fish and game document compels commission to demand Director Moore to return the agency to its original 1938 core mission.

Idaho For Wildlife’s participation in the Summit

Idaho’s conservative policies, people and leadership continue to protect Sportsmen and Ranchers:

Many Idahoans do not realize how truly fortunate they are to live in a state that is led primarily by conservative lawmakers and policy makers who value our 2nd amendment along with our right to hunt and fish. Unfortunately In many progressive states, radical environmental policies prevail because environmental groups were allowed a “seat at the table” inside their own Fish and Game Departments. Many politically progressive states like WA, OR and CA who have been infiltrated by anti-hunting and environmental groups, are witnessing radical wildlife management policies such as emphasizing “predator preservation” over traditional big game harvest for sustenance.

Even though Idaho has a conservative history politically, Idaho Lawmakers, Governors, and Fish and game commissioners continually have to be vigilant in keeping the more progressive IDFG managers in check within our own Idaho Fish and Game department. For the last 40+ years our Fish and Game has become increasingly convoluted with radical extreme pro predator wildlife managers. The problem originates from leftist academia that indoctrinates most of our new biologists who later become wildlife managers throughout the state. As an example, a few years ago I interviewed a young biologist who had just graduated with a PHD in Wildlife biology. He had just started working for Idaho Fish and Game at the time. He admitted to me that in 8 years of college, he never met another student who HAD NOT been brainwashed with radical environmental academia that his leftist professors taught regarding the religion of balanced and native ecosystems and the need for more predators. The reason this graduate was saved from this radical indoctrination was because he was raised on a small farm in Southern Idaho where he grew up hunting and fishing where his father taught and instilled in him common sense principles that he never forgot. He also told me that that very few of his classmates had ever hunted. Unfortunately IDFG forced him out within months after hiring him. He believed this decision came as a result of a discreet new policy within IDFG to hire predominantly non-hunters and applicants that met a certain environmental mindset criteria. In the 2013, IDFG Wildlife Diversity meetings, it was revealed by sportsmen that Idaho’s right wing conservative legislators were blamed as Idaho Fish and Game’s biggest threat to thwart their progressive environmental agendas within the dept.

Fortunately Governor Otter and his commission selection team have appointed some very capable and vigilant Fish and game commissioners the last 7+ years. These men are currently attempting to put IDFG back on course after decades of a department pursuing a progressive non-hunting agenda. Previous governors had appointed commissioners utilizing different criteria and unfortunately many of these commissioners had become “Duped” by very intelligent and sophisticated IDFG leaders who specialize in Social engineering skills. These IDFG employees receive this specialized training through their membership and participation in national organizations of Fish and Game employees. Many of these past commissioners allowed the “Tail to wag the dog” which allowed IDFG to realize their progressive Wildlife management policies. Examples of these radical environmental policies are emphasizing non consumptive management over consumptive, Pre-Columbian native ecosystem obsession and extreme pro predator policies.

Witnessing the results and fruition of these radical bankrupt wildlife policies resulting in less big game harvest opportunity, is the primary reason sportsmen and Idaho lawmakers are so frustrated with Idaho Fish and Game in general. Experts claim that the only tools to change this bankrupt direction is to change leadership and or use the “Power of the Purse” to stop their funding.

Unholy Alliances: The danger of alignment with environmental and anti hunting groups:

What are the dangers of bringing in environmental groups to fund state Fish and Game agencies? California is a great example of this “slippery slope.” Once environmental and anti-hunting groups began to fund the CA agency they eventually were able to influence and have direct management over it. Examples were changing its agencies name away from ‘Fish and Game” to satisfy non-hunters, anti-hunters and environmentalists. Eliminating predator hunting and use of lead ammo has occurred in CA. States like Florida and Washington state lost the ability to use dogs to hunt bears and Oregon Hunters are frustrated because they cannot hunt cougars. Supporting radicalized native ecosystem religion which suggests returning the land, fish and wildlife back to pre Columbian days. Most environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and some in IDFG actively support and are currently implementing some of these programs.

A lesson from Florida why having conservative Governors and Game commissioners are essential to preserve our hunting rights and to control predators.

In the 2005 book, “A wake up call to Florida’s hunters and fisherman,” the author Raymond Hamlin documents how these “Unholy alliances” infiltrated Florida’s Game and Fish department. Weak Fish and Game commissioners were politically appointed by leftist progressive governors. As a result, anti-hunting and environmental groups obtained a “seat at the table” to influence hunting rights and privileges. These predator loving radicals were able to stop Florida’s bear hunting in 1994. These radicals even changed a part of the FL Game and fish strategic plan to say, “That in the future, non hunters will be given more consideration that hunters; that there is public opposition to the killing of animals.” The US Fish and Wildlife service continued to deny a petition from Florida Game and Fish to list the Florida Black bear on the endangered species list. In 1999, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups even sued the USFWS for not placing the bear on the Federal endangered species list.

For over 20 years the black bear population was left unchecked and increased drastically. The un-hunted bears became habituated and unafraid of humans. Bears were found lolling in hot tubs, relaxing in hammocks and breaking into storage sheds. Last year, Florida Fish and Wildlife officials had to kill almost 50 bears that had started to associate humans with food. In 2005, the number of bear complaints was 1,913. By 2011, it topped 4,000 calls. By 2012, that number had increased 50 percent to approximately 6,000! Last year 50 bears had to be killed because of their lack of fear of humans as they have become habituated. Just this past month, the Florida Game and Fish dept. under the leadership of a conservative governor decided they had to finally open up a bear season due to the high bear populations, and to attempt to stop the bear attacks and complaints. Environmental groups are furious with this proposed bear hunting and claim hunting bears will not change their behavior and fear towards man! This validates what Dr. Charles Kay has said for decades that many State Game agencies are greener than the Feds!

