I-167: The Loss of Wildlife Management and Our Rural Montana Heritage

By KEITH KUBISTA President Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife

The human control crew is at it again. However, this time they are utilizing a wildlife ballot initiative known as I-167 as a vector to achieve their non-consumptive use/rural cleansing agenda. Wildlife ballot initiatives are devastating to all hunters, trappers, rural residents, ranchers, wildlife and the very agencies whose responsibility is to manage wildlife. These types of initiatives frequently target elimination of predator hunting or trapping as their primary goal, which creates severe problems for wildlife management agencies to balance predator-prey populations and also decreases hunting opportunities and license revenues. Wildlife ballot initiatives bypass existing structured management process and decisions by FWP or other fish & game departments, prevent deliberative processes with biological and public input and are rigidly written with zero flexibility.
 

 Extremists and special interest groups that sponsor these ballot initiatives unfairly limit consumptive user groups, ranchers, livestock and agricultural producers and rural residents from protecting their property, livelihoods and traditional western lifestyles.
 

This deleterious I-167 initiative is particularly troubling since it absolutely prohibits trapping on all public lands, with nebulous and very limited exceptions. It is based on misleading information which would clearly prejudice the outcome should enough signatures be gathered by the legion of control agents likely bought and paid for by HSUS, DOW, NRDC, CBD, and the  “Alliance of this” or “Friend of that”.
 

Beware; deceptions are being used by the sponsors of this initiative to eliminate our historical use of public lands.

Here are some facts:

1.       Trapping on public lands is regulated in some form with setbacks to roads, trails, campgrounds, trailheads, dwellings etc. to avoid conflicts. These setbacks are adjusted and revised regularly. For example regulations changed in districts 1 and 3 this year when more than 30 trails and roads now require expanded setbacks. In the Missoula area alone over 40,000 acres are off limits to trapping. In addition there are special regulations on over 420,000 acres of WMA’s and closures for beaver & otter trapping on 31 rivers, creeks, and  their drainages.
 

2.      Trapping regulations are adaptive to current circumstances and are frequently changed to meet wildlife population objectives using biological data, recognizing shared use by the general public, and avoiding conflicts. Trapping regulations require the use of the most advanced technology, equipment and methods to deal with the wide range of species including pan tension settings, jaw spread limitations, placement and use of baits, seasonal timeframes, training and certification classes, trap ID tags, recessed trigger mechanisms etc.

3.      With these new era tools, trapping has become more humane, efficient, and is an essential   wildlife management tool effectively used to control predators, pests, predatory animals, as well as to protect our domestic herds. For example, with the addition of trapping to wolf management plans last year, Montana’s wolf population was finally reduced for the first time since they were reintroduced. It is widely known and proven that hunting alone will not accomplish controlling wolf populations.

4.      We have been trapping for decades on public land and tourism is thriving and remains robust throughout Montana and will continue.

5.      Pets are to be kept under control at all times on public lands, not to be allowed to run at large, which has created many conflicts with harassed, injured or killed wildlife. Worst of all Footloose MT, the sponsor of this initiative continues to spread disinformation and propagates emotional hype concerning incidental dog captures. FWP keeps records of and monitors these events.  Here is their data from last season:   4 dogs captured in wolf traps all 4 were on private land 3 running at large/loose. 10 dogs were caught in furbearer sets (3 on private land, 4 running at large/loose). Nearly half of all incidents involve dogs at large.

6.      One of the elements this initiative imposes is prohibiting governmental agencies from contracting with private sector individuals or contractors who specialize in pest and predatory animal control. This will require more full time state employees to carry out these activities which many Montana residents currently do recreationally and as protection of their property.

7.      If public land trapping is prohibited predator and predatory animal populations will increase thus causing more livestock depredation which results in more funding needed for the livestock loss board and other obligations.

8.     There are many other long term financial implications and far reaching consequences of this initiative that result in loss of license revenues, fiscal liabilities for the state, and restrictions to private property protection.

Folks, here in Montana our customs, culture, and heritage should not fall victim to extremists looking to adjudicate our lifestyles out of existence.

