This is a short clip to the video release “Yellowstone is Dead” You can purchase a copy of the Documentary here: http://yellowstone-is-dead.myshopify.com/products/yellowstone-is-dead

Donations to help save the Northern Yellowstone elk herd can be made here: Donate to FOTNYEH care of E.L.K inc P.O. Box 85 Gardiner, Montana 59030

Wolves fed upon cow while alive, 20 + pounds of muscle tissue eaten out around back end and pelvis. Wolves leave; cow stressed and tries to birth calf. Calf found half way out dead not fed upon by wolves; cow could not stand and was put down. This is a typical confirmed wolf depredation.Forward

Many rural family ranchers have lost their peace of mind, lost their dreams, lost their pursuit of happiness, [...]]]> by Jess Carey, Catron County Wolf Interaction Investigator, New Mexico

Wolves fed upon cow while alive, 20 + pounds of muscle tissue eaten out around back end and pelvis. Wolves leave; cow stressed and tries to birth calf. Calf found half way out dead not fed upon by wolves; cow could not stand and was put down. This is a typical confirmed wolf depredation.Forward

Many rural family ranchers have lost their peace of mind, lost their dreams, lost their pursuit of happiness, lost their livestock and lost their ranches. Collateral Damage Identification seemed appropriate. All damage was due to non-compensated wolf caused livestock losses, a “taking” by Federal wolves administered by Federal agencies and our own New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

These agencies have pushed Mexican Wolf Recovery forward knowing that their wolves are destroying family rancher’s ability to survive, in the end selling off their ranches. In fact, lost family ranchers are collateral damage to achieve Mexican Wolf Recovery.

People who do not have wolves on their land yet may be unaware of what to look for to identify wolf activity. Wolves travel a long distance and could be in your area. Unidentified depredations on livestock, killed pets and farm animals could be wolf interactions attributed to other causes.

Un-collared wolves have dispersed from the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) to other counties and parts of the State of New Mexico and Arizona. Wolves put into  Yellowstone National Park within a few years dispersed into Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado.

Un-collared Mexican wolves have had 12 years to disperse into other parts of the state of New Mexico. Breeding and having offspring with other un-collared wolves, they in turn repeat the process.

This is part of the hidden strategy of Mexican Wolf Recovery they do not talk or tell you about. This is also why the USFWS do not collar all wolves.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (the lead wolf recovery agency in New Mexico) are depending on un-collared wolf dispersals to saturate New Mexico and Arizona with wolves.

It is clear that wolf recovery agencies are managing family ranchers and not wolves.

Now, the US Forest Service has entered Mexican Wolf Recovery big time and will be putting all types of wolf directives on the permitted grazing allotments.

Wolf Attacks on Pets

Dog scalped by wolves at home, chunks bitten out of back end.

Dog killed in yard by wolves – leg bone crushed – massive hemorrhage.

Jaw crushed by wolf attack in back yard.

Wolf bites head off kitten in front of children.

Wolf agencies will tell you they have a solution for depredating livestock killing wolves or habituated wolves who seek our humans and human use areas. Habituated wolves lack an avoidance response to humans and are bold, and fearless.

Habituated wolves come in your front yard where your children play.

Non-positive wolf agency solutions for problem wolves are; hazing wolves away, supplemental feeding (to stop wolves from killing livestock), flaggery (flags on a shocking wire), and bang/rag boxes (to scare wolves). Some non-lethal schemes may work short term, but do not solve the problem of wolves killing livestock or cure flawed habituated wolves.

What these non-lethal schemes do accomplish is give the wolf agencies something to write in their reports to show their upper bosses they have attempted to fix the problem knowing full well they will fail and prolong the problem.

There is only one positive cure for problem wolves: remove them….period.

_____________________________________

How Much Do Family Ranchers Loose to Mexican Wolves?
Comparability Study Synopsis

This study consist of five ranches A, B, C, D, E, located within the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Catron County, New Mexico. These ranches have wolves denning in and or near calf/yearling core areas. Prior to this study the relationship between high calf loss rate and proximity of denning wolves was not understood. It was also not realized that coyotes swarm to areas where wolves are continually killing livestock, contributing to the removal and destruction of evidence of the remains.

Of the five ranches; four are cow/calf operations and one a yearling operation. All five ranches share a constant factor: Mexican wolf packs denning in and or near calf/yearling core areas.

Confirmed and probable findings do not reflect the true number of livestock losses. The information provided in this document indicates the true livestock loss and effects on family ranchers for sustainable economic viability. The final analyses indicate that annual post-wolf introduction losses are higher than the average annual pre-wolf losses for the five study ranches:

• Total combined livestock losses = 651.0 head,
• Total combined dollar value losses = $ 382,198.50

In this comparability study, two of the five ranches went out of business; one selling the ranch and the second is on the market now. A third ranch sold off their livestock in the fall of 2009 and did not re-stock cattle in 2010.

Wolf-caused stress disrupts a cow’s breeding cycle; the resulting calf loss must be measured in monetary value as if the wolf depredated a calf. To alleviate the taking of private property without compensation by the Federal Government, confirmation standards and the compensation scheme as a whole must be reevaluated. In-depth studies must be conducted to evaluate the negative impacts of wolves’ denning in calf/yearling core areas and the effects of wolf-related stress on livestock.

Evaluation of data must include the wide spectrum of negative impacts to livestock and livestock producers, rather than the current focus solely on benefits to wolves. Recommended areas of study include:

1. Pre-wolf introduction historic annual losses;
2. Post-wolf introduction annual livestock losses;
3. Wolves denning in calf/yearling core areas;
4. Wolves denning near calf/yearling core areas;
5. Wolf rendezvous sites located in calf/yearling core areas;
6. Wolf-claimed territory overlapping livestock core areas; and
7. Wolf-caused chronic stress and effects on livestock and producers.

Negative effects beyond wolf-caused mortality

The negative effects to livestock producers caused by Mexican Wolves are a wide spectrum not addressed and/or ignored by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Prior negative data and documentation of wolf recovery from other states were not utilized to mitigate the same negative effects of Mexican wolf recovery in New Mexico and Arizona.

Wolves continually killing, prey testing in a herd produces chronic wolf stress in cattle.
Chronic wolf-caused stress in cattle leads to loss of body condition, cows birthing weak calves, pre-mature birth of calves, abortion of calves, immune suppression, decreased pregnancy rates-open cows, increased susceptibility to disease, weight loss, and wolf attacks alter the demeanor of cows from docile to aggressive.

1. True livestock losses are not reflected in confirmed and probable investigative findings;
2. Few livestock depredations are actually compensated;
3. Cumulative effects of wolf predation makes livestock production untenable;
4. Impact on individual family ranchers is devastating, even though the impact to the entire livestock industry of the state may be small;
5. Wolf depredation disrupts grazing management plans;
6. Increased uncompensated hours tending injured calves;
7. Increased uncompensated hours checking livestock;
8. Increased uncompensated hours mending fences when wolves attack/run livestock through them;
9. Increased uncompensated hours gathering livestock and returning to proper pasture;
10. Loss of market value for maimed and disfigured calves;
11. Loss of replacement heifers/production;
12. Loss of revenue while new herd takes several years to acclimate;
13. Loss of revenue while replacement heifers take three years to acclimate into an existing herd.