On November 13, 2014, newly re-elected Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) defeated pro-gun control challenger Charlie Crist (D) and one of the first things Gov. Scott did was issue an executive order cutting the price of a lifetime sportsman’s license by 50% so families can afford to hunt together.“

What are the conditions to secure $ from environmental groups?

No environmental or anti hunting group is going to fund and support a state Fish and Game agency like Idaho if they have strong predator control policies. We have a great object lesson below of this when Director Moore was ridiculed by his environmental partners “The Nature Conservancy and the “Idaho conservation League,” when a brave and vigilant commissioner sent a trapper in the Middle Fork of the Salmon to trap wolves.

On September 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, (Pacific Time) Idaho Fish and Game director Virgil Moore phoned me and said “He is nervous about deterring broad based funding from “non hunting groups” if the commission continues to develop too aggressive of predator management programs. He had the audacity to ask me to use any type of influence I had to back off the commission of their strong predator management plans.

The fallacy of conservation tags and permits:

Once Florida Game and Fish Department became infected with “Conservation groups”, they ushered in a “Conserve Wildlife Tag” and partnered up with the “Wildlife Foundation of Florida”, The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife. As expected, wildlife viewers through such a fuss over having to pay for this “Conservation tag” that it was rescinded. It proves that the wildlife viewers ‘want the say but they don’t’ want to pay” while hunters and anglers continue to foot the bill.

The Religion of Native ecosystem restoration:

Most environmental groups and unfortunately some within IDFG support Radicalized native ecosystem religion which suggests returning the land, fish and wildlife back to pre Columbian days. IDFG is currently implementing some of these programs where they can.

As an example Idaho for Wildlife recently had to spend $1,000 on “sterilized” rainbow trout to be planted in steams in the Burley area. Frustrated Sportsmen who grew up fishing these streams 25 years ago no longer have fish available for their kids to enjoy as the department only wants “Native” Yellowstone cutthroat to live in these waters. These native trout are not repopulating on their own, and IDFG refuses to pay for or allow any other “non-native species of trout to enter these waters. So we funded the project and realized sterile trout is better than no trout for our youth. We have also witnessed joint operations between IDFG and USFWS to “Sterilize” high mountain lakes eliminating every fish that had previously been planted leaving these lakes barren of fish as this is was the “Historically Natural” state of these lakes based on IDFG’s belief. These biologists obsession of native ecosystem restoration can only be bested by certain IDFG biologist’s desire to have far more wolves than our original plan which has destroyed Idaho’s once famous backcountry elk herds.

When you have the Humane Society of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife on your state Fish and Game boards and committees, one can imagine how they would support aggressive wolf control to provide more ungulates for hunters! I know director Moore is probably thinking, “We’d never be like CA and allow the anti-hunting groups to infiltrate Idaho.” We’ll only let the pro hunting conservation groups work with us and we will work together as one big happy family!”

In its playbook, HSUS also reveals a tactic that should alarm every hunter who has viewed state and federal Fish and Game agencies as supportive of hunting. Despite the fact that hunter license fees and excise taxes provide the vast majority of funding for these agencies, HSUS brags about infiltrating these agencies and expresses confidence in shaping their policies when it comes to use of traditional ammunition.

“The HSUS has close working relationships with state wildlife agencies all across the country. Our wildlife department staff and state directors regularly attend state wildlife agency meetings where they have presented to top level agency officials and developed close working relationships with wildlife law enforcement officers in the majority of states. Our state directors attend department and commission meetings and have developed long-lasting relationships. We are regularly contacted to participate in stakeholder meetings and asked about The HSUS position on pending proposals. In fact, many of our staff serves on state wildlife agency appointed boards and commissions. These existing relationships will go a long way in our campaign to end the use of lead ammunition.”

Since the 2012 Summit, a great object lesson took place making it crystal clear why director Moore’s environmental group partners cannot be counted on to support Idaho’s current pro hunting, predator controlling direction in Idaho. From the governor’s office to the Idaho legislators, IDFG commission and sportsmen, we all want to begin restoring devastated elk populations using necessary predator control. Last year, IDFG commissioners, (Not employees) decided something had to be done in the middle fork of the Salmon as the elk numbers, calf recruitment and elk harvest were in trouble despite phenomenal habitat from recent fires in that region. So IDFG hired a trapper to remove a couple of wolf packs to give the elk some relief. How do you think the environmental groups that Director Moore had been wining and dining during the Wildlife Summit responded? John Robison from the Idaho Conservation league said this, “We are deeply concerned about Fish and Game’s recent actions approving the eradication of two packs of wolves in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.” John Robison continued in this letter, “During the Wildlife Summit, we were told that our input was important and that our opinions mattered. We don’t expect to like all of Fish and Game’s decisions, but would like to be engaged in the decision-making process and know that our concerns are being carefully considered.

Another one of Director Moore’s environmental partners from “The Nature conservancy” put this cartoon in the Idaho Statesmen mocking IDFG’s decision to also trap wolves in the Middle fork and mocked IDFG for not “listening” to them from all of the Summit meetings. To give Director Moore some credit, it wasn’t his idea for the wolf control measures in the Salmon as this came from commission directive. Now these groups are not as radical as Western Watersheds and others but because Director Moore and his staff took them on an organizational retreat to plan the summit in August of 2011, they already felt some “ownership” in the management of IDFG and no doubt they felt betrayed by their “Conservation minded” friend. These groups also know that world renowned wolf expert David Mech and even some of IDFG’s own biologist’s claim wolves cannot be controlled with sport hunting alone and that trapping is necessary. But these environmental groups are very content with what is happening in the Middle fork of the Salmon as wolves are providing the type of “Natural balance” to the ecosystem that only radical enviros can appreciate. One look at a map of Idaho and realize that its vast wilderness backcountry elk populations have already been devastated by wolves. (Click here to see the elk harvest data.) Can you imagine trying to rebuild these once famous elk herds using Director Moore’s vision of “better agency alignment” with his environmental partners? This could become a reality if we don’t stop Director Moore’s radical agenda!

