November 27, 2020

Montana Receives RMEF Grant to Bolster Wolf Management

*Editor’s Note* – Wolves should not be “managed.” They need to be controlled. On the one hand, we must commend the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation for caring enough to be willing to give money for wolf management. Yet, on the other hand, the money is being given for a useless purpose that will NEVER, EVER, attain control over wolves in order to protect the rights of humans and the existence of other wildlife species. Further studies and spending money to obtain “more accurate information,” is playing into the hands of environmentalists who want wolves in everyone’s back yard while destroying all hunting and trapping opportunities.

It is complete dishonesty for any fish and game management entity to corruptly and deliberately UNDERESTIMATE the population of any species, because doing so placates the will of the wolf perverts. To offer an “official” population estimate of wolves out of the corner of their mouths, while stating real populations are “27 to 37 percent higher” is dishonest and should not be tolerated by anyone. If nothing more, it simply makes no sense.

It is my opinion, that while RMEF’s intent might be good, their $50,000 is going to enhance a ridiculous wolf “management” program. It is a bad choice of what to do with $50,000.

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation awarded $50,000 in grant funding to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) and Wildlife Services to assist Montana with its wolf management plan implementation.

“RMEF stands behind the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation which calls for the management of all species so their populations will be sustained forever,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Predator management is a key principle in the model. And in Montana, we have a wolf population that far exceeds minimum objectives so we need to obtain more data to enhance the science of estimating wolf numbers so we can have more accurate information to assist in overall effective management.”

The funding goes toward additional collaring for wolves in order to expand the science related to wolf pack locations, size and home ranges. More specifically, GPS collars will be deployed to help refine the Patch Occupancy Model for estimating wolf numbers and number of packs. The expectation is to use the modeling in conjunction with harvest surveys to have a less labor-intensive method of estimating wolf populations.

With the onset of hunting seasons, wolf packs seem to be smaller in size yet the number of breeding pairs reportedly increased from a year ago. The goal of this research utilizing collars is to gain a better understanding of the new population dynamics of wolves in a hunted population.

Montana reported a 2014 minimum wolf population of 554 animals but biologists maintain the actual on-the-ground count is 27 to 37 percent higher. If you do the math, that places Montana’s wolf population somewhere between 705 to 760 which is still more than 400 percent above minimum objectives.

“The bottom line is it’s extremely difficult to manage wolves toward a given objective unless managers know how many wolves there are on the landscape. This grant funding will help FWP determine just that,” added Allen.

RMEF supports state-regulated hunting and trapping as preferred tools of wolf management. RMEF also remains committed to learning more about wolves and their effect on elk and other prey through research efforts. In the last three-plus years, RMEF awarded approximately $300,000 in grants specifically for wolf management.

Share

Wolf Plans Be Damned

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) seems to have taken a page from the liar’s book of wolf management deception used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS promised taxpayers that when wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment reached a total of 300 wolves, the animal would be removed from Federal protection. Years later and many hundreds more wolves than promised, the USFWS BEGAN the process to “delist” the wolf. And then the environmentalists went to work filing lawsuits to pad their bank accounts.

It seems Oregon promised taxpayers that when wolves numbered four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years, wolves there would be removed from protection. That goal was reached in 2012 when six breeding pairs were confirmed, 2013 when 4 breeding pairs were confirmed and in 2014 when 8 breeding pairs existed.

It is now 2015 and the OFWC is considering whether to delist at all, or do it only in prescribed areas of the state.

And these clowns wonder why so many people are hating on wolves and idiotic wildlife management that protects animals over humans and their property.

Share

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>>>

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

Wolf Wisdom from a Wolf Authority

Dr. Val Geist is a retired Canadian University Professor now living in British Columbia. While his title is “Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science” his field of expertise for which he is internationally recognized is the biology of wildlife and the societal implications of wildlife policy options. I have no greater respect for any academic in the field of predators and predation; two topics of great moment as you read this in North America and Europe.

Below are some very succinct and candid comments by Dr. Geist regarding the controversies and complications swirling around European wolves, their effects of rural Europeans, and the question of what is a wolf. This last question involves the genetic definition of a dog v the genetic definition of a wolf and when is a hybrid one or the other. As I have written many times over the years; I believe a wolf is a dog is a coyote (truly one species using the classical definition of a species) since all three interbreed freely and always produce viable (reproductively capable) offspring. The emerging question of what genetically is a dog or a wolf (or a coyote in North America) is both an academic (i.e. pedantic) determination as well as a value decision by government. The real, everyday aspect of this question is the many current and growing numbers of hybrids that can easily look like one another while carrying vastly different genetic make-ups.

