The new RMEF funding, totaling $335,500, will affect Albany, Big Horn, Carbon, Converse, Fremont, Hot Springs, Lincoln, Natrona, Park, Sheridan, Sublette and Teton counties.

“These grants are possible because of the successful banquets and fundraisers staged over the past year by our Wyoming volunteers, most of whom are elk hunters as well as devoted conservationists,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Since 1984, our annual grants have helped complete 408 different projects in Wyoming with a combined value of more than $40 million.”

RMEF grants will help fund the following projects, listed by county:

Big Horn County – Prescribe burn 500 acres of juniper and sagebrush to enhance habitat for elk, bighorn sheep and sage grouse in Devil’s Canyon area of BLM lands; thin 50 acres of conifer to restore aspen in Markum Draw area of BLM lands.

Carbon County – Restore aspen and improve forage diversity for elk by thinning 600 acres of conifer in Little Snake River area of Medicine Bow National Forest and BLM lands; assist with conservation easement on 7,003 acres to protect important wildlife habitat and 14 miles of streams and rivers; provide funding for a new wildlife underpass along Hwy. 789.

Fremont County – Rejuvenate aspen stands by removing conifers from 140 acres of elk habitat in Willow and Josh creek areas of BLM lands.

Hot Springs County – Thin 66 acres of encroaching conifer to restore aspen stands and habitat quality for elk and other wildlife in Hess Creek area on BLM lands.

Lincoln County – Prescribe burn 1,665 acres of aspen and sagebrush to restore forage quality in elk habitat in North Murphy Creek area of Bridger-Teton National Forest; treat noxious weeds on 405 acres in Greys River area of Bridger-Teton National Forest.

Natrona County – Build exclosure fencing to protect aspen stands and habitat for elk and other wildlife in south Big Horns area; continue landscape scale initiative to restore natural vegetation and enhance streamflows in Bates Creek watershed (also affects Converse and Albany counties).

Park County – Provide funding for research to determine elk migration patterns in Absaroka Mountains; remove encroaching conifer by treating 50 acres and prescribe burning 200 acres in Shoshone National Forest; modify 200 yards of livestock fencing to create a wildlife-friendly crossing area near Meeteetse, Wyo.; treat 400 acres of noxious weeds to improve forage on elk winter range near Graybull River in Shoshone National Forest and BLM lands; assist with conservation easement to protect 13,657 acres in an area being fragmented by subdivision; prescribe burn 100 acres of juniper and sagebrush to improve forage in Breteche Creek area on BLM lands.

Sheridan County – Assist with conservation easement on 1,028 acres that provides a vital corridor for wintering game herds in the foothills of the Bighorn Mountains.

Sublette County – Provide funding for fourth-year operations of a Wyoming Front Aspen Restoration program to benefit habitat for elk and other wildlife; assist Wyoming Game and Fish Department with a 19,000-acre conservation easement that will include public access along five miles of the Green River; provide funding for research on seasonal elk use of feedgrounds and adjacent habitat; offer cost-free wildlife-friendly fence modifications to interested landowners in key big-game migration routes.

Teton County – Prescribe burn 1,250 acres of winter and transition range for elk, bighorn sheep and mule deer in Gros Venture watershed in Bridger-Teton National Forest; treat 300 acres of exotic plant infestations to improve habitat in Grand Teton National Park; prescribe burn 3,500 acres and slash 500 acres to improve habitat in Hill Creek area of Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities.

Partners for 2010 projects in Wyoming include Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, other agencies, corporations and landowners.

This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. Oneparasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefullyGraves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain. We cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

Things I am looking for, but not limited to.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

But in the court room yesterday, the plaintiffs, a group of 13 environmentalists fighting against the wolf hunts, openly displayed their greed when the lawyer for Earthjustice told Judge Molloy that there needed to be 3,000 to 5,000 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains region before they would consider the reintroduction a success. He didn’t say they would deem it a success. He said they would consider it a success. This has been part of the problem from the onset. 3,000 to 5,000 wolves is a far cry from the original claim that 300 wolves would do the trick. The environmentalists just keep moving the goal posts further away.