Director Moore has lost the support of traditional Idaho sportsmen and most conservative legislators with his obsessive outreach to environmental groups with his summit agenda. But he had done a wonderful job of winning over the hearts and minds of the anti-hunting community with his vision! Our research indicates he has won over 100% of the radical anti-hunting, anti ranching and enviro groups to his way of thinking! Defenders of Wildlife, Western Watersheds, The Center for biological diversity all love his idea. So does Carter Niemeyer the “wolfer.” Niemeyer loves the idea of wolf stamps and any type of alternative funding that will stop the current Idaho model of listening to sportsmen and pushing for non-hunter influence and influence which will lead to less wolf control which is what the enviros can only hope for!

In this article, The Humane Society of America, details the insidious influence hunting and money has on wildlife management policy in the US. It sums up why state game agencies should NOT be managing wolves or any predators! Can anyone say “conflict of interest”? They quote Idaho Fish and Game deputy director Jim Unsworth on Outdoor Idaho saying: “Right now the overwhelming lion’s share of funds comes from sportsmen. And, you know, sometimes we’re criticized because we manage for sportsman, but, just a reality check, that’s who is paying our bills. That’s who is paying our paycheck and who is paying for the management.”

Do we want the enviros and wolf advocates making IDFG’s payroll!!! The anti-hunting groups can only imagine the possibilities and what could happen if we let director Moore achieve his vision!

Director Virgil Moore had the perfect team to begin the “Fundamental transformation” or “Death and Rebirth”of his agency.

For strategic planning and implementation of the 2012 Idaho Fish and Game Wildlife Summit, director Moore brought in Michelle Beucler, his invaluable department planning and “human Dimensions” coordinator to be the summit project manager. Beucler has become well known in the non-hunting/ environmentalist world for her famous presentations such as “Mirror Mirror on the Wall, “Reflections from a Non-Hunter,” and the “Death of Wildlife management where she suggests that “traditional fish and wildlife management must die!” Beucler has given this non-hunting focused presentation multiple times across the country where she claims managing wildlife to provide continued supplies of game for hunters, fisherman and trappers undermines the Idaho Public trust doctrine. Incidentally we found where Beucler also gave her “Mirror Mirror on the Wall presentation at the 73rd North American Wildlife and natural resources Conference in 2008. (See page 172).


In 2009 at the Wildlife Society’s annual meeting in Moscow, Idaho, while in the company of current IDFG director Virgil Moore, Beucler delivered her signature radical non-hunting presentation advocating even changing the definition of what a hunter is, altering the North American model of wildlife conservation and a host of other radical non-hunting recommendations. The most shocking statement to traditional sportsmen is found in her presentation on page 15, (Click here) where she states:

“We explain five reasons why hunter recruitment and retention efforts may be ineffective and may be distracting state wildlife agencies from engaging citizens in general and helping to broaden wildlife conservation.” Next, we give examples of how state wildlife agencies might connect with and engage non-hunters, including adopting a citizen-based business model and expanding what we call “hunting” and who we call “hunters.”

In the spring of 2011, while Director Vigil Moore and his staff were busy engaging environmental groups and planning retreats with their environmental allies for the upcoming Wildlife Summit, Michele Beucler was also busy nationally advocating her “Death of state game agencies” theme as the president of the “Organization of Wildlife Planners.

In this groups Spring of 2011 bulletin, Beucler wrote about the sad deaths of two IDFG employees in the tragic helicopter crash. She compared the IDFG employee’s deaths to the necessary death of current state Fish and Game agencies as they must have the courage to “transform” away from their current model of placing traditional Sportsmen and fisherman first. Beucler writes, “Transformation is a process of death and rebirth.” “Agency transformation is also a process of death-rebirth.” “It’s easy to fear and avoid.””Yet, our organizations must take the rise or else face losing support from the broader citizenry and letting our power in wildlife conservation slip through our fingers.”

If you belong to another state like Idaho, that was founded on traditional hunting and fishing values but you would like to upgrade your agency to follow Beucler and Director Virgil Moore’s objective of “Fundamentally transforming” your agency, Mrs. Beucler is for hire as a professional facilitator, (Click here!)

If a State Fish and Game planning and human dimensions manager is advocating in the presence of the agency director, that they are actively working to support the “Death of their game agency”, maybe this explains why in the Eastman’s journal, Idaho ranked lowest in the country for the “worst job of managing its big game populations.” If your goal was to “Fundamentally Transform” your agency by discouraging “hunter recruitment” as it may be distracting agencies from engaging broader groups of people, maybe IDFG has us all fooled and they have attained the success they were looking for?

There is little doubt that Director Moore feels very fortunate to have someone like Beucler’s on his team and that her “Mirror Mirror on the Wall, “Reflections from a Non-Hunter,” presentation and message helped inspire him to strategically place her as the mastermind for his 2012 Wildlife Summit.

2012 Idaho Fish and Game Wildlife Summit and 2013 Wildlife diversity meetings:

In the September 7-9th 2011 IDFG commission meeting held in Coeur D’Alene, IDFG regional supervisor and Summit planner Mark Gamblin gave a presentation to the commission on the summit. He provided the following exact quote validating the purpose of the summit: “We’ve tried hard not to miscommunicate at this early stage that this is simply a means to raise more revenue.” “We hope it will result in a new broadened funding mechanism that will put us on solid track for the future.” (Click here for the actual tape recording of this).

During this meeting IDFG admitted that they chose to begin discussion with environmental groups prior to traditional sportsmen groups and this greatly alarmed certain commissioners. Mark Gamblin gave the following report: “Specifically at this point we have ongoing outreach efforts as we speak; we’ve been talking to and working with representatives among the wildlife conservation oriented non-governmental organizations. ISCAC has been a great one, a partner with us to make discussions as have Nature conservancy and the Idaho Conservation league. In no way do we intend that they that our discussion would be restricted to those groups, we simply begun talking about what we hope to accomplish with the wildlife summit with those groups as their representative our pretty broad cross section of the public we serve.”