Wolves Denning in Calf/yearling Core Areas Result In:

1. Wolves subsistence on small calves;
2. High incidence of wolf depredation during the period when wolves were most active, i.e. providing sustenance to denning female and offspring;
3. Intensive localized wolf depredation of small calves;
4. After initial wolf gorging off calf and returning to the den, calf carcasses are scavenged and consumed by coyotes, requiring wolves to advance their frequent kill sequence;
5. Wolves’ utilize 20 pounds per calf depredation, coyotes and scavenging birds utilize remainder of carcass;
6. Wolf killing steadily in an area invariably causes a coyote swarm to that area;
7. Few calf carcasses (as compared to adult cattle carcasses) are found for investigation;
8. Carcass remains are mostly consumed, scavenged, destroying evidence of depredation;
9. Handicapped wolves with missing limbs/feet target (prefer) livestock, as wild game is difficult to capture;
10. When wolves den on a ranch the USFWS blame ranchers for not preventing livestock depredations;
11. USFWS demands that ranchers change their entire husbandry scheme to accommodate the presence of wolves; if the rancher refuses, no compensation is paid on Wildlife Services findings on confirmed or probable livestock depredations by Defenders of Wildlife;
12. Ranchers cooperating with the USFWS wolf recovery agencies nevertheless continue to have livestock losses.

The following information will educate the resource owner and the public on the negative aspects of Mexican Wolf Recovery, indentify wolf presence and recognize wolf depredations on livestock, pets, and farm animals so they can be investigated.

What do Mexican wolves look like?

Mexican wolves come in a variety of colors, sizes and display different behaviors. Most wolves are large in size, bigger than a German Shepard and weigh 70 to 90 pounds; some are smaller in size and weigh 45 to 50 pounds. The head of the wolf is blockier than a coyote and they have a broader nose than a coyote; also the ears are more rounded. The front feet are larger than the rear feet.

Color ranges from a grizzled gray, reddish-brown, whitish mixture to reddish-brown. This is why many people mistake Mexican wolves for coyote’s when seen further than a 100 yards. Most wolves will stand and look at you, then move away slowly. Some habituated wolves will stand and look at you even after you fire a firearm into the air.

Wolf attacks on cattle

Wolves primarily attacked cattle on the hindquarters including tail, vulva, lower thigh, hock, hamstring, and occasionally on the neck, face, and jaw, behind the front legs, in front of the rear legs, and on the belly. Wolf attack sites on cattle very, wolves continue to attack the way they have learned to capture cattle and all wolves do not attack at the same sites on the prey animal.

Wolves will run cows, calves, and yearlings stressing the animal until it cannot stand, normally there will be capture bite and rake marks on the skin with corresponding hemorrhage.

Calf still alive with massive tissue loss – San Mateo Pack denning between 2 pastures.

Bull calf (350 pounds) attacked by 4 wolves, bite sites with massive hemorrhage.

Remains of calf – Middle fork Pack.

One of five yearlings found walking around with massive tissue loss; Middle Fork Pack.

Most cattle die at the feeding site, some survive after the wolves have eaten their fill. Still, the victim with massive tissue loss has to be put down by the resource owner. All wolf depredated livestock go through this “death by consumption”.

Yearling walking around with massive tissue loss for six days, maggot infested wounds Middle fork pack.

Remains of horse in corral – seven wolves stripped all tissue from carcass.

Livestock killed by predators usually can be distinguished from those dying from other causes by the presence of external hemorrhaging; subcutaneous hemorrhaging and tooth punctures; damage to the skin, other soft tissues, and skull; blood on the soil and vegetation; and carnivore tracks, scats, or territorial marks near dead animals. Urgent calling and alert, defensive, and frightened behavior of livestock also suggest that predators may have killed livestock.

Newborn livestock killed by predators and partially consumed can be distinguished from stillborn livestock by characteristics not found in stillborn animals: a blood clot present at the closed end of the navel, pink lungs that float in water, fat around the heart and kidneys, milk in the stomach and intestines, milk fat and lymph in the lymphatic vessels that drain the intestinal tract, a worn soft membrane on the bottom of the hooves, and possibly soil on the bottom of the hooves.

Normally, when wolves kill new calves there is little left of the carcass, possibly a few small bones or a piece of the skull but usually there is just a bloody place on the ground is all that remains. The calf is totally consumed including hooves. If a larger calf and there are remains left a lot of the time there are no capture bite sites. The reason is the calf is bedded and the wolf pins the calf down and the feeding begins, the wolf does not have to bite the calf to capture it.

Wolves kill by consumption, they eat their victims alive and they die from stress, tissue and blood loss. In 233 wolf depredation investigations I have never documented a lethal bite site on cattle carcasses.

Confirmed Wolf Depredations on Livestock

In the above photographs you can see the results of wolf attacks on calves, yearlings, horse and cow’s. This will give you an idea of what to look for.

View the carcass attack sites, feeding sites, bite sites and rake marks with corresponding hemorrhage. Some cattle are stressed down and the wolves eat 20 pounds from the victim and the injured cow, calf, or yearling is not dead and walks around with its rear end eaten out.

Your observations and action is key to indentify wolf presence and depredating wolves. Also, notification for an investigation will indentify un-collared wolves.

Wolves kill cattle by consumption producing blood loss, tissue loss and stress. In 12
confirmed wolf killed yearlings on one ranch, 5 did not die at the attack and feeding site. They traveled for some distance after being fed upon by wolves. Four yearlings were found alive and walking around with massive tissue loss. One yearling was found dead and the scene lacked evidence of an attack and feeding site. Dried blood found on the legs indicated the yearling was bleeding while standing upright and walking.

Lack of evidence at the carcass/found alive site; importance

There have been past cases where cattle were found with canine spreads and rake marks
consistent with wolves and the scene lacked attack/feeding site, wolf tracks, wolf scats, blood trails, drag marks, ground/vegetation disturbance or ground telemetry. Some of these investigation findings were probable, possible or something other than wolf. In the 12 confirmed killed livestock by the Middle fork Pack in 2009, evidence indicates that these 5 yearlings were attacked and fed upon by wolves in one location and lived to travel for some distance before being found alive and or dead in another location.

Carcasses that lack wolf evidence at the scene should be investigated to determine that the victim did or did not travel from a wolf attack/feeding site. To determine the cause of death based on the best available evidence, canine spreads, rake marks with corresponding hemorrhage consistent with a wolf and evidence the victim traveled away from the attack/feeding site is vital.

Dispersing Wolves

Example M1039.

This male wolf was released into the Gila; it took off and was located in the San Mateo mountains, then crossed highway US 60 and went to Acoma, then to El Malapai then to Zuni where he was captured.

Ariel flight telemetry located M1039; 5 miles inside Arizona on a Monday, within 24 hours he traveled 76 air miles back to Mount Sedgwick in Grants New Mexico where he was again captured.