In the meantime, we wait not knowing when Judge Molloy will make his ruling. Bear in mind this is only a hearing on the emergency injunction to stop the hunts. A court date is later in the year, filed by the same gang of 13, to return the gray wolf to the Endangered Species List. The group has already indicated if they lose this injunction, they will immediately file for an appeal.

Tom Remington

Those in attendance?

Western Watersheds Project, the Defenders of Wildlife and the Wolf Recovery Foundation. Also a wildlife manager from Idaho Fish and Game, a Fish and Wildlife leader from Wyoming and a past president of the Idaho Cattle Association.

KPVI.com chose to select comments made by three different representatives on the panel. First up, Mike Jimenez:

Mike Jimenez, Wyoming U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: “If you’re a hunter, an outfitter, it’s like ‘Hey, we’d like to hunt those things. These guys are kinda competing with us now. If you’re someone who really likes wolves, they think this is really cool and if you’re a scientist you’re looking at prey selection but there’s this perspective and perspective grows.”

Second up, a “wolf advocate”:

“There’s no recognition for the tropic cascade of affect wolves have on the ecosystem, the beneficial affect they have on all wildlife. There’s no way for that to be realized under state management.”

And third, Jennifer Ellis, Idaho Cattle Association:

“I don’t think that’s fair to anybody to not know at what point they can protect their own property, even if it’s their own private property.”

Obviously, this is not a complete representation of comments made but I’ll bet it’s pretty darn close. First let’s take a look at what Jennifer Ellis, a representative of the Idaho Cattle Association, said. Nothing said putting down those who want to protect the wolf. Her only comment concerned EVERYONE’s loss of right to protect their property. Very reasonable concern.

Mike Jimenez attempted to be diplomatic in explaining that each and every person has a unique perspective on wolves. He didn’t condemn anyone’s notions. He simply tried to explain that this is what is being dealt with in finding a solution.

But the wolf advocate appears to be negative, dishonest and lacking in the willingness to acknowledge that biologists have ability to manage wildlife. “No recognition” on all the good things wolves do to our ecosystem.

“There’s no way”, says the wolf advocate, and also finds the need to put down the State of Idaho to say that there’s nobody in Idaho capable of properly managing wolves.

And this makes it difficult to move forward.

Tom Remington

Among others, agencies that have joined a lawsuit include the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Wyoming, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, and the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association.

The contention is that when the U.S. Government negotiated the reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone area, Wyoming was not told the ultimate goal, which now appears to be, was to force the wolf habitat out beyond Yellowstone into all of Wyoming.

Also at issue is the fact that during the last round of delisting the USFWS approved a wolf management plan for Wyoming and has since turned against that plan and said it won’t work. This coming after an injunction was granted in court to return the wolf to protection.

At some point in time, it would have to be considered that wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain area are the most expensive animals on earth. When factoring in the costs of lawsuits in addition to the money spent for reintroduction, monitoring and management, each wolf must have cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

When will this absurdity end?

I wasn’t at that meeting but one report I have says as many as 350 were in attendance and the estimate was that 99.9% were there hoping to see wolves managed properly by the state before more damage is done by expanding wolf packs.

The Idaho Mountain Express headlines its story with, “Anger over wolf management erupts”. I think it’s safe to say that anger over the wolf management, or lack thereof, has been erupting long before the people descended on Hailey and justifiably so, in my opinion.

Tony Mayer, co-founder of Save Our Elk, said that Cal Groen, director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, spoke before the crowd in an attempt to assure them the department was capable of managing wolves, if the feds ever give them the chance. (See this video by IDFG trying to convince public it is prepared to manage wolves.)