Could Widespread Tapeworm Infestation Destroy Life In The Northern Rockies?

 

                                                                                                                    Photo Above - Hydatid Cysts On Moose Lungs

            Published in 1963, Farley Mowat's book, "Never Cry Wolf", probably did more than anything written before or since to spread and perpetuate the misconception that wolves only kill the old, the sick, and the weak - making herds healthier.  While published as a true story, the book has been proven to be pure fiction, in which the author wrote himself into the lead role, as a research scientist sent alone into Canada's wild north to determine if wolf predation was the cause for the dramatic loss of hundreds of thousands of caribou.

            In reality, he was the junior member of a research team, which indeed did come to the conclusion that the herds were being decimated by wolves.  However, in his fictitious story, Mowat reached a completely different finding.  He blamed the loss of the great herds to the spread of diseases and parasites - and there is likely some truth to that.  What he failed to share was the origin of all  those cysts found on the internal organs of the caribou he claimed to have dissected.

            The Canadian wolves that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service brought down to put "Wolf Recovery" in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming on the fast track to success also brought with them a tiny tapeworm, known as Echinococcus granulosus.   Those wolves were supposed to have been treated for such parasites before being released into the Greater Yellowstone Area in 1995 and 1996, and eventually in other areas.  Apparently that was not done, or the treatment was ineffective.  By 2008, more than 60-percent of the wolves tested in Montana and Idaho were infected with the tapeworms, and a more recent study in the Yellowstone area revealed that approximately 80-percent of the wolves tested positive for the parasite.

            What are the dangers of having this parasite in the Northern Rockies ecosystem, and how does the parasite spread?

            Many of the wolves tested have been literally infested with thousands of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworms, which deposit their eggs in the digestive tract.  Each and every time an infected wolf defecates, the pile of scat left behind is loaded with thousands of the microscopic eggs.  These are easily spread far and wide by mountain breezes, rain, on the shoes of hikers, by the rushing waters of a mountain stream, on the tires of a mountain bike, or in the fur of wolves and other animals - including dogs. 

            Elk, moose, deer and other big game, as well as livestock, ingest eggs which have settled on blades of grass, on the leaves of plants on which they forage, or perhaps while taking a drink.  The eggs are then carried by the blood stream throughout the body, where they can form the hydatid cysts that Farley Mowat wrote about in his book.  Hunters in the Northern Rockies are now finding those same cysts on the lungs and livers of big game they harvest.   

            Should they be concerned about eating the meat from these animals?

            Dr. Valerius Geist, a wildlife ecologist with the University of Calgary in Alberta, says, "Native people have been eating hydatid infected moose, caribou and deer forever. The meat is safe."

            He points out  the cysts contain thousands of tiny tapeworm heads floating in a liquid. Geist claims that in elk, deer, moose, caribou, etc., neither the cyst's liquid, nor the tapeworm heads are anything to worry about. Stating they cannot infect you.

            So, what's the danger?

            Humans can contract hydatid disease only through the ingestion of E. granulosus eggs, which originate from the scat of wolves, coyotes and other canines infected with the tapeworms.  One of the most common carriers to humans is the family dog, which can bring those eggs right into the family home.  Dogs are notorious for rolling in the scat of other canines.  And even if they don't, a long run through the grasses of where wolves live could mean bringing in dozens or hundreds of those eggs in their fur or hair, where they are deposited in the carpets where children play.  Or, they could be transferred directly to humans when the dog is loved on, and returns the affection with a good healthy lick or two.

            Likely one of the more common ways for humans to ingest the eggs is to have them on their hands when eating a sandwich, a piece of fruit, or maybe even something as delightful as a sweet glazed donut.  Dr. Geist points out that hydatid cysts don't pose that big a threat when just one or two of the cysts form on or in the lungs or liver, where they are encapsulated by the host tissue, and may eventually calcify.  However, he points out that a hydatid cyst that forms in the brain can prove lethal.  He also notes that multiple cysts forming on the lungs, heart or on long bones can become medically problematic, interfering with organ function and possibly could overcome the immune system.