IDFG Commissioner Wayne Wright said, “This was a dangerous path” and commissioner Trevey asked if they had spoken to Idaho For Wildlife and other sportsmen groups, (Click here for the recording). Mark Gamblin then said they had not spoken with Idaho for Wildlife and other traditional sportsmen groups about the summit. They admitted their outreach at this point was directed only at “environmental conservation groups.”

Two years later, (September 13, 2013, IDFG is now claiming in the Bozeman chronicle, “As far as trying to find non-consumptive funding, that was never the overall plan”, and “the summit was meant to renew enthusiasm for wildlife.”

Originally the dept. wanted to hold the summit in Sun valley, Idaho to be near grand central of the environmental community. The Summit was also scheduled to take place on September 8-12th during the archery hunting season. Many thought this date was a deliberate statement of the agenda behind the summit. After complaints from Sportsmen and commissioners, the Department relented and agreed to change the date to August 24-26th 2012. Click (here to see the initial Summit document) with the September date along with the Carl Marx socialist terminology “Social Compact” that Obama had been coining frequently in the news.(Director Moore and the majority of his leadership team are loyal Obama supporters). Due to complaints, the socialist “Social Compact” term was removed from all Summit material. Too many, the phrase “Social compact is a Hobbesian view of totalitarianism.

Director Moore puts his job on the line for the Summit agenda and lays out his expectations to his staff:

When director Moore was hired as director he made it a goal to hold a “Wildlife congress” with sportsmen and conservationists, (environmentalists.) Director Moore was so passionate about his Wildlife Summit agenda that he actually said the following in this YouTube video,” It is the most important thing I’m doing and I’m willing to risk the directorship on this.”

Director Moore lays out his expectations to his staff and uses fear-mongering tactics to push his Summit agenda.

In this YouTube video, Director Moore says, “I expect the staff of this dept. to individually to be involved in this to the best of their ability.” “If we don’t succeed then it’s probably time to find somebody that’s better at succeeding than I am and it may be time for me to exit. To survive we have to change.”

Federal funding is actually increasing despite Director Moore’s claims of “flatlining or declining.”

Note in the video how director Moore spoke how they “fear federal funding is going to flat line or decline in the next decade or so.” This fear mongering rhetoric by Director Moore was proven disingenuous when IDFG picked up over 20 Million Federal dollars in 2014 setting a new record for the state! Click here to see the upward trend nationally of Federal funds. Hunting is also on the increase in many states where hunting and fishing is at the forefront of their state agencies priority.

Despite Director Moore’s disingenuous and inflated scare tactics claiming hunting is declining, more Americans are heading outdoors to hunt and fish. 11% more Americans (ages 16 and older) fished and 9% more hunted in 2011 than in 2006. Youth hunting, ages 6 to 15 increased by 13%!

January 6, 2012, Director Virgil Moore lies to the President of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation about the Wildlife Summit promising he would include him in the Summit agenda and development.

In the January 6, 2012 email below, director Moore promises RMEF president David Allen that he would include Mr. Allen in the Wildlife Summit agenda development and that he would get back to him. Director Moore not only didn’t keep his word about getting back to the CEO of RMEF as promised but never included RMEF or any traditional sportsmen’s groups in the Summit agenda. The only speakers in the summit were environmental groups and individuals. My question to Director Moore is if elk hunting was a top priority of yours as a director and your wildlife summit goal was all about, “creating a renewed enthusiasm for wildlife,” then why didn’t you include RMEF or any traditional hunting organizations in the agenda planning process of the summit? Why didn’t you “, get back to,” and invite a traditional sportsmen group leader to speak such as David Allen instead of just environmentalists?

From: Moore,Virgil
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 5:09 PM
To: David Allen; Moore,Virgil
Cc: Kirk Murphy; Radocha, Dennis L; Rod Triepke; Unsworth,James; Keckler,Mike; Gamblin,Mark; Kiefer,Sharon
Subject: Re: Wildlife Summit

“Thanks David for the willingness to work with us on the summit.” We plan to include you and other sportsman groups in the agenda development. I agree the North American Model is a good theme to build the Idaho summit around and will discuss internally with my staff next week and get back to you. I will review the date of the summit with staff to see if other options are available that makes sense.”

January 2012: Petersen’s hunting magazine releases article about the Wildlife Summit
Initially Petersen’s magazine editor did not believe us about IDFG’s non-hunting agenda when we first began communication. We continued to provide enough proof, quotes, articles and data that supports why IDFG allowed this to happen to our wildlife resource and has become possessed with radical environmentalism to the point of no return for our Big Game resources.

July 2012: Steve Alder appears with IDFG director Virgil Moore and defends Sportsmen against the Summit agenda on Idaho pubic TV discussing the Wildlife summit.

August 24-26 2012: Wildlife Summit meetings.

All speakers provided typical rhetoric and attempts to justify why IDFG must continue aligning themselves away from conventional sportsmen and continue their pursuance or closer alignment with environmentalists and non-hunters. Idaho Fish and game paid a small fortune to hire some of these speakers to provide Director Moore’s enviromental agenda.

Toni Hardesty – Director of The Nature Conservancy – Idaho

Tara Teel – Associate Professor – Colorado State University

Jim Posewitz

Shane Mahoney

2013 Idaho Fish and Game Wildlife Diversity meetings:

IDFG reaches out to anti Ranching Western Watersheds leaders and other radical environmentalists during the Idaho Fish and Game Wildlife Diversity meetings being held state-wide.