Dispersing wolves from the recovery area in Catron County, New Mexico and Arizona could have travel hundreds of miles throughout the state of New Mexico.

Contact Information

If you find any evidence of wolf presence in your area follow the above information and contact the following agency.

Cibola, McKinley Counties
USDA/Aphis Wildlife Services
Northern Supervisor, Ken Podborny – 505-346-2640
Jon Grant – 505-287-7838, 505-290-0518 cell

Sierra, Grant, Hidalgo, Luna, Counties
USDA/Aphis Wildlife Services
Southern Supervisor, Keel Price – 575-527-6980

Catron County
Jess Carey
County Wolf Interaction Investigator
575-533-6668
Sheriff Department – radio contact
575-533-6222

If you have any questions call or email me at 3trees@gilanet.com

The first book I ever read about wolves was Farley Mowat’s best seller, Never Cry Wolf.  It was the Fall of 1985, and I was on a self-guided combination mule deer and pronghorn hunt, just south of Buffalo, Wyoming.  I had gotten into camp three days before the hunt, in order to do some glassing and scouting.  But, that never happened.  I awoke the morning after arriving in camp to the sound of 50 to [...]]]> By Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH

The first book I ever read about wolves was Farley Mowat’s best seller, Never Cry Wolf.  It was the Fall of 1985, and I was on a self-guided combination mule deer and pronghorn hunt, just south of Buffalo, Wyoming.  I had gotten into camp three days before the hunt, in order to do some glassing and scouting.  But, that never happened.  I awoke the morning after arriving in camp to the sound of 50 to 60 m.p.h. winds ripping at the old wood sided ranch house an outfitter friend had been using to house his clients.  Temperatures were still in the mid 40′s, but as the morning wore on, the mercury in the outside thermometer dropped quickly – and the snow began to fly past horizontally.  That’s the way it was for three solid days and nights.

Fortunately, early the second day, I spied the well worn first edition copy of Never Cry Wolf laying on a shelf in the kitchen.  And once I picked up the book and started reading it,  I couldn’t put the book down.  It was extremely well written, and the flow in Mowat’s recount of his wolf and caribou studies in the north-central Canadian sub-arctic was exceptionally well done.  Even though I did take a few breaks from reading to chat with others in camp, I finished reading the 246-page book in about 5 or 6 hours.  It was easy to see why more than a million copies of that edition were sold, and why Walt Disney Pictures turned the basis of Mowat’s story into a popular 1983 movie of the same title.

Farley Mowat was not a wildlife biologist at the time when he conducted “his” study of Canada’s northern caribou herds, and the impact that arctic wolves were or were not having on the vast herds of wild ungulates.  That study was conducted in 1948 and 1949, while the author worked for the country’s Dominion Wildlife Services.  Caribou numbers were in a significant decline, so he was sent into the wilds some 400 miles north of Churchill, Manitoba to observe and determine the abundance of wolves, and whether wolf depredation was a major reason for the loss of caribou.

While I have read chapters or parts of chapters from a half-dozen other wolf-related books, it was not until 2008 that I picked up another wolf book that compelled me to read it from cover to cover over a weekend.  That book was the 224-page  Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages, written by Will Graves, and published in 2007.  Unlike Mowat’s book, which is written as a first person experience, the Graves book is a wondrous compilation of data, wolf facts, government research, scientific studies, official observations,  and the experiences of people who have lived with wolves for the past 150 years. Will Graves spent two decades accumulating all of these materials, much of it written in Russian.   However, translating those writings did not present a problem for him, since he was a Russian linguist for the U.S. Government.

He made several lengthy trips to Russia, where he managed to spend time with rural citizens who were directly impacted by wolves, and Graves became personally acquainted with some of the country’s top wildlife professionals, including Dr. Dmitry I. Bibikov – who is considered to be Russia’s leading expert on wolves.  And much of Bibikov’s and other Russian wildlife managers’ studies and research make up a big part of Wolves in Russia.

For much of the past year, Will Graves and I have become extremely good friends, spending an hour or more just about every week on the phone.  And, of course, our No. 1 topic of discussion centers on wolves.  After many of those conversations, I came up with the idea of comparing these two books.  So, over the course of two weeks this past October, I sat down and read both.  I would read a chapter in Never Cry Wolf…then I would read a chapter in Wolves in Russia – and I repeated that process until I finished both books.

Even though both books are about Canis lupus, the gray wolf, what I discovered was that I felt as if I was reading about two entirely different animals.  The wolves that Farley Mowat wrote about, and the wolves that Will Graves presented in his book, were not the same wolf – not in the eyes of the two authors…or based on the evidence given in these two books.

In reality, Mowat’s book is purely fiction.  Since it’s first printing in 1963, somewhere between 14 and 15 million copies of Never Cry Wolf,  printed in several different languages, have been sold…as “The Amazing True Story of Life Among Arctic Wolves.” And while very little of what Mowat writes about in the book is based on fact, or for that matter which actually happened, the book became something of “The Handbook” for pro-wolf advocates who thought then, and still think today, presents real life facts about wolves – and their extremely low impact on other wildlife population.

The author devotes easily 75-percent of this book to detail his experiences with the native people of the North Country, his problems with the Canadian wildlife service he worked for, how rough life was on the arctic tundra, how he mastered the native language, and the terrain of the land.  Never Cry Wolf is more about living with the Eskimo people than it is about living with and observing wolves.   Most of the 25 or so percent of the book where Farley Mowat shares his observations, experiences, realizations and conclusions about the wolves he did encounter and studied adversely conflicts with the research that has been conducted by some of the most respected wildlife scientists of the world.

One foot note in the book, on page 183, reads, “The Canadian caribou population has dropped from about 4,000,000 in 1930 to less than 170,000 animals in 1963.”

Dr. Charles Kay, who heads the wildlife ecology studies at Utah State University, pretty much summed up the book when he shared with me, “It’s all one big lie!”

Dr. Valerius Geist, of the University of Calgary (Alberta), who is considered one of Canada’s leading wildlife experts, has called the book, “A brilliant literary prank.”

Keep in mind, Mowat supposedly conducted his study on the caribou-wolf relationship during a short span of the late 1940s, claiming to have spent two summers and one winter on the Arctic tundra.  He did not write his book and have it published until 1963.  And in that book he did his best to convince readers that wolves were not the cause for the precipitous crash of Canada’s caribou populations.  He repeatedly insisted that the primary food source for the wolves of the region were lemmings, arctic hares, and various small rodents, and that they rarely killed caribou, and when they did, they only targeted the sick and weak, and only killed what was needed for immediate consumption.  He also blamed the drop in caribou numbers on unregulated hunting by humans, where hunters would fly in, shoot dozens of caribou, and select only the best trophy heads – then leave everything else to rot.

One statement in the book revealed his disdain for human hunters, “The wolf never kills for fun, which is probably one of the main differences distinguishing him from man.”

