July 2, 2020

RMEF Calls Out Center for Biological Diversity: Stick to the Facts

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling on the environmentalist group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to stick to the facts when making presumptions about wildlife populations.

CBD recently claimed that Idaho’s wolf population is on the verge of endangered status when, in reality, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) stated that preliminary counts indicate Idaho has more than 100 documented wolf packs and 600-plus wolves. IDFG also reported it has a minimum of 22 documented breeding pairs after counting only 30 packs. IDFG biologists have yet to examine the status of 77 additional packs.

“A few advocacy groups chose to take the breeding pair metric out of context to make claims that Idaho wolves are ‘teetering on the brink of endangered status once again.’ That’s hogwash,” said Virgil Moore, IDFG director. “And it’s the kind of polarizing misinformation that undermines responsible wildlife conservation and management in Idaho.”

“It is not surprising when you consider this group’s intent on stirring the pot to dilute the facts in order to raise emotions and money,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Groups like CBD do not really want states to manage wolves and they don’t really want states to be successful in managing wolves. Facts are facts and it is a clear fact that none of the states managing wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Region are remotely close to low numbers of breeding pairs or total wolf population. These groups would rather file a lawsuit and collect their legal fees from the U.S. taxpayers than actually work with the states to better manage all the wildlife populations together.”

History shows that to be true. A 2012 report used Department of Justice data that showed the federal government defended more than 570 Endangered Species Act-related lawsuits (wolves included) over a four-year period which cost American taxpayers more than $15 million in attorney fees. CBD was, by far, the most litigious organization with 117 cases.

“Groups like CBD excel at taking advantage of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) which was never intended to fund lawsuits by NGOs to promote ideology. What they don’t excel at, to say the least, is conducting wildlife counts,” said Allen.

IDFG is expected to release its final 2014 wolf population estimate in March. The minimum number of documented wolves as of December 31, 2013, was estimated at 659 or more than 500 percent above minimum recovery levels agreed upon during wolf reintroduction in the mid-1990s. The 659 figure did not include wolves from 28 documented border packs that overlapped with Montana, Wyoming and Washington. IDFG presumes there are additional packs within its borders but are not included due to a lack of documentation.

“The bottom line is Idaho’s wolf population is not endangered in the least and it’s vital that state management remain in place in order to whittle the population closer to balanced recovery levels where they should be and where EVERYONE agreed the numbers should be. CBD did not object to the recovery goals in 1995, but now they and other groups like them pretend they never heard of the recovery goals,” added Allen.

In keeping with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, RMEF supports state-regulated hunting and trapping as the preferred tools of wolf management. RMEF staunchly supports management to balance and control predator populations.

RMEF has awarded nearly $265,000 in grants to various states specifically for wolf management activities including $50,000 to Idaho in 2013. No other groups have granted any financial resources for any type of predator management including CBD.

Share

Moore Rebuts Whiny, Wimpy, Wolf Wuvers

This from Virgil Moore, Director Idaho Department of Fish and Game:

It’s important for state agencies to understand and respect differing points of view. But when a few advocacy groups try to grab headlines by skewing Idaho Fish and Game scientific wolf monitoring data in ways that simply aren’t true, it’s also important to set the record straight.

Here are the facts:

* Idaho has more than 100 documented wolf packs and over 600 wolves. Idaho’s wolf population far exceeds federal recovery levels of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves.

* After meeting federal recovery levels in 2002, Idaho’s wolf population grew largely unchecked for the remainder of the decade, resulting in increased conflicts with other big game populations and livestock.

* After 4 harvest seasons since the 2011 delisting, livestock depredations have declined. Wolf predation continues to have unacceptable impacts to some elk populations, but there are signs elk populations are responding positively to wolf management.

* Wolves in Idaho continue to be prolific and resilient. Idaho will keep managing wolves to have a sustainable, delisted population and to reduce conflicts with people, livestock, and other big game populations.