After the failed 2012 Wildlife Summit, IDFG Director Virgil Moore continued his obsession with pursuing alternative funding and input from environmental groups. Moore and his summit leadership team were politically savvy enough not to invite and be seen with the more extreme radical environmental groups during the well publicized primary Summit meetings of 2012. But once the public Summit meetings were over Director Moore ordered his supervisors in every region of the state to conduct regional Wildlife Diversity meetings in 2013 and bring “everyone” to the table. This is where he “directed” his regional supervisors to engage every type of environmental group including anti hunting/ranching groups like Western Watersheds to seek their ideas and suggestions on how IDFG can secure alternative funding. To appease the public process, IDFG invited a few real sportsmen to these meetings who reported back to us after each meeting. In all of these “Diversity” meetings the overwhelming consensus coming from IDFG leaders was that the biggest threat or vulnerability to IDFG’s radical environmental plans was Idaho’s “Right wing” conservative legislators.

Recently KAREN BUDD-FALEN from the Budd-Falen Law office in Cheyenne, Wyoming released a MEMORANDUM that Western Watersheds has issued at least 675 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests just to the BLM and Forest Service, related to livestock grazing on public lands! Karen also released a SECOND memorandum how Western Watersheds and other radical anti-ranching environmental groups are using taxpayer dollars through (“NEPA”) “as the litigation tool of choice,” to follow through with their, “to do” list, to, “Get all cows and sheep off federal lands ASAP!”Over 400 federal court complaints were individually analyzed and filed by either the Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”), WildEarth Guardians (“WEG”) or the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”).

Salmon Regional Work Group (RWG) – Wildlife Diversity Funding Meeting Minutes
Salmon Valley Business and Innovation Center Tuesday,
March 5, 2013, 3:00p.m.-5:30p.m.
RWG Participants: Gary Power, Lucy Littlejohn, Michele Tucker, Jody Brostrom, Lisa Whitman, Stephanie Smith, Travis Bullock, John Jakovac, John Goodman, Dave Reeder, Vincent Guyer, Mary Ann Oberhaus, Bill Bernt, Larry Zuckerman, Chad Fealko, Sherry Elrod, Jim Lukens, Hadley Roberts, Mark Davidson, Toni Ruth, Ron Troy, Louise Wagenknecht, Billijo Beck
Idaho Fish & Game participants: Steve Schmidt, Gary Vecellio, Beth Waterbury, Viki Harber

To learn more about the Summit, see the following articles:

Leaked Idaho Fish and Game document compels commission to demand Director Moore to return the agency to its original 1938 core mission.

In June of 2014, frustrated Idaho Fish and Game personnel leaked out this document to Idaho For Wildlife leaders expressing concern that the IDFG director is “more determined than ever” to transform Idaho Fish and Game into a California style Wildlife model catering more towards non-hunters than traditional Sportsmen. (Note in the CA model which groups in CA are the stake holder “advisory groups” who run their “Non-consumptive” department!)

The document is a summary report of the 2014 Idaho Fish and Game in-service training school held in Boise where approximately 550 IDFG employees participated in meetings which were facilitated by the environmental consulting firm “”The two fold purpose of this meeting was to answer the questions, “Are we in business” and “What business are we in?”

Multiple frustrated sportsmen read parts of this document at the July 9th 2014 IDFG commission meeting in Salmon. One man who testified against the current direction of Director Virgil Moore was later confronted by an IDFG employee after the meeting while the man was walking to his vehicle along with his 11 year old step-daughter. The officer came up and shook his hand and said the following to him, “I feel sorry for you because now I’m going to go after you.” The sportsmen were in shock and it really upset him. Just a few years ago a key IDFG leader in this same region was accused of threatening and intimidating a courageous and vigilant mother of three as she stood up to the department. Fortunately justice was served and the man was relieved of his position after the governor’s office got wind of this.

During the beginning two days of these IDFG in-service meetings, Director Moore invited such speakers as Lieutenant Governor Brad Little, Senator Dean Cameron, Representative Marcus Gibbs, RMEF President David Allen, and IDFG commissioner Fred Trevey. He also invited opposing environmental speakers to provide their counter positions to justify why the IDFG needs to seek further alignment and funding from non-hunters and environmental groups. RMEF president David Allen debated one of these enviros that Moore had invited, basically telling him that if IDFG doesn’t begin building a product again (Big Game) and start listening and taking better care of their current customer base, their funding and support will continue to decline.

The following days after the non-IDFG speakers left, Director Moore turned the environmental facilitation experts of “” loose on his entire department. This environmental facilitation team successfully “helped” Director Moore’s staff to come to the desired outcome and expectations that summarizes what is written in the document. His staff successfully fulfilled his predetermined goal and vision of validating why the IDFG is not properly aligned between non-hunters and hunters. The overwhelming consensus from Virgil’s employees is that the department is not providing a fair amount of support for non hunters because of unfair legislative laws requiring it to continue catering towards traditional hunters and fishermen.

According to frustrated IDFG employees, they feel their boss, Director Virgil Moore is attempting to “Fundamentally transform” the department through “Social engineering” into a California style agency. This includes changing the name of the agency and “re-branding” their mission and purpose to better suit the environmentalists, non hunters and anti hunters alike. All while being funded and paid to do this on the backs of Sportsmen.

Soon after the Salmon commission meeting ended, The IDFG commission not only demanded Director Moore to cease his obsession with aligning away from traditional Sportsmen but demanded Director Moore to write a letter to all IDFG employees informing them of this new direction put forth by the commission. The commission also asked Director Moore to make this letter public so all Sportsmen can see this new direction. IDFG Commission chairmen Fred Trevey wrote this email regarding the commission’s new direction when he said, “However, today there is a small group of folks that do not believe in consumptive use of wildlife and would prefer management that permits a “let nature to take its course” philosophy. They especially disagree with predator management. The Commission firmly disagrees with this philosophy.” What commissioner Trevey didn’t mention is this “Small group of folks” within IDFG is composed of many of its top leaders and many biologists!