This question of hybrids; which is what, what is protected and what is the government purpose overall is another one of the interminable sidebars that confuse the public and make informed decision-making by the public and government merely a matter of bureaucratic interests, emotions and propaganda fantasies. I would refer you to wolf effects on big game herds like elk and moose; wolves as disease and infection vectors endangering humans, domestic animals and other wildlife; wolf effects on domestic dogs; Red v Gray v Mexican v Timber, etc. wolves; and wolf effects on rural economies and the general welfare of rural residents as all similarly ignored and undefined ramifications of wolves kept totally beyond the control of those forced to live with them by powerful, remote governments.

Dr Geist’s comments are in response to a European proposal – after just sentencing some Finnish hunters to jail for killing some wolves/dogs/hybrids (?) – to legally define just what is a wolf and what is a dog. These comments should be read by everyone involved with or soon to be involved with GI (Government Issued) wolves, dogs, hybrids or “whatevers”. If you agree, PLEASE SHARE THEM FAR AND WIDE. Thanks.

Jim Beers
19 January 2015

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.

————————-

Wolves cannot be kept in settled landscapes, because of the impossibility of keeping wolves and dogs apart, and the destruction of the wolf genome by creeping hybridization. While I whole-heatedly agree that there should be no keeping of wolves and wolf hybrids as pets, the sheer size of the “wolf-dog” industry as well as past releases of wolf hybrids will insure further erosion of the genome of free-ranging wolves. Secondly, how is officialdom to know of wolf hybrids unless wolf numbers are strictly and closely regulated so that plenty of specimens are available for testing. Thirdly, from my experience identifying wolves or dogs from photos sent my way I have serious doubts that European wolf specialists can currently distinguish wolf from dog. Unless limits are set early to wolf numbers – and I see no hint of that – wolf populations will expand to destroy the populations of deer and turn to livestock and humans.

Do the authors of this manifesto really think that they can significantly keep wolves and dogs apart by minimizing the number of free-ranging dogs? Even if they have some success in doing so, are they not aware that lone wolves themselves seek out dogs? Do they really think that lone wolf females in heat will desist from visiting suburbs and farms looking for a mate? Do they think that chained farm dogs will not copulate with a female wolf in heat at night? Has nobody had the experience of holding a young very large male dog in training while they come in contact with am estrus female canid? I had a Bouvier de Flandre on the leash while we came across a small wolf track in the snow – and the Bouvier went wild! He then weighed only about a hundred pounds. I had my hands full! An amorous male wolf threatened my wife when he approached an estrus hunting dog in an enclosure. No neighborhood male dog had been that bold! In short, given wolves with a desire to mate and they will intrude deep into human habitation. There is no way to effectively segregate wolves from dogs in settled landscapes. Moreover, as this is written, there is now way to protect wildlife from marauding packs of dogs either.

As I have said before, all efforts to make wolves compatible with settle landscapes are a waste of time and energy. All marauding canids in settle landscape need to be removed. This raises the question of how to conserve wolves as a species. What we know for certain is that they need to be kept away from people and dogs. In the first instance that means that wolves and other large predators need to be kept where the public has no entry. And such areas need to be large. The very first step is to negotiate internationally for keeping large predators on military and atomic reserves. I doubt that national parks are suitable because the tourist lobby will balk. Secondly, means and ways need to be found to control closely wolf populations in such reserves to insure that the predators do not run out of prey, and leave the reserves for settled landscapes. Well-fed wolves will cause the least problems. Severe trapping and predator control in 20th century North America kept wolves out of settled landscapes, eliminated agricultural losses and disease transmission, retained their genetic integrity, while attacks on humans were unheard of.

Wolf conservation as proposed here (i.e. Europe) is not serious.

Sincerely, Val Geist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science

Share

Colville, Wash Residents “Fed-Up” With Wolves

And the totalitarian socialist government has no plans to do anything about it.

“COLVILLE, Wash.—The Department of Fish and Wildlife discussed concerns over the growing wolf population with hundreds of residents of eastern Washington Tuesday night in Colville.