Cal Groen indicated that the IDF&G is keenly aware of the urgency of this wolf issue. He said his department is capable of managing wolves just as they do all other game species.

Earlier this year I spent a considerable amount of time looking into how places all across the world “managed” wolf populations and came to the conclusion that for people like Director Groen, whose intentions may be good, may not really have a good enough understanding of what it will take. Past history has shown us that hunting – man with a rifle – will have essentially no effect on the packs.

The frustration, or “erupting anger” as we’ve seen some press want to call it, began with promises made and promises broken. Several years later there are at least 5 times the number of wolves in Idaho than the people were told. Not only are hunters seeing their investment of years into deer, moose and elk management being destroyed, many people who once thought the wolf idea was a good one, may not be caring so much for what they see.

With wolves, seemingly unafraid of any human, now bearing down on cities like Sun Valley, killing elk and mountain lions in these people’s back yards, many of the pro wolf crowd is getting a taste of reality and they’re not liking it much.

I read in one account that Wayne Willich, the mayor of Sun Valley, Idaho, attended the Hailey meeting and spoke out. I contacted the mayor in hopes of getting a transcript of his comments. Instead, this is what he wrote to me in an email.

………. as mayor I have a responsibility for the health safety and welfare of the citizens. Our city is right at the critical urban interface area. This has been a traditional wintering area for about 100 to 150 elk. For the last 30 years a private family and then our Community school has fed them on a what I call a “high ridge” location at the edge of town. Last year Fish and Game impressed on us a no feed regimen. Immediately the elk came down into the city and roamed all over. This year the same thing occurred however for some reason the wolves followed them in. Now we have had multiple incidents of wolf kills in back yards, golf courses, etc. The wolves also killed a cougar (mountain lion) about 100 yards from my house and the local citizenry thinks they should be armed when hiking up the trail.

Our city has about $2.7 BILLION in assessed valuation. That’s right, B as in BILLION. We have other wildlife here, foxes, coyotes, black bear, and so far we have lived in peaceful coexistence. Introduction of the wolf element has changed the entire dynamic. We have no intention in turning this into some kind of weird wildlife sanctuary experiment.

My message to the wildlife officials is this: the situation is entirely unsatisfactory and I want it fixed. I want them to step up to their responsibility and MANAGE the wildlife. ALL the wildlife.

Best regards, Wayne Willich

Mayor City of Sun Valley

This is now what Idaho is beginning to see more and more of. The regular citizenry getting a taste of what others have been experiencing for some time. As Matt Douthit of Bellevue, president of Deer Hunters of Idaho, said during the Hailey meeting, “Management of these wolves is long overdue.”

But before that management can be relinquished to the state of Idaho, if first must get around the upcoming lawsuits that have been filed by special interest groups bent on full protection of the wolf. This is the part of the job of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service they need to do. If both of these departments fully believe that it is time to remove federal protection of the wolf, then they need to start acting as though they believe in their own words to do so.

In the last round of lawsuits that effectively stopped delisting, the USFWS put their tale between their legs and slinked off without as much as a whimper. Either the science is there to support delisting or it isn’t. If it is, then Idaho, Montana, the feds and all the other states involved need to stand up to those fighting them and present their evidence.

It’s high time to get on with wolf management.

Tom Remington

This means very little to most in the Northern Rockies who have been lied to in the past, promises made and promises reneged on. And now in some areas, sportsmen sit helplessly by as years of money and effort are being flushed down the drain as an unmanaged and out of control wolf pack destroys deer and elk herds.

Momentum seemed to be building for some. Montana Shooting Sports Association had propose SB 183, the Montana Wolf Recovery Act in hopes of forcing the federal government to get out of the state and pay for the damages it has created through wolf reintroduction and protection. Yesterday, that bill failed on second reading in the Montana Senate.