            Dr. Geist has stated emphatically, "Should the cyst burst (internally), then the liquid will generate a severe allergic reaction. Anaphylactic shock may be the consequence.  And that can kill the patient on the spot!"  

            Farley Mowat's claim that the hydatid cysts and other parasites were the reason for the precipitous crash in caribou numbers could be shown to be true to a certain degree.  However, unless the internal organs of the animals were riddled with the cysts, it's unlikely that animals died directly due to those cysts.  The most likely consequence of the caribou ingesting E. granulosus tapeworm eggs, and having multiple cysts form on internal organs, was that it impeded the ability of the animals to elude a pack of wolves for any distance.  And that is especially true if a number of large cysts had formed on the lungs, weakening their function and lessening their air capacity.

            A better question might be, is the same thing now happening with the elk, moose, deer and other big game populations in the Northern Rockies?

            In 2011, the LOBO WATCH website sent an e-mail out to the directors of both Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, plus several dozen wildlife managers, regional and department supervisors, and to board members of the game commissions in these two states, to inquire whether or not these wildlife agencies have been monitoring the occurrence of hydatid cysts in game harvested by hunters.  And if MT FWP or IDFG has not been monitoring this threat to our wildlife resources, to ask "When are you going to start?"

            That e-mail also went to hundreds who have also been impacted by wolf depredation, and many who now continue to live with the threat of contracting hydatid cysts.  Those recipients included the heads of national and state wildlife conservation organizations, outfitters and guides, elected officials, and many sportsmen. 

            One, a rancher on the Flathead Indian Reservation, e-mailed back with details about a pair of wolves killing one of his calves.  He also shared that the National Bison Range, which is located inside the Flathead tribal lands, had recently reported the bighorn sheep and pronghorn herds have had newborns with "some sort of lung disease".  

            Robert Fanning, the founder of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, also sent out an e-mail to those wildlife agency recipients with a similar statement, "Many, many big horn sheep have been killed by WY agency 'scientists' this year to analyze so called 'problems with their lungs'. Why haven't those results been released to the public?"  

            As residents of the Northern Rockies have learned more about the spread of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm, and the growing occurrence of hydatid cysts being discovered inside harvested big game animals, the more many now feel that the large number of wild sheep which have been destroyed due to "pneumonia" may have been killed for the wrong reason - or to cover up something.  Likewise, most feel that it is only a matter of time before the number of reported cases of hydatid disease among humans begins to escalate.  As rare as the disease may be in the Lower 48 States, in other parts of the world where there are large numbers of parasite carrying wolves, the number of reported cases is much higher.

            Across Alaska and Canada, where an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 wolves roam the North woods and tundra, the rural human population is extremely sparse.  In all of the Yukon's 186,661 square miles, there are only about 34,000 residents - of which, some 27,000 live the capital city of Whitehorse.  That gives the other 7,000 or so rural dwellers a lot of elbow room.  Next door in the Northwest Territories, around 42,000 people have 519,734 square miles to roam.  Nunavut offers even more remote living, with just over 31,000  people sharing 808,185 square miles.  Across the Earth's northern ice cap, in Russia's northern regions rural human inhabitation is even more sparse in many equally as expansive wild areas - areas with as many as 100,000 to 150,000 wolves.

            As sparsely populated as these areas may be, with so few people living amongst such large wolf populations, the number of people infected by hydatid cysts is much higher than in the Northern Rockies.  The residents of those remote regions live where wolves are more prevalent, and where their contact with wolves, or what wolves have left behind, is much greater. 

            Dr. Geist says this is largely due to the high dependency on dogs by residents of the Far North.  In much of this country, the only winter travel is via dog sled, and most families in the northern regions of North America and Asia keep and maintain a large number of sled dogs - which are generally fed the offal and raw discarded portions of caribou, reindeer and moose - many of which were very likely infected with hydatid cysts.  While those dogs are very rarely allowed into the homes, and generally kept well away from human dwellings, those who work and handle them very likely carry many Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm eggs back into the home.  Geist says that one major source of egg transfer from those dogs to humans is probably the handling of fecal soiled sled harnesses.