Idaho For Wildlife’s participation in the Summit.
By Steve Alder

In December of 2011, I was asked by IDFG commissioner Fred Trevey to represent sportsmen in region 2 during the Summit process.
Idaho For Wildlife’s mission statement and our group’s fundamental purpose was born on standing up and fighting against a non-hunting agenda that was becoming more rampant within IDFG. I felt this was a great opportunity to stand up and do my part in conveying a message back to IDFG and the commission that the Dept. needed to return to their foundational purpose that was established in l938 to provide surplus game for hunters. For the past 15+ years I had personally witnessed and fought against their success of allowing our surplus big game to be fed to the wolves. I vowed to myself after I first witnessed the damage wolves were capable of causing to our elk herds that I had to fight and try to stop this radical environmental travesty as any chance of passing down my hunting heritage to my kids and grandkids were in jeopardy. Some nays Sayers were critical that I agreed to accept this opportunity to be involved in the summit. Some have even said I could have stopped the summit from happening. Unfortunately I didn’t have the power or influence to stop the summit but I did have the ability to document what I witnessed the past 4 years because of my involvement. Being in this position allowed me to shed light on what I felt was a very dangerous trajectory that IDFG was on and this allowed me to convey my concerns to the appropriate authorities to help IDFG get back on track.

Following is a basic timeline listing some of my involvement in the Wildlife Summit. We also sent out over 100 emails to legislators, commissioners and sportsmen warning them of the dangers of this summit. We exposed the “Unholy Alliances” with environmental groups that IDFG was attempting to align with. All of these enviro groups are vehemently opposed to Idaho’s strong predator control policies thereby advocating opposition to rebuilding our big game populations.

On May 3rd 2011, shortly after IDFG Director Virgil Moore was appointed to be the Director, IDFG commissioner Fred Trevey arranged for a meeting between Director Moore and Steve Alder. We had a long lunch meeting in Lewiston and director Moore discussed and explained his purpose and objectives behind having a Wildlife Congress, (The Summit name came later). He told me it was an opportunity to reach out to Sportsmen’s groups across the state and to better communicate with them. I told him that communication has been poor between past IDFG directors and that Sportsmen have felt that the department has maintained their own agenda and Sportsman have not felt included or their opinions valued. I told him of a challenge we had with another sportsmen’s group regarding auction tags and he indicated how he would love to “Mediate” and handle these types of issues. He assured me that sportsmen’s groups would have a part of this congress and he’d ask our input in the planning and agenda items. He never mentioned “Conservation” groups attending and sold his idea as working with Sportsmen and improving communication.

December 22, 2011: 3 IDFG Regional Supervisors met with me in Lewiston, ID to get my support for the Summit agenda. During this meeting, Regional supervisor Mark Gamblin, told me that if IDFG doesn’t get more $ the first thing that would go would be aerial gunning and wolf control. I told the 3 of them that if they would just listen to sportsmen, rebuild big game herds the $ would come. I told them that if they would tell the truth about wolf depredation and implement predator control they could rebuild their product (Elk) and the $ would flow. I could tell I wasn’t connecting with them. Then I used David Allen the CEO of RMEF as an example of leadership and how he admitted RMEF had been on the wrong path regarding wolf predation for years. After Allen took the helm at RMEF, he did his homework and recognized that wolves were having a devastating impact on elk numbers. So as great leaders do, he “manned up”, admitted the problem and went to work to find positive solutions. Soon RMEF membership and revenue exploded and broke new records because he told the truth and began taking measures to fix the problem and if IDFG was wise they’d follow this same model and the problem would be solved. It was apparent due to their body language that they were not interested in solving their financial crisis in this manner. They repeated the same rhetoric that they needed to acquire additional funding from “other sources.” They had mastered their talking points of justifying alternative funding by “spinning” that they felt sportsmen shouldn’t have to foot the bills for all of the funding. At this meeting, Mark Gamblin handed out the prepared Idaho Wildlife Summit document describing their Purpose, Justification and Desired Outcomes (See attached). He also handed out the Summit invitation (See attached) where the location would be held and the Summit Date was set for September 7-9, 2012.
We learned that initially IDFG had wanted to hold the summit meeting at Sun Valley for their first location of choice due to the proximity of “Conservation groups” whom they were targeting. Later they were advised that this location would likely reveal their true agenda so a less controversial location was found.

On December 30th, I released an email regarding the Summit and that the “Social compact” terminology written into the summit objective had been used by used by Karl Marx and other dictators and socialists. Obama had been using this phrase recently and we believe this is why IDFG also liked this word. Many folks complained about this “Marxist” terminology and so IDFG removed the “Social Compact” phrase in the document.

January 2012: Petersen’s hunting magazine releases my article warning of the real truth behind the Wildlife Summit
Initially Petersen’s magazine editor did not believe us about IDFG’s non-hunting agenda when we first began communication. We continued to provide enough proof, quotes, articles and data that supports why IDFG allowed this to happen to our wildlife resource and has become possessed with radical environmentalism to the point of no return for our Big Game resources.

May 8th 2012. I sign an agreement to be part of the Summit Sounding board. After I agreed to be on the Summit steering committee, as expected, not once did IDFG staff ask me for any input on the Summit agenda including who the Summit speakers would be or the material to be presented.

July 2012: Steve Alder appears with IDFG director Virgil Moore and defends Sportsmen against the Summit agenda on Idaho pubic TV discussing the Wildlife summit.

August 2012: Idaho Outdoor Journal, An Idaho Sportsman’s thoughts on the Summit.

August 24-26: Wildlife Summit. I drove to Boise and attended the first day of the Summit and could not attend any more of it. The Speakers were all discussing why we need to move away from traditional sportsmen and engage enviro groups. The outcome was worse than I had predicted. That same evening, our Idaho For Wildlife chapter in Burley held their annual banquet and had more in attendance than the Boise Summit meeting and this occurred with next to no advertising!

September 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, (Pacific Time) Idaho Fish and Game director Virgil Moore phoned me and said “He is nervous about deterring broad based funding from “non hunting groups” if the commission continues to develop too aggressive of predator management programs. He had the audacity to ask me to use any type of influence I had to back off the commission of their strong predator management plans.