The department invited members of the public to share their views on wolf management after wolves killed livestock in Stevens and Ferry Counties. More than 200 people crammed into the Colville Ag Trade Center to share their opinions. While a few served as advocates for the wolves, most of the comments came from ranchers and others who are frustrated with how the state is managing the wolves.

“This county is fed-up,”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wyoming Considers Delisting Wolves the Way Idaho and Montana Got Theirs Done

Yes, the precedent was set when certain members of Congress attached a “rider” bill to a Congressional budget bill in 2011 that put wolves in Idaho and Montana off the Endangered Species Act List, also providing a clause that disallowed any legal challenges. Was it the right thing to do? Was it the best thing to do? You decide.

But because it appeared at the time that it was the only way anybody was going to get beyond unrelenting, oppressive lawsuits to get some kind of control over a rapidly growing wolf population, the action of attaching a rider to a budget bill resulted in “delisted” wolves and something that sort of resembles wolf control.

At the time of the rider bill fiasco, Idaho and Montana tossed Wyoming under the proverbial bus leaving them to fend for themselves to gain management over wolves. Wyoming was successful in time but only for awhile, until a Washington, D.C. judge ruled in a recent lawsuit that Wyoming’s wolf management plan was inadequate for further and sufficient protection of the gray wolf. Now Wyoming’s gray wolf population is back under federal protection and Wyoming government and citizens are frustrated because they did everything necessary to gain approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Now it appears that some legislators in Wyoming are considering taking the route Idaho and Montana did in 2011, and getting wolves delisted for good and to put a stop, once and for all, to the rash of continued, money-making lawsuits.

“I think we have to consider legislative action now. I don’t see any other recourse,” said U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis. “We have done everything the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked of us and more.”

In revealing some of her frustration, Lummis said that it seems that no matter what Wyoming has done, it’s never enough.

“The fact is that no matter what we do and no matter how successful we are at recovering the wolf, certain groups remain unsatisfied and unwilling to accept victory,” Lummis said. “Now it is time to pursue a legislative solution.”

Whether you agree or disagree that attaching a bill to a larger congressional bill, or creating stand-alone legislation, is the right way to go, one has to consider the corner that environmental and animal rights groups have put the rest of citizenry in. Historically, the majority of outdoor sportsmen, landowners, ranchers, etc. are not the protesting sort of people, looking to take every person who looks at them funny, to court and/or insisting the rest of the world live like they do. Environmentalists and their ilk are. Maybe the environmentalists should reconsider where to draw their dictatorial lines in the sand.

A lawyer for Earthjustice doesn’t like the idea of congressional action to stop the lawsuits.

“There are always situations where people in specific areas want to get exceptions from the act for their own localized interests,” Preso said. “But that doesn’t serve the interest of the nation as a whole, which is blessed with an incredible wildlife heritage that still exists today largely as a result of the Endangered Species Act.”

Perhaps Preso should have considered that before running to the activist judges for help making money. Serious argument could be made as to any actions his organization has done has proven to “serve the interest of the nation as a whole.”

Preso also states that we enjoy “incredible wildlife” because of the Endangered Species Act. I, and I know there are thousands more, who would rightfully say that we enjoy this wildlife despite the ESA, but more importantly in spite of fascists organizations like his.

Share

Mexican Wolf Game Change: To Hiss and Boo or Stand and Cheer?

ArizonaWolfPlanRecently I wrote a book about my life as an Innkeeper/Hotel/Motel/Manager. Included in that book in the last chapter was something that I shared as a means of finding fault with myself in that it took me far too long to understand the mistake I was making in thinking I could remain in the hospitality business that I disliked.

Chapter One
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I fall in.
I am lost …. I am helpless.
It isn’t my fault.
It takes forever to find a way out.

Chapter Two
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I pretend that I don’t see it.
I fall in again.
I can’t believe I am in this same place.
But it isn’t my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.

Chapter Three
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I see it is there.
I still fall in … it’s a habit … but, my eyes are open.
I know where I am.
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.

Chapter Four
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I walk around it.

Chapter Five
I walk down another street.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided it was going to change up the rules to their rigged game about trying to establish a population of hybrid wolves in the Southwest Region of the U.S. As is required by law, a Draft Environmental Impact pack of lies Statement was released and now a comment period is allowed, in which anyone wishing may offer comments, scientific studies, proof, facts, or maybe just tell a funny story. It really doesn’t matter because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already decided what they are going to do and they are just going through the motions to make themselves look good or that they actually care. History proves this point. (Please see street analogy above.)