            The Public Health Agency of Canada recognizes the danger of being exposed to E.g. eggs to be so great, the agency has issued a Material Safety Data Sheet for the handling of Echinococcus granulosus tapeworms for researchers or health and medical professionals.  (That MSDS can be found at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/msds54e-eng.php ) 

            In Montana and Idaho, state officials have all but ignored the health threats posed by the tiny tapeworms which are being contracted by a growing wolf population.  And the eggs of those tapeworms now cover the landscape by the billions.  Perhaps that is why the wildlife agencies have so seriously downplayed the real number of wolves in each of these states, maybe they are afraid that sooner or later someone is going to start doing some real math.

            In Montana, FWP has had the propensity to precede wolf population estimates with the wording "at least", which means they really don't have a clue about the real number of wolves in the state, but feel that a very acceptable, and comfortable, minimum guess is whatever figure they happen to be using at the time.  In 2011, they claimed there were "at least" 653 wolves in the state.  However, simple math indicated the true "at least" number to be more like 1,500 to 1,700, with the possibility of 2,000 to 2,500 wolves in the state.   Still, using FWP's overly conservative number, if 60-percent of the wolves were infected, at that time there were approximately 392 wolves spreading E.g. eggs across nearly all of the western one-third of the state...on a daily basis.

            One estimate stated that each and every time a wolf defecates, another 2,000 to 3,000 of those eggs contaminate the region.  And if each wolf left just one pile of scat a day, an average of nearly 1,000,000 tapeworm eggs were released into an environment being shared with elk, moose, deer, livestock, pets and humans.  Now, consider the possibility, or likelihood, that FWP was way off base with their low ball estimate of wolf numbers, and the real number was closer to 2,000 wolves - "at least" 60-percent of which carried and spread the threat of the tapeworm.  Making the situation worse is that those eggs can survive for months on end, meaning that western Montana is now one great big E.g. incubator, contaminated with billions of the tapeworm eggs...waiting for a new intermediate host to come along.  Then, the cycle is complete, and begins again when wolves kill an infected animal and feeds on the cyst covered organs and flesh.

            In most regions of the world where cystic hydatid disease has been most prevalent,  it has been where very few people have been exposed to the environment of tens of thousands of wolves.   Here in the Northern Rockies we now have a new dilemma - and that is millions of people sharing the environment of just several thousand Echinococcus granulosus infected wolves.  Montana is now home to right at 1-million people, while Idaho is home to just over 1.5-million residents.  Yellowstone National Park claimed that more than 3-million people visited in 2011, and Glacier National Park welcomed more than 2.2-million visitors that year.  According to the University of Montana, altogether 10.5 million travelers visited Montana in 2011.  If the tourism of Idaho and Wyoming are also thrown into the equation, 15 to 20 million people could have been exposed to the E. granulosus eggs now covering the land, wafting around in the mountain breezes, or flowing downstream in the waterways of the Northern Rockies.

            If these people had been forewarned of the possible danger, how many of them would have elected to visit other regions of the country?

            What  has made the Intermountain West such a draw in the past has been its abundance of wildlife, which is now fast disappearing - and has been ever since the introduction of non-indigenous Canadian wolves - and the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm.  With the percentage of wolves contaminated with the tapeworm now on the rise, it is very evident that an extremely high number of the elk, moose, deer and other big game harvested by hunters have become intermediate hosts, and carry the burden of tapeworm filled cysts on and in their internal organs.

            Bob Fanning, who was a 2012 Montana gubernatorial candidate, says if the public health issue of E. granulosus is not confronted directly, openly, honestly and professionally with science instead of politics to stop the cover up of hydatid disease, not only would Montanan's completely lose trust in MT FWP, but they would stop obeying that agency as well.

            He added, "The grey wolf has been forced on us and because of the lethal disease they can introduce to the human population, we have a natural, lawful right to defend ourselves, our children and grandchildren."