Idaho is planning a similar bill and with the failure of the Montana bill, we now have to wonder how this will affect Idaho’s chances. Some believe that what killed the Montana bill was the announcement of the Obama administration to go ahead with wolf delisting, a move I believe was completely political in order to accomplish just what is now happening – avoid legislative embarrassment by the many states, something this administration seems prone to.

There are still those who, regardless of how many times they’ve been lied to, kicked in the shins, spit on, stolen from and taken advantage of, still believe this time will be different. I doubt that it will and have little reason to think otherwise. I also think the Obama administration is betting on the same outcome.

For this administration to announce a continued protection of wolves, would have set off a firestorm of outrage and the result would have been unprecedented support for any wolf bill aimed at ridding the states of wolves. Obama knew this was in the works but he also knew that with a decision to delist would result in immediate lawsuits to stop to ruling.

More than likely with assurances from the courts that protections would not be dropped, Obama puts off the anger from the three state’s governments and saves himself the embarrassment, if only for awhile.

Unfortunately, while politics are being played out, our wildlife suffers, which is prompting some groups to continue their efforts to do something about reducing wolf numbers before it’s too late. Some people may be content to take a wait and see attitude but many have done that enough and now want action.

If you recall in Obama’s wolf delisting announcement, Wyoming was excluded from any delisting effort stating that Wyoming’s wolf management plan wasn’t good enough to guarantee a sustainable population of wolves after delisting. What is puzzling to many is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved Wyoming’s plan, yet after a federal judge stopped the first round of delisting, nothing changed and now the plan is no good. It is believed that at some point in time the state of Wyoming will mount a lawsuit against U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In the meantime, others are restless, concerned, worried and angry. Some feeling violated. I’m not sure just how much more these people are willing to put up with.

In my email box yesterday I received a notice that is being spread around about garnering support to fight against those wanting to continue wolf protection at the cost of a decimation of other game species.

Subject: Fwd: The Wolf Wars Begin In Wyoming!

The sportsmen of Wyoming and the Wyoming Outfitters & Guides Association need help from the shooting and hunting industry.

The lack of wolf management has resulted in out-of-control wolf numbers that are now pulling down deer and elk populations that have taken a hundred years to rebuild.

The Wolf Wars have begun, and the enemy is our own federal government (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and the anti-hunting organizations (i.e. Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, etc.) that value a few wolves far more than huntable numbers of other big game.

Please contact Jim Allen, President of the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association and pledge support of the battle they are about to launch against the enemies of our hunting heritage. His e-mail address is wyoga@wyoga.org .

This just could be the most important battle you ever fight for sensible wildlife conservation, and for the hunting sports.

With Idaho getting ready to present its own legislation to deal with wolves and anger building there by sportsmen toward what many believe to be a pro-wolf position at the Department of Fish and Game, I ask, what will happen if and when the Idaho Legislature opts to take a wait and see approach like Montana?

Montana’s wolf bill was shot down on second reading in the Senate yesterday. Many were hoping this would get results. Now it appears Montana will have to wait and see.

Wyoming may be the only state left out there who has not caved in hard to the pro-wolf crowd, the courts and the federal government. I read one person’s account that the state feels very strongly about how it wants to deal with wolves and every move they have made to this point is toward that end resolve, knowing full well it will end up being decided in the courts.

All of these political games take time and right now time is not on the side of saving our deer, elk and moose populations. In some areas of Idaho, elk herds are decreasing at a rate of about 13% per year. At least one zone now has reached the critical stage where elk numbers have reach a level so low it can’t recover on its own. This has a lot of sportsmen angry. The state and federal government have squandered their investments.

Sportsmen are angry and let’s not forget the rancher who is losing a lot of money each year, directly and indirectly from the presence of wolves. I asked earlier, how much more are these people willing to take before we see them take matters into their own hands?

I know this is taking place now to some degree, where people are illegally killing wolves. Is this what the defenders of the wolf packs want? Haven’t they dragged this effort out long enough to bleed as many wallets as they can for money? After all, that is their only goal.