Despite these facts, a few advocacy groups chose to take the breeding pair metric out of context to make claims that Idaho wolves are “teetering on the brink of endangered status once again.” That’s hogwash. And it’s the kind of polarizing misinformation that undermines responsible wildlife conservation and management in Idaho.

Confirming a pack meets U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s narrow definition of a “breeding pair” is costly and labor-intensive. With vast reductions in federal funding to the state and Nez Perce Tribe for wolf monitoring, Fish and Game has focused our effort on demonstrating Idaho has at least 15 “breeding pairs” to comply with federal recovery requirements. Idaho closely surveyed 30 packs and confirmed that 22 of them met the breeding pair standard at the end of 2014. Because Idaho has shown it is well above federal recovery levels, we may rely on less intensive monitoring for the other 70 + packs as we complete our final 2014 population estimates. One can assume these 70+ packs include some additional breeding pairs. We will publish our annual monitoring report in March.

As trained scientists, Idaho Fish and Game stands by our data and our wildlife management plans. We manage wolves to ensure we keep state management authority and address conflicts with people, livestock, and other big game populations.

I hope people who truly care about wildlife conservation ignore the exaggerations and misinformation and help Fish and Game focus on the real issues affecting Idaho’s wildlife.

Share

In Washington, Some Mourn The Arrival Of New Fish and Game Director

UnsworthMore than forty years have passed since the real growth of environmentalism in this country began and as a result, we are now witness to the second and third generations of post-normal, conservation wildlife scientists, presenting little hope for sound or consumptive wild game use.

To rousing ovations of many in Idaho, their deputy director of the Fish and Game Department (IDFG), Dr. Jim Unsworth, departed the Gem State to take over the head seat at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). To many in Washington, who have been following the wolf introduction disaster, seeing Unsworth as their new director is worse than a Tippecanoe curse. But obviously to the committee that selected Unsworth, he was their match made in heaven.

Should Washington residents fear Unsworth’s selection by committee, “a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW”, because it was a terrible choice? There were eight candidates and that field was narrowed to four, ultimately opting for Unsworth. For some this makes their skin crawl.

More than likely there probably wasn’t anybody any better or with different values to choose from. A true “Manchurian Candidate” would have been trained specifically for one purpose. In this case and cases all across this nation, the “Manchurians” are products of a “Manchurian” education system. The rigged system was created to pump out candidates just like Unsworth. It’s nearly impossible to escape the result. The same rigged system was designed to produce members of committees that will select candidates from the rigged system. And finally, the rigged system forms the masses to follow blindly along. In truth, most people just don’t know what’s going on.

From the years that I have covered wolf and other wildlife issues in the state of Idaho, I’m not sure I recall a statement made in a government document that upset outdoor sportsmen any more than one that Jim Unsworth was a part of. In a 1993 document, Elk Management in the Northern Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions, a report completed by Unsworth and two other colleagues, it reads:

We recognize now that elk are part of a bigger picture and that elk habitat management must be placed within the context of ecosystem management, biodiversity, State management strategies and goals, and shifting public demand and interest that now embrace nonconsumptive and consumptive interests.

Sportsmen often pay lip service to such issues as fish and game departments catering to environmentalists and their desire to end hunting, trapping and fishing, but when we see it put to writing that the paradigm is and has shifted toward non consumptive wildlife management, it’s enough to make maggots climb a small, thin rope. Dr. Valerius Geist calls “ecosystem management” with the goal of “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity”, as “intellectual rubbish.”

The reality is that Dr. Jim Unsworth is perhaps a second generation product of post-normal wildlife management taught to him by such conservation romance biologists as Dr. James Peek. Yes, America is witness to the fruits of its labor. While outdoor sportsmen enjoyed time in the wild, away from the hustle and bustle of the nasty world now comprised of “changing the way we talk about wildlife”, the nasty world made the change that took place and it appears it has taken the introduction of wolves, forced onto the landscape of human settlement to give some pause to ask how that all happened. Isn’t it just a bit too late?