2013: We had sportsmen attend, document and give feedback during the statewide Wildlife diversity meetings.

2014: Idaho Fish and Game personnel leaked the above in-service information to us. We asked multiple sportsmen to testify at the Salmon, Idaho commission meeting in June and share their frustration with the commission and public. We also made this information available to key state legislators.

Wolves: Those Who Have and Those Who Have Not

It would appear that people are blind when they want to be. Here are two distinct differences between how people who don’t have to live with wolves and romanticize about them and those that have, for centuries, lived with and dealt with wolves.

Some in Scotland want to have wolves “reintroduced” saying wolves are, “gentle and very loyal creatures.” And that, “I think getting wolves back into the wild cannot harm anyone.”

In Russia, where people have, for centuries, learned of the reality of living with wolves and have come to understand that the ONLY way to deal with the animal is through strict controls – meaning a killing of thousands of them when conditions dictate. has an article and a video showing the problems Russia is facing with wolves and the call for killing about 3,500 wolves, as well as rewards being offered for help in getting the job done.

Like Scotland, here in America, the romanticists think we should cuddle up with the nasty, disease infested killers, much because neither place has much history, or any that wants to be remembered, in living with wolves. And yet we refuse to take a lesson from places like Russia to see the realities of wolves.

Willful blindness.

Send Wolves to Seattle

“SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – Wolves are thriving in Washington, primarily on the eastern side of the Cascade Range.

That has sparked conflict because much of the support to bolster the wolf population comes from urban and liberal western Washington, but the negative impacts strike eastern Washington. One solution is for wolves to disperse across the state more quickly, wildlife officials said.

“With the densities of wolves in northeastern Washington, we would like to see the Cascades get more wolves and more wolf packs,” said Dave Ware, a wolf recovery expert with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.”<<<Read More>>>

Some in Washington Want Wolf Plan Now

OLYMPIA — A Senate hearing Thursday on a bill that might change Washington wolf policy in two years turned to a more immediate issue — the upcoming grazing season.

Sen. Brian Dansel pressed the state’s wolf policy coordinator, Dave Ware, on whether the Department of Fish and Wildlife was content to wait until 2017 to do more to protect livestock from wolves.

“Are we good to wait two years to do anything?”<<<Read More>>>

Feds Start Killing Wolves Killing Livestock

“A federal program to remove problem wolves from Minnesota farms has resumed operation after the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state came up with the necessary funds.

Federal trappers began responding to depredation complaints this week. They can trap and kill wolves they believe have killed or attacked livestock.”<<<Read More>>>

To Kill Minnesota Wolves Killing Livestock

More damned insanity! We spend gobs of money on efforts to protect an animal that doesn’t need protecting, and then we spend gobs of money to kill an animal that’s killing livestock. This makes about as much sense as everything that the damned government creates. Maybe the solution would be to make government extinct!

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., announced a cooperative effort Wednesday between the U.S. and Minnesota ag departments to fund an effort to help livestock producers in northern Minnesota who have been losing sheep and cattle to wolves.

The predator-control program has often run out of money over the years. Under the effort, the federal government carries out the trappings and provides technical expertise through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Grand Rapids.

The trappings will take place in problem areas where farmers or ranchers have been losing their livestock.<<<Read More>>>

The Barbarity of Protecting Killer Wolves Over Human Interests

Below is an article by James Beers in reference to a letter written by a rancher and published in a local Oregon newspaper.

Déjà vu, All Over Again

It is a great sadness to receive e-mails and copies of small town newspaper articles like the following, almost every day. The feelings of helplessness and anger when Big City newspapers either ignore these incidents or even worse, deny and ridicule those being harmed must be what it was like after WWII to reflect back on all the lies and disinformation from news accounts and politicians about the German wonderland Hitler was forming and how misunderstood Stalin and his henchmen were as they were forming a “worker’s paradise” that the American press published during the 1930’s.

Who speaks for and defends the ranchers, farmers, businessmen and families of rural America as they are pillaged like this by politicians and bureaucrats working in league with coalitions of wealthy interest groups that prance about and dress like secular missionaries imposing their hateful ideology of lies and nature worship?

The article below is from the Wallowa County Chieftain newspaper in Enterprise, Oregon (in the NE corner of Oregon). They won’t read it in Portland or Eugene where the state politicians and their bureaucrats are “breakfasting” as I write. You won’t see it in the San Francisco paper or the Chicago paper or even the vaunted Washington, DC paper read by our impotent Congressmen, our self-serving federal bureaucrats, and all the despot-wannabees that would make Mao proud.

* I could send it to my Minnesota big city paper but they would simply snicker as they dismissed it wondering why anyone was so stupid as to send them something like this.

* I could send it to my “Department of Natural Resources” but they would just tell everyone to ignore it because Oregonians just don’t know how to “live with wolves” like we do here in Minnesota. Our Governor Dayton might see this as a chance to “work with” fellow progressive for votes here at home; he might send out a Minnesota DNR delegation that could “advise” the Oregon “Wildlife” agency and in the meantime they could swap information about federal job opportunities and after-retirement opportunities with the “Unlimiteds’, “Forevers”, and “Defenders”.

* I could send it to the University of Minnesota and if they said anything about the problem at all it would be on the order of it probably being the result of insufficient leash laws for dogs and that the calving problems are some sort of new infectious malady for which Oregonians should fork over millions to the University to “conduct research” and “develop recommendations”.

* I could mention it to acquaintances but after listening they would shrug and say it is interesting but what can they do as they look at me with that look of, “what a funny guy”.

* I could send it to the US Fish and Wildlife Service but they would send me form letter #46 that begins. “Thank you for your recent letter…” and ends after a bafflement of BS, “Thank you for writing”.