While running the risk of being called a negative doomsdayer, we will not see wolves delisted anytime soon, if ever. Whether there is enough fortitude within the state’s fish and game departments to take full advantage of the expanded Endangered Species Act 10j rule and begin killing wolves where they are destroying elk, deer and moose herds, remains to be seen. In all honesty, that is about the only legal recourse the states have.

The feds should want to dump the financial responsibility of wolf management into the laps of the states. To do so means Obama will have to fight against those who raised a lot of money and helped put him in office. So, you tell me how this battle will turn out.

Tom Remington

Before I present the current Idaho wolf population data, the following highlights from the Alaska Board of Game wolf and bear control program approved in early March 2009 are very interesting. Because Alaska DFG Biologists are the undisputed experts in North American wolf research and in state control of wolves adversely impacting big game populations, this information should be read and discussed by every legislator and biologist involved in the wolf delisting process.

In early February, 2009, before the AK Game Board even met to consider requests for wolf control, Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) mounted a television campaign in opposition to aerial wolf control, using Hollywood actress Ashley Judd as its spokesperson. Judd called aerial killing of wolves “senseless savagery,” and attacked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for approving the practice (ID and MT take note).

The Board admitted that its wolf reduction programs, which included allowing hunters to locate wolves from the air and land and shoot the wolves, have been unable to remove enough wolves to meet the necessary quotas for the past two years or so. It implemented the following new programs to increase both wolf and bear removal (ID and MT take note):

• Allowing hunters to place black bear snares on the ground or in buckets attached to trees and including the snaring of brown bears in the McGrath area.

• Letting hunters fly in to hard-to-reach bear-baiting and snaring camps in the same region using private helicopters.

• Authorizing state employees to use poison gas to kill orphaned wolf pups in dens.

• Renewing existing wolf-kill programs for five years.

Although the board rejected ADFG Biologists’ proposal to allow private hunters to shoot wolves from helicopters to prevent potential lawsuits, it allowed state employees to kill wolves from helicopters in areas where a reduction quota was not being met. It also authorized private pilots to use helicopters to pick up wolves killed by private hunters in fixed-wing planes – approved by a new citizen initiative last year (ID and MT take note).

On Saturday, March 16, 2009 ADFG employees began shooting wolves from helicopters in order to boost caribou numbers in the Fortymile herd that ranges from the Steese highway to the Canadian border. The goal is to shoot up to 150 wolves before they get too many caribou calves and before the snow and the wolf tracks disappear.

But when U.S. Park Service officials learned of the plans they objected with the comment, “We don’t want to see the wolf population, or those packs that frequent the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, be eliminated or reduced significantly.” ADFG reminded them the caribou calving grounds were on state land and suggested that’s why National Preserves and Parks have boundaries.

The state finally agreed not to shoot any collared wolves on the calving grounds that might be part of a federal research effort and continued the helicopter gunning (ID and MT take note).

If you are a legislator in Idaho or Montana who is concerned about reducing wolf numbers, what do you think is going to happen when your F&G wolf experts try to let hunters reduce wolf numbers enough to rebuild elk and deer herds that are already in a predator pit? Are you confident sport hunters can kill enough wolves in the rugged terrain in our two states to even stabilize offending wolf populations – much less reduce them by 70 percent?

If expert Alaska hunters, trappers and aerial gunners in relatively open patches of Alaska can’t control several hundred wolves in 4-6 areas do you believe our inexperienced sportsmen can accomplish that feat? And who is going to foot the bill when Wildlife Services is called on to get the job done?

State WS Director Mark Collinge says it will probably require some capturing and radio-collaring of “Judas” wolves to locate the 80 wolves proposed for removal in just the Lolo Zone. And who is going to pay the legal fees when Defenders sues to halt the killing?

This of course assumes that Defenders et al will not sue to stop the delisting – knowing that the feds have much deeper pockets to pay lawyers than a couple of sparsely populated states.