In my newest book, Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?, I spend a great deal of time explaining how American citizens were sold the biggest con job until Obamacare was thrust upon us much in the same manner. I’ll talk more of that in a moment.

Jim Unsworth was a student of Dr. James Peek. If you want a greater understanding of what Unsworth was subjected to as a student of wildlife management, try reading this and this.

However, the likes of the new-science, wildlife scientist shouldn’t come as a surprise. We were warned about the coming destruction. In The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 47, Jan.-Mar. 2012 edition, editor George Dovel subtitled his central article as: “Review What Has Happened Since 1990 When the IAFWA Hired Bird-Watchers and Other Predator Preservationists to Replace Public Hunting in North America.

Dovel writes:

The Washington, D.C. – based international group that once represented the interests of state Fish and Game agencies by lobbying Congress and the President for them, is now their master. Although it chose to drop the word “International” from its name in order to sound “more friendly” to the North American hunters and fishermen it once supported, the “Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies” even added the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China to the long list of federal agency members it represents.

In 1990, IAFWA hired non-hunting bird watcher Naomi Edelson to establish non-consumptive wildlife
recreation as all state F&G agencies’ number one priority. This shocking violation of the law in many states was ignored by commissioners and biologists.

In July of 1990, IDFG Research Biologist (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth wrote a 1991-95 elk plan based on the IAFWA directive which blatantly violated Idaho Wildlife Policy in Idaho Code Sec 36-103. That 74-year-old law clearly states that wild animals, wild birds and fish within the state of Idaho shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and managed to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.

Yet the introduction to Unsworth’s Elk Plan said:

“Although this document is called an Elk Management Plan, it is really the plan of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (hereafter called the Department) for managing the many and varied impacts of people upon wildlife and wildlife habitat.

“…The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the
maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not
necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”

We also get a glimpse into a few things upon examination of an interview Unsworth did in 2009 for Idaho Public Television.

Based on information provided in this interview, Jim Unsworth must have been with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game around 15 years, when he told in his 2009 interview that:

The day they brought them [wolves] in, I was in the Middle Fork with some other Fish and Game folks. We were counting elk and deer, and we had just finished up for the day, and we were on the Thomas Creek airstrip, and getting ready to head back to the cabin and have dinner. All of a sudden a bunch of fixed wings started landing, and here they were, dropping wolves off. None of us that were there counting elk even knew that this was going to happen.

Seriously? As much national attention as was given the introduction of wolves into this region and a 15-year biologist, who eventually became deputy director, didn’t know this was going to happen? While champagne was being uncorked, employees of the IDFG knew nothing? There must have been some very big secret being kept under wraps. I wonder what that could have been? (wink – wink)

And there was this:

And so, I remember sitting there on the airstrip with some of the guys I was working with, and we’d just spent a week counting –- looking at one of the most remarkable elk herds in the world, and looking at these wolves that they had dropped off.

And as a biologist, I was thinking, Whoa, this will be interesting! I mean, we have an incredibly abundant food source here, and a new top predator, and I wonder what’s going to happen.

I’m guessing that as little as Unsworth claimed he was aware of wolf introduction and what was going to happen to the elk populations, those behind the introduction were lying like well-worn rugs in a house of ill repute, claiming they knew wolves wouldn’t have any impact on elk herds.

In this interview, Unsworth sounds as though he is pretty balanced in his outlook and perspective on wolves and wolf management and maybe even wildlife management in general. However, if you pay attention, you will read indications of his personal perspective of non consumptive wildlife management. It appears as though, even as he might be passing himself off as a hunter, he doesn’t really care if those hunting opportunities are taken away from hunters. He prefers to address the issue by stating that the elk moved and it’s up to the hunters to change their habits.

You will also read this:

Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life, for lots of people. That’s where they get their winter’s food. A lot of people don’t understand that, that are back east watching. They like the idea of wolves, and how everything’s happening out here, but I think they miss the people part of this whole equation. They miss the impact that these wolves are having just on local guys wanting to go out, recreate and feed their family for the winter. People miss that.