                LOBO WATCH feels it is time to share this disaster with those who have brought it to us.  During the 2013 fall hunting seasons, hunters are encouraged to carry a heavy duty plastic trash bag with them, and to deliver any cyst covered internal organs found in game directly to MT FWP or IDFG regional offices, and demand that they be studied.  These agencies should have been monitoring the occurrence of such cysts ever since wolves were first released into the Northern Rockies, but have not.  Now it's time to force them to do their job.

            If taking those organs to FWP or IDFG isn't possible, Val Geist says that a hunter should build a hot fire and burn those infected internal organs to break the E.g. cycle.  -  Toby Bridges, LOBO WATCH
 

15 Years of Living With Wolves - A Rancher's Story in Montana

                                                       By Ryan Benson, BIG GAME FOREVER

Livestock producers and sportsmen have tried to educate the general public on the impacts from unmanaged wolves.  Unfortunately, they continually deal with misinformation that is widely published as authoritative.  Some of the misleading statistics even come from government agencies whose methodologies fail to account for the scope and scale of actual loss.  In other words, a lot of well-intentioned people are confused by what is really going on.  A rancher from Montana recently wrote a great letter detailing this situation.  It is worth reading.

A Bit of Background

At the recent wolf-delisting hearing in Washington D.C. a very nice woman approached me.  I had just finished my turn at the microphone in support of the pending national wolf-delisting.  I had talked about the impacts to hard working families in rural America, the loss of wildlife and the hope that predator numbers can be returned to more balanced numbers through responsible management.

"I have some information on ways ranchers and farmers can protect their livestock without harming wolves!" she shared excitedly. She continued, "just give me your email and we can produce some win/wins here."  It was evident that she was sincere in her offer and was genuinely trying to be helpful. 

Hard Working Rural Communities Bear the Burden

What she didn't know is that I have spent countless hours in the homes of livestock producers across the country who have tried "non-lethal deterent" strategies like flaggery, hot fence and even range riders.  Not only are these techniques extremely expensive, but they had failed to slow livestock kills from wolves.  When these ranchers explain the shortcomings of these techniques, they are often attacked for being "untruthful" or being a "wolf-hater." I truly sympathized for these hard-working families that are paying a heavy price for the federal government's experimental wolf programs.  In fact the data strongly suggests that they bear most of the economic burden from wolf depredation.

Rancher's Letter Everyone Should Read

A friend recently sent me a link to a letter written by a hard-working Montana rancher.  The letter explains that his calf survival has plummeted from 5% loss to approximately 33% loss since the wolf-program started.  Based on the economics of ranching, this is the difference between making a living and losing the farm.  Here is a couple of great quotes from the letter:

"I read Gretchen Smith’s letter in the winter 2011 issue of Range that characterized wolf impacts for last year in total at 75 head of cattle, and that this loss was compensated for through the reimbursement program. I also read in Western Ag Reporter of Carter Niemeyer’s position that adverse affects of wolf harassment are minimal on livestock & wildlife.  If these points were true I think we stockmen, sportsman, and people like us who simply enjoy all wildlife and not just predators would be overjoyed."

"Stockmen experience some death loss and infertility in the best of circumstances. Our norm was 4% – 5% unbred cows with a low death loss under 1% before wolves were a factor. Now our negative cattle trends mirror the negative wildlife trends in our area. In my experience these negative wildlife and cattle trends directly relate to the increase in wolf numbers, the increase in wolf encounters with cattle & wildlife, and the increase in wolf depredations."

I strongly encourage you to read his full article at:  http://tomremington.com/2013/10/09/15-years-experience-dealing-with-wolves-on-montana-ranch/

Real Data Should Internalize all Economic Losses to Ranching and Hunting Economies

A few interesting points from his letter.  First, the writer feels that livestock impacts from wolves follow similar trends to elk population decline.  Second, some non-lethal tactics which showed some promise in the early stages, are less successful when wolf numbers and predation increase.  Third, economic impacts are not just from confirmed kills, they also extend to unconfirmed kills, lowered pregnancy rates, aborted calves, low weights from stress and grazing disruption all combine to produce a bleak economic picture for many ranchers.  Fourth, wolves are difficult and expensive to manage. 