Mowat points out in Never Cry Wolf that a very large number of caribou are infested with parasites and diseases, and that wolves are the sanitarians of nature – weeding the herds of their sick and weak.  What he failed to share was that it was his beloved wolves that were the carriers of those parasites and diseases, spreading them across the southern arctic.  From what we have learned about wolves, by being forced to live with them through the past decade, it is easy to see that Farley Mowat was indeed ahead of his time.  He was a frontrunner of the far left pro-wolf extremists to come – and like they,  he had absolutely no problem using lies and deceit to present an entirely false image of wolves to millions of readers who knew nothing of wolves.  In the Preface of the book, he even warned readers that it was his “…own practice to never allow facts to interfere with the truth…”.  Never Cry Wolf is an excellent example of that practice, it is far more fictional than fact.  Mowat’s supervisor with the Canadian wildlife service, who sent him to study wolves and caribou, has likened the book to the tale of Little Red Riding Hood, saying that both share about the same factual content.

During an interview for an article by John Goddard, “A Real Whopper” which appeared in the May 1996 edition of the Canadian general interest magazine Saturday Night, Farley Mowat’s deception was revealed.  Documented by papers that Mowat sold to McMaster University, the writer of this tall wolf tale actually spent far less time in the study area than he says in the book.  In all, he spent maybe 6 months.  And unlike his claims of being flown in and dropped off all alone in the middle of nowhere, Mowat was actually part of a well-planned expedition – as the junior member.  Not once during his two short summer sessions did he even set foot in an Inuit camp…nor did he learn the native dialect of the North during those trips.  Likewise, as for the life he lived with the wolf family portrayed in the book, Mowat abandoned his wolf-den observations after less than four weeks.

It is extremely evident that Farley Mowat does not let facts get in the way of telling a good story.  And Never Cry Wolf is nothing more than a story – a fictional tale told by an early anti-hunting, anti-society environmentalist.

In stark contrast, Will Graves’ Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages is so jam-packed with facts and figures, some may find the reading a bit on the dry side – but still extremely enlightening.  Unlike Mowat’s book,  which details the fictional observations and findings of a single person over a very short period, the topic of the Graves book spans more than 150 years of the Russian people living with wolves, and the impact of those wolves – and what a wild roller coaster ride it has been to try gaining control of wolf numbers and wolf depredation through that period.

Due to ever changing political, social and economic situations, Russia never did gain near total control of wolf populations, as we did here in the Continental U.S. during the late 1800s and early 1900s.  At any given time during that 150 year span, the land mass that has made up what has, at one time or another, been Czarist Russia, the U.S.S.R., and today’s mosaic of smaller independent countries has been home to at least 100,000 wolves – with wolf populations surging significantly higher during periods of minimal wolf management – or, more appropriately, wolf control.  And during those periods of high wolf numbers, wolf problems also escalated.  Using official government studies, research and reports, Will Graves shares how Russian livestock producers have suffered as many as 1,000,000 head of cattle and sheep lost to wolves – annually!  Likewise, based on the research and study of Russia’s leading wildlife managers, Wolves in Russia shares how wolf depredation , when wolf numbers have been allowed to grow unchecked, have often nearly destroyed the reindeer, moose and other big game populations throughout much of the country.

Over and over again, the only relief from such devastation has been to step up efforts to seriously cull wolf numbers.  One of the more severe wolf problem periods detailed in this book was during the latter years of World War II.  Through the war, nearly every armed Russian was at the western front, to fight the Germans.  There was little time or resource for controlling wolf populations, and by the end of the war, wolf numbers in Russia exceeded 250,000 – making it even harder for a starving human population to keep itself adequately fed.  At the end of the war, wolf hunting brigades, mostly made up of members of the military or former soldiers, were formed to drastically reduce wolf numbers, and to reduce the degree of wolf predation on livestock and wildlife.  In 1946 alone, those efforts resulted in the killing of 62,600+ wolves.  In fact, during the ten years following the war, more than 500,000 wolves were killed in what was then the U.S.S.R.  And wolves still continued to flourish.  As late as 1987 and 1988, the Russians were still trying to gain control of the wolf problem – killing 38,000 to 40,000 wolves each and every year.

Contrary to Mowat’s claims, the wolf Will Graves shares in his book is definitely the cause for severe losses of wildlife.  And by looking at five periods of high wolf numbers in Russia, and the corresponding periods of accelerated wolf control, the book establishes a definite pattern – that when wolf numbers are at their highest, so is the degree of wolf depredation…and the greater the reduction of the wolf population, the quicker big game herds recover.  Graves also details other dangers wolves pose humans, and which have been documented in Russia, and that is the physical threat of attack, and how a human population can also be affected by many of the parasites and diseases carried and spread widely by far ranging wolf packs.

Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages should be mandatory reading for all students of wildlife ecology, especially here in the United States where they are often taught an entirely different view of wolves and the animal’s role in a balanced ecosystem.  Unfortunately, many of them are now being taught by staunch pro-wolf professors who come from the Farley Mowat school of enviro-socialism…where facts are not allowed to get in the way of a new agenda.  And that agenda is to eliminate or dramatically reduce the human role in life on Earth.

Both of these books are great reads – for entirely different reasons.  For a real look at real wolves, based on the research, studies, observations and findings of hundreds of acknowledged scientists and wildlife managers, your best bet is Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages, by Will Graves.  The book is like a look into the future of America, unless we maintain extremely tight control on a now growing and ever greater ranging wolf population.  For pure entertainment and simple  reading enjoyment, Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat is worth the time.  The book has a wonderful flow to it, and does a great job of sharing Eskimo life in the Canadian Arctic, plus details one white man’s fantasy of sharing that life with them.  I have one warning though – in light of what you’ve now learned about wolves, don’t let Mowat’s opinions about and less than factual observations of wolves, and their relationship with prey animals, ruin the read.  Just keep in mind that few of his claims, based on his miniscule role during that wolf-caribou study some 60 years ago, have proven to ever come true.

Will Graves’ book is available at www.wolvesinrussia.com.  Farley Mowat’s book is still available through Barnes & Noble and a few other booksellers…wrongly being sold as a work of non-fiction.

Footnote:  The loss of Canada’s northern caribou herds was reversed when widespread wolf control was initiated through the 1950s and 1960s.  The country’s caribou numbers rebounded to more than 2,000,000 by the mid 1970s.  As the Graves’ book spotlights, during periods when wolf control has been greatly reduced, caribou numbers take a corresponding drop as well.  When wolf control is increased, caribou numbers grow.  Today, there are between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 caribou in Canada.  However, some of the southernmost herds are now dangerously close to being lost.  Sportsmen realize that it is due to wolf depredation and the loss of calf recruitment (to wolves) that is to blame.  Environmentalist want to blame global warming.

www.lobowatch.com or www.lobowatch.org

Predictably, Montana Senator Tester has again abandoned his Montana voters. He is now working with the Obama Administration to pass his Tester-Boxer Wildlife Bill S1470 that will take away state’s rights to manage their own wildlife. The bill will give the Federal government full control of state wildlife management.