Which brings us back to the remarkable con job of wolf introduction. I’m sorry Mr. Unsworth but it wasn’t just those people “back east watching” that didn’t care one iota that, “Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life,” not one little bit. Again, in reference to my book, Wolf” What’s to Misunderstand? I point out that every human element in the discussion of the impact of wolves in the Environmental Impact Statement was deliberately left out. That was in 1994 and this interview was in 2009 and evidently in that 15-year period, he and others like him still haven’t caught on.

The only real important issue about wolf introduction and present wolf management IS the human element. As Unsworth even points out, why did officials in 1993 deliberately avoid having to seriously address those elements?

But that is the power of new-science, post normal, wildlife management, brainwashing. It matters not whether there exists any scientific evidence, all based upon the scientific model that once worked pretty darn good. No, it’s now all about outcome-based science, developed and passed on by “change agents” whose minds were filled with idealistic nonsense and they believe it. This is the rigged system. What we are seeing is nothing more than a product of that rigged system.

Perhaps Unsworth was the best choice for Washington; a clone with all the right talking points. Those who sit on the governor’s hand-selected committee to vet a new director, I’m sure were all selected with the same principles that George Dovel told us were underway; that wildlife management would be done by bird watchers and environmentalists who are more concerned about kicking us off our lands and “their” lands, while managing for scarcity, than they are about real wildlife conservation with abundance for all.

It will not be until we, as a society, figure out how the progression of these “propaganda fantasies” started and how to stop it, that we can once again find fish and game directors, and a staff full of real biologists, that understand the difference between truth and fantasy.

If you figure out how to stop it then the challenge will become how do you re manufacture the clogged mands?

Share

Idaho: 22 Breeding Wolf Pairs, 1,000 Wolves

As was well pointed out by a reader on this website, wolf advocates seem upset that Idaho officials are not reliable when it comes to counting wolves but are reliable when it comes to counting elk.

“Idaho Fish and Game biologist Jim Hayden said there are an estimated 1,000 wolves in the state, and probably many more breeding pairs of wolves than counted.

“The 22 is still tentative but it can only go up from there,” he said before giving a presentation to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in Boise.

Hayden said the number of breeding pairs in the state is not at risk of falling below 15, which would lead to the state having to return wolf management to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure the species’ survival under the Endangered Species Act.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

20 Years of Wolves: UNHappy Birthday!

Montana and Idaho were only allowed to manage wolves after Congress stepped in and passed legislation that delisted the gray wolf in these two states in 2011. Now several members of Congress are preparing similar legislation to delist wolves in Wyoming, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. The ESA desperately needs to be reformed. Congress should not have to check and balance the executive branch by delisting species because agencies fail to do their jobs, or unwarranted court decisions override state laws.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Future of Idaho’s Wildlife

Letter to the Editor;

I have recently read articles about the Fish and Game wanting a fee increase and yet another idea about how to get some Idahoans pitted against each other so only some foot the bill. I would like to make it very clear I love the outdoors and everything it has to offer, especially for our youth. I believe every sportsman wants to pay every cent that is truly needed, and will sacrifice time, effort, and money to keep the thing they love above all else as a heritage for their children. Time after time I’ve witnessed our Fish and Game pit one group against another. To the point some of our best sportsmen no longer go to any meetings concerning matters at hand. Basically because decisions have already been made and frankly their time and personal integrity have been wasted.

The science behind what should dictate direction for wildlife has long disappeared. Money overrides science every time there is a new shortfall in the status Quo. When most Idahoans go to work and their productivity weans we have to work harder for a better or more productive product, or we suffer. We don’t just try new ways to make more profit on the same poor product! For our kids sake they have to change direction, but I fear they will never be held accountable because they are such masters at pitting the sportsman against each other. Or at least groups of people against one another. To the point I mentioned earlier, until it’s to hard for the average man to dedicate anymore time and effort going to their meetings. Because they never make any real difference for the average man to justify his sacrifice from his family and his own struggle in life.