If you were an Idaho Legislator one year ago, you may recall that F&G Commissioner Gary Power and IDFG Director Cal Groen told your Resource Committees they had no intention of reducing wolf numbers (when the minimum 2007 Idaho wolf population was estimated to be 732). The number of dead wolves doubled since then but livestock losses also doubled and the current estimate is a minimum of 846 wolves in 88 packs with 39 breeding pairs.

Nobody knows how many wolves there are in either state but there may well be 1,500-2,000 in Idaho when the pups are born. If Director Groen’s statement (that 40 wolves were found that were killed by other wolves last year) is accurate, they are running out of wild prey and livestock losses will continue the dramatic increase.

The Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan ratified by the Legislature and approved by FWS provides that Idaho need not be involved in wolf recovery if adequate federal funds to monitor wolf and prey and manage wolves are not provided. Under the terms of this plan (NOT the so-called Population Plan by F&G that was never approved) you can decline to manage them – and demand the feds control or remove them.

That may not succeed initially but at least Idaho won’t be responsible for the continuing carnage that is inevitable and your constituents won’t be suing you for the potential human tragedy that could occur.

If you follow Lawyer Runft’s advice you won’t have to argue with the Forest Service when they refuse to let you kill wolves from the air in Wilderness Areas. You’ll still be entitled to seek Wildlife Services protection from livestock and other property losses and you’ll be in a position to call the shots rather than ask “How High” when FWS tells you to jump.

Fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, I don’t have to make the choice, but you do. Doing nothing means you accept responsibility for what lies ahead. Taking a stand is also a gamble but you still have the 2002 Wolf Plan to fall back on.

Posted by Tom Remington

Ken Salazar took over at the Department of Interior and recently it was announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would proceed with the proposal Bush and then Sec. Dirk Kempthorne had devised. Needless to say this angered a lot of people who, it seems, just assumed that Obama would oppose delisting because it was a Bush initiative.

From the Washington Post:

While the White House declined to comment on Salazar’s move, it has clearly caused a headache for the administration. Lawmakers have called senior Obama aides to question the decision, environmental groups have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to probe the decision-making process, and experts inside and outside the administration predict that the issue will end up in court.

Interesting enough, the WaPo article seems to be suggesting that Ken Salazar acted on his own in making this decision, even quoting Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

“where they’re used to making their own decisions and going ahead with them.”

“It takes a while to get your sea legs on that front, especially if you’re a member of Congress,” Ornstein said.

But it gets better. The article cites an “anonymous” House democrat.

“I just don’t see what this does for us,” the lawmaker said. “Here we are alienating people who did the most — who did a lot to help us in the last election.”

This statement seems to me to indicate quite strongly that certain members must believe that Obama “owes” them, perhaps for campaign votes, and should have opted to not delist the wolf. So much for science.

Bob Irvin, senior vice president for Defenders of Wildlife, seems to think Salazar operated on his own.

“Making the decision to adopt the Bush administration’s flawed delisting proposal the same week that the president pledged his commitment to the Endangered Species Act certainly calls into question whether the Interior Department was coordinating as closely as one would expect to have done with the White House,”………. “This was a controversy that did not need to happen.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist’s brain to realize that if delisting was going to proceed, the case would end up in court and that’s surely where it is headed as massive numbers of environmental groups have already promised. What will be interesting in this case is that for the first time, at least in recent memory, you’ll have supporters of the Obama election pitted against Obama’s administration.

Add to that interesting cocktail the question of how will the judges react who have to this point ruled in opposition to George W. Bush, not necessarily for the wolves. If I’m sitting in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, I’m understanding that we may never get control over wolves and there’s a good chance to be witness to the disappearance of deer, moose and elk, along with many other wildlife species.

We know that Obama stated he will use science in making environmental decisions. The question remains whose science will he use? See ya’ll in court!

Tom Remington