Last Wednesday, anti-hunting radicals from San Francisco and New York and their friends in Congress added the language to the bill in a MUST-PASS appropriations bill to have the feds [...]]]> by Ed Berry

Predictably, Montana Senator Tester has again abandoned his Montana voters. He is now working with the Obama Administration to pass his Tester-Boxer Wildlife Bill S1470 that will take away state’s rights to manage their own wildlife. The bill will give the Federal government full control of state wildlife management.

Last Wednesday, anti-hunting radicals from San Francisco and New York and their friends in Congress added the language to the bill in a MUST-PASS appropriations bill to have the feds take over all state wildlife management. Obama put the supporting language into the spending bill.

Big Game Forever of Utah caught the language and immediately began working to counter Obama’s efforts. Big Game Forever sees this as an anti-hunting bill. They note accurately, the bill is one of the most harmful pieces of anti-hunting legislation in years.

PolyMontana sees this as something much more ominous. It is another government land grab pure and simple. The objective is to remove human population from Montana and surrounding states and turn ownership of our land to the super-rich, world government leaders.

To his credit, Montana Governor Schweitzer joined with governors of Idaho and Wyoming to attempt to negotiate an agreement with Obama reps to return wolf management to the states. However, the Obama reps told the governors the feds will take over all state wildlife management. The Governors immediately rejected the bill and thought the issue was dead.

In summary, the Tester-Boxer-Obama Wolf-Wildlife bill is dangerous for two reasons:

1. it takes away key constitutional rights of state wildlife management; and
2. transfers the authority to the Obama Administration to dictate to the states how to manage their wildlife.

If this bill passes and is not rejected by the states then the feds will not just control wolves. The feds will be in full control of protecting wolves as they decimate our state’s big game, live stock, and threaten human populations. The bill will likely go to vote this week.

Actions to take:

Here is the request by Ryan Benson
http://biggameforever.org/
ryandbenson@msn.com

WE MUST STOP THIS FEDERAL POWER GRAB IMMEDIATELY.

WE NEED YOUR HELP. We need YOU along with thousands of sportsmen from across the country to contact their members of Congress.  Thousands of anti-hunters are calling and emailing their members of Congress-because they know that calling and emailing does work.

I have spent the last several weeks in Washington, D.C. working with Senators Hatch (R) Utah, McCain (R) Arizona, Barrasso (R) Wyoming, Risch (R) Idaho and other members of Congress to kill the Obama legislation and instead pass a bill that would return wolves to state wildlife managers with no strings attached.

Every sportsmen state has hundreds of thousands of hunters and fisherman.  We outnumber the radicals and we have friends in Congress who need your help.

WE CAN WIN THIS BATTLE BY WORKING TOGETHER.  ALL IT TAKES IS 2 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME.

HOW YOU CAN HELP:

1. Send an email to all of your members of Congress.  It just takes 30 seconds.  Visit the website http://capwiz.com/biggameforever/home/;  Click on the button “Take Action”.  Using your zip code the system will then help you automatically send an email to all of YOUR Senators, Congressmen and the Obama Administration;
2. Send this email to 10 friends and ask them to take action.  You can use the “Tell a friend” tool at http://capwiz.com/biggameforever/home/; or simply forward this email;
3. Call Senator Tester’s Washington D.C. Office at (202)224-2644.  Be professional but tell them:

1. YOU DO NOT SUPPORT Tester’s S1470 on wolf  management;
2. You DO support Senator Hatch’s bill S.3919; and
3. You are disappointed that Senator Tester, as co-chairman of the Congressional sportsman’s caucus, wants to take away authority from the people of YOUR state to manage its state wildlife resources.

Ranchers and sportsmen seem excited at the premise that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will lift Federal protections of wolves, remove them from the list of endangered species and put management in the hands of the states. Once again, the USFWS has made the announcement, according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, that it will proceed with delisting gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes population segment.

Don’t count on it! [...]]]> by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog

Ranchers and sportsmen seem excited at the premise that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will lift Federal protections of wolves, remove them from the list of endangered species and put management in the hands of the states. Once again, the USFWS has made the announcement, according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, that it will proceed with delisting gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes population segment.

Don’t count on it! This is like the Bill Murray movie, Ground Hogs Day. It’s simply a repeat of the same worn out hype and rhetoric that we’ve all heard before. But there is good reason to be doubtful of any changes. The track record of the USFWS in accomplishing anything, a true trait of any governmental agency, and the environmental groups who make a living from lawsuits, tops the list of reasons. Combine those with activist judges and/or those who, instead of ruling according to law, try to be scientists, even to the point of making stuff up, and rule accordingly.

The truth is, wolves will not be delisted in the Western Great Lakes because nothing has changed since the last attempt when a federal judge chastised the USFWS and told them they had no authority to create Distinct Population Segments (DPS).

As ignorant as the judge’s ruling appears to be, it’s what the people in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin have to deal with. But what has never been made clear and probably never will is whether the USFWS has any authority to list endangered species anywhere except the entire geographical boundaries of the United States of America. One could even question whether the USFWS has any authority at to ever list a species as endangered. That’s how ridiculous this has all become and it’s quite chronically inoperable.

If, according to federal Judge Friedman who ruled the USFWS has no authority to create a DPS, this is an accurate assessment, then the USFWS had no authority to create any DPS of any species anywhere in the U.S. other than the entire geographical expanse of the nation.

The USFWS, to my knowledge, has not addressed Judge Paul Friedman’s instructions when he remanded the case back to the Service and told them to return to his court when they had proof they had such authority. Has that happened? Not that I’m aware of. Therefore, the usual players within the environmental community will begin the lawsuit process once again, bringing a halt to any attempts to delist gray wolves. Deja Vu all over again.

Perhaps someday, people will figure out the USFWS is a corrupt organization that has no intention of ever delisting wolves, or perhaps any other species for that matter. For one thing if species were recovered and management of those species returned to state control, jobs would probably have to be cut within the Service. We know that will never happen.

The environmentalists have learned over the years how to effectively manipulate the Endangered Species Act in order to pad their bank accounts and pay the inflated salaries of those who work there. Most of these agencies are run by former USFWS employees and they all know how to play the game and work together to promote their pet projects.

So for the ranchers, residents and sportsmen of the Western Great Lakes DPS region, don’t get your hopes too high. Perhaps you could better spend your money and resources supporting both the House and Senate version of bills intended to exempt the gray wolf from any consideration of federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

HOW FAR WE’VE SUNK

According to the Reno Gazette Journal on 3 December:

“Nevada wildlife commissioners are scheduled today to discuss the possibility of adopting a regulation, at least temporarily, that would change the gray wolf’s official status from a protected game animal to an unprotected one — the same as coyotes and skunks, which can be shot at any time.”

Enter the federal interloper of the week. Bob Williams, Nevada supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [...]]]> by Jim Beers

HOW FAR WE’VE SUNK

According to the Reno Gazette Journal on 3 December:

“Nevada wildlife commissioners are scheduled today to discuss the possibility of adopting a regulation, at least temporarily, that would change the gray wolf’s official status from a protected game animal to an unprotected one — the same as coyotes and skunks, which can be shot at any time.”

Enter the federal interloper of the week. Bob Williams, Nevada supervisor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service arguing that “It’s basically saying if you see a wolf, you can shoot it,” he said.