They ( F&G) will patronize you but your opinions mean little if anything. They ( F&G) will spend all kinds of money on more studies but the results never really go anywhere or make any real change that have improved their product. Look at a 30 year window of my life during the 60’s 70’s 80’s I would without question say almost everything they managed has diminished in quality and quantity since then especially. I know some quality will change with growth by human expansion that they have no control. That said I also know if they cared there are many things they could get going at no cost at all except their time and effort. They have very poor relationships with almost every landowner I know and landowners own a big part of the playing field.

If you question my opinion I understand but I would ask two questions . 1.) If it was good science during the 60’s- 80’s (probably longer, when the Snake River had a lot more water all winter) to close fishing season during the winter why would it now be open all winter with very low water flows (like fishing in a bucket). What science decision do you believe had merit, then or now? 2.) If deer populations are historically low, as well as deer harvested by sportsmen , and deer tag sales since the 80’s, (especially low compared to that same 30 year period) what science would dictate our Fish and game to adopt 2 deer tags sales to a resident as long as he or she pays non-resident prices on the 2nd tag? I believe these decisions revolve around Money and influential people rather than Science and our children’s Heritage.

I know many believe Hunting and fishing is cruel and unneeded, that for wildlife to survive they need to get rid of the sportsmen! I beg to differ, real sportsmen would go to great lengths and sacrifice to keep all wildlife in abundance but with balance. Those who don’t see that are blinded and are probably building their new home in the middle of the last Mule deer winter range, killing more wildlife than any sportsman could in his lifetime. They may not mean to, but their destruction is far greater when they don’t take the time to find out that proper understanding, use, and management is crucial for wildlife’s future existence.

I mean it with all my heart that I would back the Idaho Fish and Game for a fee increase if only they really needed it. I Don’t believe they do! I believe they have become a huge Bureaucracy out of control for the average sportsmen of Idaho and have no real belief that accountability by the sportsmen is on its way. I beg all sportsmen to stand up and be heard, call all F&G Commissioners and Politicians, for your kids’ sake changes need to be made. If only 10% of Idaho sportsmen stood together we could move mountains with our Politicians and Commissioners. Pull together and make it happen lets hold someone accountable.

Bryan Sprague

Share

Neighbors Work for Hours to Save Elk That Had Fallen Through Ice

“They told the farmers that they had called Fish and Game, but had been informed that nature was taking its course and that there was nothing they could do to help.

“Iverson and neighbors John and Bill Lefebvre decided that they couldn’t stand by while the young elk struggled in the freezing water, so they decided that they would head up to the scene to see what they could do.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

No Derby Wolves But Girls Bag Rabbits Receive New Rifle

Newsweek carries the story of how 30 coyotes, two rabbits and zero wolves were taken during a predator hunting derby over the weekend. HOWEVER:

Steve Alder, executive director of Idaho for Wildlife, wrote: “I attached some pictures of the young girls who bagged their first trophy’s and their fathers taught them to field dress and make a stew from their harvest! When we heard these little girls were hunting in sub zero weather for 3 days we found the $ to award each girl with a new 22 rifle!”

Hopefully, this act, a reflection of love and compassion, along with real American heritage, will put a big fat burr across the butts of many anti human, perverted, predator lovers.

Rabbits2

Rabbits3

Rabbits4

Rabbits1

Share

Idaho For Wildlife’s 2nd Predator Derby

PredatorDerby15

Share

I Suppose For Some It’s Better to Live in Outer Space

This is a copy of a letter sent to Steve Alder, head of Idaho for Wildlife, that will be hosting a predator derby hunt this coming winter in Idaho. When you don’t live on this planet, I can only assume understanding how Earth dwellers live becomes a difficult task, as this letter points out.

WhackedOutLetter

Share