* I could send it to my Congressman (a good guy) but some young staffer would smile as he came up with a polite letter telling me that while Congressman Kline understands the gravity of the situation, it is not a matter that occurs in his District but he will forward my letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that enforces the Endangered Species Act, oh and thank you for writing.

*I could send a copy to my two US Senators (Franken and Klobuchar) who are elected by; supported (financially, publicity-wise, and vote-wise) by; and beholden to a coalition of urban, progressive environmentalists that want the government to put more wolves and grizzly bears, buy more and more land, and declare more and more “wildernesses” “Out There”. My letter to them would evoke no more than, “I didn’t know there were any people like this left in Minnesota?”

I can only send this article to you and tell you it is only one of many that I receive. The only solution is to abolish any and all authority for the federal government to impose the will of these radicals on one rural community after another. Simply put, the Endangered Species Act must be abolished and its detritus throughout Rural America removed. Then begin rolling back federal land ownership and federal land non-management and non-use from Wilderness Declarations and Roadless Areas to restoration of wildlife, forest and range management for people.

You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly and naturally Local government authority, Local government revenue, and Local control of local matters will increase and how, neither as quickly nor as naturally but inevitably, your state wildlife agencies once again manage the natural resources of your state for the benefit of your state and all those that live in it.

Two things must be done first, but that is something I hope to speak about next month if arrangements come through. I hope to circulate that talk and share it with you after I give it.

Jim Beers

19 March 2015

Wolf attack a cow man’s nightmare

Wolves attacked and stampeded 250 head of very pregnant cows (calving start date March 1) on the Birkmaier private land on Crow Creek pass Feb. 12, 2015. The cows were wintering on the open bunch grass range receiving one-half feed of alfalfa hay. This 1,700-acre piece of land is about 10 miles northeast of Joseph. These cows were to be moved to the Birkmaier home ranch at the mouth of Crow Creek the last of February (the ranch is about 20 miles north).

With no warning from agency people, who normally warn producers of wolves in the area, the wolves attacked in the night. The herd split into three groups. One group of about 70 cows went east, running in total panic, obliterating several barb wire fences. These cows ran about two miles to the Zumwalt road, then south and west about five miles down the OK Gulch road to the Wallowa Valley, then north to the Birkmaier ranch land, about three miles, then reversed and ran about three miles south where they were stopped. These cattle were wet from the condensation of cold air on their overheated bodies. Their tongues were out gasping for air.

Another bunch went north through several fences to the Krebs ranch, about four miles, then back and were going in a large circle still running when they were stopped. A third bunch stayed in the pasture but were in a high state of panic. The cattle could not be fed for two days. They ran away from hay and the pickup trying to feed them. None were killed, no broken legs or stifled joints; some cuts from barbed wire, not serious. We thought we were lucky. The rest of the story, we feared, would be told at calving time and maybe before. By the way, the attacking wolves, from the Umatilla Pack, were at Dug Bar on the Snake River the next day (32 air miles away and over a mile climbing and descending).

Now about fladry and why it wasn’t used. Fladry was not an option under these conditions on a large area with cattle grazing out in the winter time. Fladry is an electric wire with strips of colored plastic attached. Wolf cheerleaders, both local and everywhere, claim this cure-all is the answer to end all wolf depredations. Our experience: It may have a place on small acreages; we find it hard to keep it electrified. Wet snow will take it to the ground, wind blows tumbleweeds and mustard plants into it and if you use existing fences to put it on, wind blows it into the wires of existing fence and shorts it out. To use it on larger acreages requires a separate fence and many electric fence controllers and it’s just impractical.

In the early days of the wolf debate, fladry was offered as a tool by the agencies and enviro groups to suck stock producers in to thinking they could use this to protect their animals. If it was practical it probably wouldn’t be stacked up in the courthouse. Talking to other ranches in other states confirms our belief that most ranchers know it doesn’t work, and so does the wolf.

As I write this on the 11th day of March, 50 cows have calved. Our worst fears are coming true: one aborted a few days after the attack; three backwards hind feet first; one upside down and backwards (the hind leg of this calf penetrated both the virginal and rectal walls); one more upside down and backwards; one tail first (breech); two with legs turned back; one with head turned back. Several vaginal prolapses probably caused by improperly positioned calves. Is this indirect loss or what?

My son Tom and his wife Kelly have had to deal with this horrible task night and day, 31 miles from vet clinics and assistance. What kind of people support turning the terrorist of the animal kingdom loose on these defenseless animals and inflicting this kind of pain and loss? When I think of my family out in the barn trying their best to save these poor animals — it takes hours with good luck to straighten and get them out — I get damn mad. Who do I blame? After devoting about 10 years of my life to fighting this invasion of wolves from neighboring states through the political system, attending numerous ODFW hearings and workshops all over the state and participating in the largest “no wolf” hearing in the state of Oregon at Enterprise, and losing it all when we were slam-dunked by the ODFW commission in Troutdale (who, by the way, didn’t have guts enough to attend the Enterprise hearing) yea, I’m bitter.

We lost eight calves this summer, we were compensated for one. If we aren’t compensated for indirect loss from wolves, our ranch and all others are in serious jeopardy.

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:

History: Killing Wolves in Oregon Was Not All About Uniting Settlers

Below is a teaser and link to an article about the history of wolves in Oregon. Whether you buy into the interpretation of using wolves to “unite the settlers” is your business. The take away from all of this, unfortunately is not mentioned and, of course, never will be – humans and large predators will never coexist in some existential Utopia. The radical wolf and large predator worshipers fear not to state that humans should die in order that wolves may live. It’s difficult to deal with such insanity.

Humans have the right to live in peace, to be fruitful and multiply. That was God’s order. Our responsibility is to find a tolerable point in which man and animals can share space, but never at the expense of humans…NEVER!

“The purpose of the meetings [Wolf Meetings], Gray would later write, was to “get an object before the people upon which all could unite” (killing wolves) and use that unity to sow the seeds of civil government.”<<<Read More>>>