“It’s the wrong message. It’s just the wrong thing to do.” “There will be an occasional wolf that comes into Nevada, and we shouldn’t be afraid of them”.

Oh, really? There are three very alarming aspects to this report that must not go unchallenged.

First, here we have an audacious federal field-marshal telling elected state officials that he considers his and his agencies’ federal moral values superior to state values, so therefore what the US Constitution clearly authorizes the state to regulate is, according to this federal official, “wrong”.

Whether we quote the enviable and successful Constitutional jurisdiction of state governments over all wildlife within their borders that has served this country well for over 200 years; whether we consult all the Treaties and laws usurping this state authority (Migratory Birds, Marine Mammal “Protection” i.e. non-management, Federal land purchase, “Law” of the Sea, Wetland “Protection” i.e. private property seizure, “Native” species & ecosystem “Restoration”; and whether we review all the federal agencies’ brazenly written “regulations” and “rules (for the little they are worth legally) like Wilderness, Roadless, Access, Closures, Permits, Non-Management, Non-Use, redefining “navigable” waters, specious assertions about pollution and manufactured Armageddon fantasies like global warming, global cooling, desertification, Marine Sanctuaries, and myriad “Special” Regulations on everything from gun possession, logging, and grazing to class requirements for citizens to use public land: nowhere does the word “WRONG” appear.

“Wrong” as expressed here is mere tyrannical humbuggery. It simply expresses the personal preferences of federal overseers (over not only our state government but thereby over us as well).

I leave it to the reader to conclude their motives that truthfully have little or nothing to do with wildlife or the “pursuit of Happiness” of the residents of Nevada.

This is merely the moral posturing of those currently in power at the federal level. This sort of intimidation is akin to Nazi thugs telling some German Gauleiter, or some Soviet Commissar telling some occupied-country “leader” that something he is doing is “wrong”. As such this USFWS spokesman should have been sent packing by the state and his employing federal agency cautioned that state residents do not pay federal taxes to enable federal agencies and their employees to undercut or influence state Constitutional authority based on their own federal unconstitutional agendas. When such things are let “stand” they are merely precedents for further tyranny.

Imagine a UN official telling our federal government in Washington that our private property policies or our gun rights are “wrong”. While the current federal managers would likely shrug, any federal government worth its salt that did not send the UN official packing and tell the UN to keep its nose out of the US tent should not be tolerated.

Second, whether or not any state or local community has any or some certain abundance of wolves is constitutionally a state matter under state authority. The federal claim in this area is based on a perversion of a questionable federal law to begin with.

Not only has the federal government falsely claimed the abundant-worldwide wolf to be an Endangered Species, the federal Endangered Species Act that was passed to “save” whales and eagles and flies has been perverted to authorizing the fantastic and non-scientific “restoration” of “native” ecosystems and species.

This immeasurable and indefinable purpose is an unlimited claim by federal officials to claim unlimited budgets and staffs as well as implying and attempting to secure authority over all remaining private property and human activities not already under the federal heel of the EPA, federal land owners, and the associated non-government-organizations that own or ease properties in the millions of acres worth many, many billions of dollars.

Again, any federal officials or federal agency attempting to “steer” state government exercise of state Constitutional authority over any wildlife not under federal jurisdiction should not be tolerated. In fact, the most “Just” (as in rightful or appropriate) regulation of animals such as wolves or other deadly (to man) animals like cougars, grizzly bears, black bears, and coyotes should be based first and foremost on the desires of local communities like towns, cities, townships, and Counties.

This is called the principle of subsidiarity or government that is based at the lowest level and is therefore the best for all humans and their “unalienable rights”. The most important responsibility of governments is the protection of human life. Nothing is further from this responsibility than for government to unjustly endanger human lives for any reason other than to save more human lives.

Third and last, any federal official that burbles that

“There will be an occasional wolf that comes into Nevada, and we shouldn’t be afraid of them”

is a liar that should be fired on the spot! If the federal employer pushes that line, they and their employees should be barred from the state as a self-defined danger to the “peace and tranquility” of the state.

Current newspapers from Georgia and Alaska to Saskatchewan, Kazakhstan, and Russia detail the death and severe injury of numerous humans, especially children, women and unarmed men. History books, Will Graves’ “Wolves in Russia”, Stanley Young’s “Wolves in North America”, newspaper archives, and numberless reports from the likes of John James Audubon to Leo Tolstoy are replete with account after account of wolves killing and maiming humans for”reasons” too numerous to mention here.

Any “expert” or “scientist” or “naturalist” or “bureaucrat” or town drunk saying that “we shouldn’t be afraid of them” (i.e. wolves) is giving scandal (i.e. deceiving others to commit a deadly error in judgment) to those that mistakenly and naively believe them.

If only one child or one woman hiker or one dog-walker dies as a result of believing this lie, the blame belongs on such liar and any sponsoring organization/employer spreading such a lie. Whatever way this blame for the inevitable human deaths is treated by our currently unpredictable courts, tolerating federal intervention into state intentions to avoid this unavoidable danger is laudable and the federal intentions to the contrary deserve both condemnation and defeat.

Human deaths are increasingly inevitable as wolves spread, big game herds are reduced, and most especially as burgeoning wolf populations become familiarized with or habituated to human habitations and human activities. Reasons are too numerous to mention here but everything from rabies, to need for food for pups, to winter hunger, and the 30 or more diseases and infections transmitted by wolves will magnify the inevitable human encounters from hunters to gardeners to a child taking out the garbage in the evening.

There will be a rash of attacks soon and then there will be the steady incidence of sporadic attacks with periodic outbreaks of sustained attacks just as reported down through the ages of in places like India, Kazakhstan, Russia, Georgia and other wolf-havens today.

Why the same urban people that lock up their kids and call the police when some Doberman or Staffordshire terrier runs down the street believe this lie about not fearing a bigger dog (i.e. a “wolf” that is the same species as dogs and coyotes) that has never been domesticated and that can be desperately hungry, never gotten “shots”, and routinely kills animal many times bigger for both food and “fun” (to be anthropomorphic) is beyond comprehension.

Go get ‘em Nevada. We are truly “all Nevadans” with a stake in your bold confrontation on behalf of liberty.

Jim Beers
8 December 2010

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 at jimbeers7@comcast.net

[Note by Ed Berry: We are providing this post as a service to Tony Bridges whose site is temporarily off line due to the stinkin' Watermelons. See his explanation below. We will do everything we can to assist Tony in getting his excellent Lobo Watch back online.]

No, this isn’t a missing line from the lyrics to “Mercy, Mercy Me”, the very popular environmental conscious song made famous by Marvin Gaye [...]]]> By Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH

[Note by Ed Berry: We are providing this post as a service to Tony Bridges whose site is temporarily off line due to the stinkin' Watermelons. See his explanation below. We will do everything we can to assist Tony in getting his excellent Lobo Watch back online.]

No, this isn’t a missing line from the lyrics to “Mercy, Mercy Me”, the very popular environmental conscious song made famous by Marvin Gaye during the early 1970s. But it has become a question that more and more residents of the U.S. are how asking themselves, particularly those who live very close to the land – especially lands where an ever growing wolf population now prowls.