You see, within the rigged system, much the same way as our rigged Courts use “Arbitrary and Capricious” to justify decisions made, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses “Best Available Science.” Best available science is a farce and works well within the rigged system. That’s why it is there. It can mean anything and in the crafting of the rigged Endangered Species Act, the Secretary is granted his “deference” and therefore can utilize, by hand selecting, the “Best Available Science” that best fits an agenda. History proves this point. (Please see street analogy above.)

I am in the process of writing a book. In that book is a great deal of information that comes from the dissecting of the Final Environmental Impact pack of lies Statement. There is not one single bit of information in that FEIS, now 20 years later, that resulted in truth. Not one thing. Everything in that FEIS was based on the fraud of 30 breeding pairs of wolves and 300 wolves, within 3 wolf recovery areas; a “recovered” wolf population.

Dr. Charles Kay sought the “scientific evidence” that supported this fraudulent claim and there exists none – therefore the claim of fraud.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, of their own will, chose to completely disregard 15 issues of concern pertaining to wolf (re)introduction. To show how rigged and either corrupt or inept the entire episode of wolf (re)introduction was, as I said, not one promise made by the Feds was upheld and nearly all of the 15 items they deemed to be “insignificant” have now proven to be very significant. Can our wildlife managers be that inept? Evidently because the most recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement, corrects very little of it.

In the Southwest, perhaps a standing ovation should be order for the Arizona fish and game and their supporters, who are trying to hammer out changes, specifics and agreements, that will carry consequences, to be included in a final impact statement.

Some of the specifics include a limit of no more than 300-325 total wolves divided between Arizona and New Mexico and a percentage cap on reductions in elk populations due to wolf predation. I think I read as well that proof of those numbers will fall into the hands of the state fish and game departments and not the “Best Available Science” of the Feds.

On the other hand please stand and offer boos and hisses because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Feds will adhere to their agreement, as they seldom do and we know for a fact that none of it will stand up in a rigged court system, in which environmentalists can use taxpayer money, hand select an activist judge, who advocates for “arbitrary and capricious,” and force Arizona and New Mexico to watch a seriously depleted elk and deer population turn to ruin. Instead of facing a maximum of 300-325 wolves and a 15% impact on wild ungulates, like the Northern Rockies, there will be 3,000 to 6,000 wolves, disease, unsustainable ungulate herds in places, and ranchers run out of business and it will be business as usual.

I see that there are two issues that might make a difference. Arizona’s plan calls for the state’s withdrawal from the wolf program with all their assets if the Feds violate the agreement. The second is perhaps a half of a difference maker. If Arizona can get what they want in this impact statement, they will at least have a signed agreement. However, it will not matter because the Courts will change the entire plans. They always have and always will. History proves this point! (Please see street analogy above.)

That is why we are slaves within a rigged system. Maybe it’s time to walk a different street but I am not sure I know what street that is.

Share

Bill Hoppe: Eye of the Hunter (Video)

Share

Wolves, Sheep, Cows

“About three days before the wolf attack on my cow, I believe there were seven sheep that were killed within 2 miles of where the cow was attacked. They are getting to be a pretty big problem in that area. It is the Umatilla pack.” You just heard from Oregon rancher Mark Lane after his cowherd was attacked by two collared wolves in his pasture. Moving to the subject of the sheep that were attacked, I wanted an opinion on the subject so I called Stan Boyd, Executive Director of the Idaho Wool Growers Association: “As a guy who sits on the sidelines and talks to damaged sheep ranchers, and with no disrespect to environmental movements but how do these folks justify not wanting to manage, and I use that in a nice way, a population of animals that devastate livestock, devastate ungulate populations and, left unchecked, simply will multiply beyond our capability to contain them? I have never been able to understand their thought process so I figure you just have to ask those folks that question. I agree. It is beyond comprehension that we were going to reintroduce wolf populations in Idaho and not have to manage them. By manage them I mean kill them. You are going to have to use lethal measures to keep that population within a manageable group. If you don’t, their populations become so large and they lack the prey base and that’s when they come down and foray into agricultural areas and that’s where they really start to cause damage.” <<<Read More>>>

Share