A December 2, 2010 news report from Reuters opened with the following sentence…

“The Obama administration is seeking to lift Endangered Species Act protection from two of the most iconic symbols of the American west, the grey wolf and grizzly bear, in moves likely to spark fierce resistance from environmentalists.”

The fact is, wolves tend to wear out their welcome in short order wherever they become established. Maybe that is due to the dramatic losses of other wildlife, the depredation of livestock, the deaths of pets, and the threat wolves now present human residents along the Northern Rockies and in the Upper Midwest. Of course, those environmental groups who are sure to fight losing “endangered” status for wolves, and grizzly bears, are always quick to claim that none of this is true – that the levels of wildlife and livestock devastation, and the dangers wolves pose pets and humans are greatly exaggerated. Perhaps, but ever mounting evidence continues to stack up against them…and against wolves.

A major part of the problem we have with wolves in the Northern Rockies, and probably to some degree in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, is that no one has a clue to how many wolves are really out there. And that means, until state wildlife agencies get a more accurate handle on the true number of wolves, they are simply trying to manage in the dark.

The Reuters news report went on to point out that there are now about 1,700 wolves in northwestern Wyoming, western Montana and the northernmost 2/3 of Idaho, claiming that is…“about 1,000 more than the federal recovery goal for the species.”

In reality, it’s more like six times the “recovered population” as outlined in the so-called Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan, and in the 414-page Environmental Impact Statement filed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1994, prior to the release of the first Canadian wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Area in 1995 and 1996. The wolf scientists who put those documents together called for a minimum of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in each of the three states. And this was the number of wolves sold to American citizens as a recovered population. So, what happened? Wasn’t wolf management, as outlined in those two documents, to be turned over to state wildlife agencies once the goals were reached? Well, what happened was that a coalition of those environmentalist groups that Reuters mentioned figured out how to turn the wolf issue into a bona fide cash cow – ripe for the milking.

As “not for profit” organizations, these groups, including the Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity, can file for reimbursement of all legal expenses when taking wolf or grizzly bear issues, or anything related to them, to court. And they are profiting millions of dollars each and every time they take these or any other environmental issues, or wildlife agencies, to court. And these folks spend a lot of time in court these days.

Their favorite court has become the U.S. District Court in Missoula, MT – where they have found themselves their very own “Mercy, Mercy Me” judge – Donald Molloy. This federal judge spends all of his time searching for the smallest technicality to keep wolf management, or wolf control, from taking place – while overlooking or ignoring a long list of activities associated with the Wolf Recovery Project that have stepped across the legal line quite a few times since this fact and truth plagued experiment began.

So, how many wolves are there in the Continental U.S.? And what kind of cost can be associated with having that many wolves?

The “1,700″ number that is all too frequently referred to by the press, and especially state and federal wildlife agencies, is no more than a minimum estimation of the number of wolves in the Northern Rockies. It’s a guess at best, and the sportsmen and ranchers who are seeing and feeling the widespread damage done by wolves feel it is not even a good guess. A growing number of those who each spend thousands of hours a year in the outdoors, whether to hunt, fish, hike, camp, or tend to livestock, say there are more like 3,000 to 4,000 wolves in this region, and that the real number could even top that.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks likes to throw out the number of “525″ as the official wolf population in this state, qualifying the number by saying it is their “at least” population number. However, when working on a proposed harvest quota for the 2010 wolf management hunt, which Judge Molloy pulled the plug on this past August, MT FWP officials claimed that their proposed quota of 186 wolves would represent a 13-percent decrease in the state’s wolf population. Simple calculations show that this agency fully realized that there were closer to 1,400 wolves in Montana – not the 525 they too frequently tout. Idaho sportsmen have harshly criticized the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for seriously downplaying the number of wolves there as well.

The USFWS Environmental Impact Statement for this transplant of non-endangered and non-native wolves from north-central Alberta, Canada projected that the average wolf would kill and consume approximately 12 big game animals (elk, moose, deer) annually. It’s now believed that each and every wolf kills 20 to 30 wild ungulates each and every year for sustenance. We also now realize that these same wolves kill for fun, referred to as “sport” or “surplus” killing. And that due to the drastic drop in other wildlife populations, it is likely that wolves kill as much for fun as for consumption. Their favorite target is the young-of-the-year – the calves and fawns.

Coupled with the predation of adult cow elk/moose and doe deer, the 90-percent losses of calves and fawns means that there is not a new generation coming on to replace animals that die of old age – if they make it to old age. Prior to wolves being dumped into the Northern Rockies, elk herds here averaged around 4 years of age. Now, due to the loss of calf recruitment, these herds now average 8 to 9 years of age – and the herds are dwindling quickly. Many herds in the region are barely 20- to 30-percent of what they were before those wolves were released into the region. The same thing is now happening with the deer and moose populations in the Upper Midwest.

As wildlife populations are depleted, wolves have shifted livestock depredation into a higher gear – making it tougher for ranchers to operate profitably. And the direct loss of livestock is not the only factor affecting their bottom line. Due to the stress wolves place on cattle, beef producers are reporting significantly lighter per head weights. One rancher, near Hall, MT found that feeder calves he grazed where wolves frequented the pastures weighed in at an average of 97 pounds lighter than calves he raised where there were not any wolves – and at one major sale that loss cost him more than $13,000. Another loss is that where wolves do pressure cattle, there is a significantly greater rate of pregnant cows aborting calf fetuses, as well as the added cost of stepped up surveillance, constant monitoring of the herds, and fence repair.

Wolves have also moved in closer to ranches and towns, following big game seeking some security by getting closer to humans. In some areas, the wolves have become so habituated they’re now coming right into city limits, often eating garbage. And that is a sure sign that big game populations are really taking a beating, and are below where the numbers can support such a large population of major predators. Many residents feel that, as wolves become more and more comfortable around people, it is only a matter of time before a wolf attacks and kills a child playing out in the yard, or walking home from school. Due to wolf presence, many parents already no longer allow their children to enjoy the outdoors without an armed adult with them.

There is sure to be a landslide of legislation aimed at getting wolves removed from the protection of the Endangered Species Act, and the management of those wolves taken from the federal government and handed back to the states. H.R. 6028 is a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at doing just that, and S.B. 3919 is a Senate bill with the same purpose.

The gray wolf is far from being endangered, especially in the Northern Rockies, where the subspecies of wolf released by USFWS can be found by the tens of thousands running across its native range in Canada. And without any management or control, wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are now moving south – now beginning to negatively affect wildlife populations and rural lifestyles across more and more of these states. A few wolves have also shown up in northern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and Nebraska. Did they walk there on their own? Many feel they may have hitched a ride with overzealous environmentalists looking to speed up the spread of wolves in the Lower 48 states.

Right now, by official USFWS and state wildlife agency counts, there are between 6,000 and 7,000 wolves in the lower U.S. – unofficially the count could be as high as 10,000 or more. Still, that’s not enough to satisfy the anti-hunting environmental organizations. Earlier this year, the Center for Biological Diversity boasted that their goal was to see tens of thousands of wolves – from coast to coast. And that brings up the question once more…How many wolves can this old land stand?

Or, better yet, how many wolves will Americans tolerate? The growing sentiment is that we already have far too many – and our wildlife and outdoor lifestyles are already feeling their bite.

______________________________________________________

Note: Many of you are already aware that the LOBO WATCH (.com) website can no longer be reached. Due to pressure from environmental groups, Homestead website services disabled the site – very likely in violation of the First Amendment. Using a new independent website building program, LOBO WATCH will be back in force by early to mid January.

LOBO WATCH

100 Parker Court Missoula, MT 59801 Ph. – (406) 542-9751 E-mail – lobowatch@yahoo.com

Q: After the following meeting I was asked about “fraudulent science”. I answered as follows:

A. Mammals get bigger as you go North and smaller as you go south to the Equator: the reason being that a large version of the same animal is generally more suited to surviving cold winters and a small version of the same animal is generally more suited to surviving hot periods annually. [...]]]> By Jim Beers, The All American Patriot Online

Q: After the following meeting I was asked about “fraudulent science”. I answered as follows:

A. Mammals get bigger as you go North and smaller as you go south to the Equator: the reason being that a large version of the same animal is generally more suited to surviving cold winters and a small version of the same animal is generally more suited to surviving hot periods annually. Now wolves and white-tailed deer occur in North America from the Yukon to Mexico. While hunters go to far Northern Saskatchewan to shoot very large white-tails, the tiny little Key Deer (Florida white-tails that breed successfully with all other white-tail deer but just happen to live in a very hot climate AND to have evolved in very inferior food availability circumstances) is an Endangered SPECIES.

Before the ESA, biologists would argue endlessly about whether the “Eastern” or the “Adirondack” or the “Great Lakes”, etc. whitetails were subspecies or races or populations. Post – ESA when such distinctions became extremely important to biology professors, bureaucrat commissars, environmental radicals and others hoping to profit from “Listing” and all it generated; such possible interpretations carried great importance and guided the way laws and regulations were written and the way Conventions and Treaties were drafted.

So today when we want to “reintroduce” Key deer we can’t capture some whitetails in Kansas or Vermont and plop them down on some Florida Key because they wouldn’t “belong” there (whatever that is supposed to mean). However, these same government scientists and biology “perfessers” andanimal rights radicals like DOW can pine away about the need to “reintroduce” wolves into Yellowstone (et al) and go clear to the Northwest Territories and capture some wolves and then unceremoniously dump them into the Northwest. Then threaten anyone that tries to defend their lives, the lives of their families or neighbors, or their property from livestock to dogs to their public ownership and use of big game animals, and the very economic life of their rural communities with imprisonment and fines if they harm said wolves. Thus is it “unscientific” and “illegal” to move Key deer to Indiana while being perfectly “scientific” and “legal” to move Northern Canadian wolves to Wyoming. Hello, is anyone in there?

This is not “science” it is tyranny of the highest order. Such “science” is merely “play-dough” in the hands of despots and their camp followers.

Washington – Today eight Members of the Congressional Western Caucus joined together to introduce the State Sovereignty Wildlife Management Act.  The legislation returns management authority of gray wolves to the states and removes the gray wolf from the endangered species list respectively. Unmanaged wolf populations pose a serious threat to key wildlife species throughout the West. Wildlife officials in many states have attributed declines in their big game herds to the unchecked growth of wolf [...]]]> Posted on December 2, 2010 by Administrator

Washington – Today eight Members of the Congressional Western Caucus joined together to introduce the State Sovereignty Wildlife Management Act.  The legislation returns management authority of gray wolves to the states and removes the gray wolf from the endangered species list respectively. Unmanaged wolf populations pose a serious threat to key wildlife species throughout the West. Wildlife officials in many states have attributed declines in their big game herds to the unchecked growth of wolf packs.  The State Sovereignty Wildlife Management Act would improve the balance of both wolf and prey populations by allowing individual states to develop management plans that address their unique needs.

In states where gray wolves exist, wildlife resource agencies and their personnel will develop successful management programs that will ensure the long-term health and vitality of wildlife populations throughout the West.   However, in order to implement these programs, the wolf must be delisted as an endangered or threatened species.

“State and local wildlife management agencies and their personnel have proven capable of managing and preserving gray wolf populations.  In fact, thanks to their efforts, the gray wolf is thriving throughout the West,”

said Western Caucus Chairman Rob Bishop.

“The federal government needs to get out of the way and allow the knowledgeable experts to begin implementation of programs designed to meet the unique and individual needs of their state’s wildlife. I have the utmost confidence that, with this legislation, states will be able to successfully manage each wolf population and ensure their long-term health and viability.”

“The Fish and Wildlife Service’s goal to recover wolves in Wyoming was met long ago. Wolves are thriving, but Wyoming’s ranchers and large game herds are taking a hit – the Gros Ventre moose herd, for example, has been decimated. All the while Washington stands idly by, and activist courts continually move the goal posts. Instead of waiting for Washington to fulfill its end of the bargain by delisting the wolf, it’s time the states take things into their own hands. Our experts in Wyoming are best suited to manage wolves in our state,”

said Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis.

“Returning wolf management to the states isn’t a partisan issue that pits Republicans against Democrats.  It’s about state’s rights.  After holding hearings in Montana and reading thousands of comments, it’s clear that folks in Western states like Montana are sick and tired of powerful environmental interest groups funded out of places like San Francisco and New York telling us how to manage our lands, resources and wildlife,”

said Congressman Denny Rehberg.

“State wildlife agencies are in the best position to manage wildlife, not judges.  They know the geography, habitat, and what it takes for native wildlife populations to thrive.  Allowing extreme environmentalists to dictate wildlife management and abuse the Endangered Species Act is bad for wildlife, property rights, and people.  State wildlife agencies should not be prevented by activist judges or Washington bureaucrats from doing their job,”

said Congressman Dean Heller.

“Judge Malloy’s decision to put wolves back on the endangered species list is wreaking havoc in Idaho,”

said Congressman Mike Simpson.

“It is frustrating to me that some people persist in acting as though the end goal in this process is to simply keep wolves on the endangered species list instead of to recover the species so that it can be properly managed by the states.  It is clear that wolf recovery has exceeded goals and expectations and that Idaho’s state management plan has proven effective, and we need to act now to restore the states’ authority to manage these animals.”

“The federal government must allow states to manage wolf populations.  Recent court rulings signal judicial support for state management plans,”said Congressman Jason Chaffetz. “Now is the time for Congress to act.  Wolf populations have grown significantly since first receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act.  It is appropriate to have the wolf delisted at this time.  The states are better equipped to manage and maintain recovered wolf populations.”

The following Western Caucus Members joined in introducing today’s bill:

Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-01)

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large)

Rep. Denny Rehberg (MT-At Large)

Rep. Mike Simpson (ID-02)

Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-02)

Rep. Wally Herger (CA-02)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-03)

Rep. Dean Heller (NV-02)