It is interesting to note that wolf-advocates go to great lengths to censor this type of information.  Biologists and scientists who write correct data are ruthlessly attacked.  Funding is pulled from researchers.  Authors of articles are rebuked publicly and privately.  Pressure is exerted in a litany of ways to prevent dissemination of correct information.  The combination has led many residents of rural communities to loose faith in the system.  Many of the people I have talked to wonder why their stories are ignored by the media and by many politicians from urban districts.

The Time and Expense of Restoring Wildlife, Balancing Wolf Numbers

Thank you for supporting these hard-working Americans.  State management of wolves is a common-sense solution to allow state's to manage wolves in a responsible manner.  Good people across America have been hurt by the delays in wolf-management.  States are faced with an expensive "clean-up" effort after years of uncontrolled wolf numbers.  The good news is that many states now have authority to restore numbers to more balanced levels.  The question is, how long it will take.  Wolf populations are highly resistant to management.  Removals can be very expensive.  Even small reductions in wolf-populations are difficult given restrictions on wolf-management tools and techniques.

Who will pay for moose, elk and deer restoration?

Who will pay for wolf management and wildlife resoration? At this point it appears that states are stuck with the bill.  This is a particularly difficult situation for state wildlife agencies.  Delayed wolf management has decimated biologically and economically important wildlife herds in these states.  As a result, states have an significant added expense at the same time dealing with millions in lost annual revenue.  Some wolf-advocates are now pushing for abandoning the user based North American model and replacing it with more general fund taxes.  Which begs the question, should these states bear the burden for a federal government program that didn't work out as promised?  It is just one of a number of difficult questions resulting from years of litigation and delays which prevented states from protecting wildlife populations and livestock in their states.  It is becoming increasingly clear that sportsmen and ranchers will once again play an important part in restoring wildlife populations and restoring balance to these hard-hit areas.  I hope we are equal to the task.

 
Ryan Benson
BIG GAME FOREVER
 http://biggameforever.org/

Which Wolves Breed...Which Don't?

 

          In Montana, six regional "Wolf Specialists", with the help of a handful of state wildlife biologists, have been able to accomplish something that 18,889 wolf license holders apparently had a difficult time doing during the 2012 wolf season - and that's locating wolves.  At the end of the year, those wolf specialists and wildlife biologists readily announced that there were "at least" 625 wolves still roaming the state, while all of those 2012 wolf tag holding hunters and trappers only managed to find and take 225 wolves during the season that was open for basically six months - from September 1 to February 28, 2012.

          In all fairness, it should be pointed out that those six wolf specialists and the state wildlife biologists that lend them a hand are stretched pretty thin, trying to keep up with  wolf numbers across a state that covers some 146,000 square miles.  They also keep tabs on the degree of damage wolves continue to deal populations of elk, moose, deer and other big game, plus the impact that wolves are having on livestock production.

          Physically counting wolves with any degree of accuracy is impossible, especially in a state as huge as Montana.  It's safe to say that close to 90-percent of the recognized wolf population is found in the western one-third of the state, where the terrain is most rugged and inaccessible, not to mention the thick and heavy forestation of the steep slopes and deep valleys.  Spotting wolves from an airplane or helicopter at any time of the year is poor at best, particularly in Northwest Montana where both the canopy overgrowth and wolf populations are the most dense.  Without physically seeing wolves, populations figures have become something of a not so hi-tech guessing game - no one knows for sure just how many wolves there really are in Montana, or for that matter how many wolves are currently in the Northern Rockies.

          Thus, the qualifier "at least" is used any and every time that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks references a computer model determined minimum number of wolves in the state.  Those numbers are extremely misleading, since there is no way that Montana's wolf specialists and biologists actually observed anywhere near the "at least" 625 wolf count at the end of 2012, nor have they physically established the 146 packs and 37 breeding pairs also claimed.  Those numbers are all determined by computer modeling - based on data, good or bad, that's programmed into the model.

          Of all the MT FWP claims, the one that is likely more suspect than any other is the number of breeding pairs.  The original Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan called for a minimum of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs in the state.  Montana's wildlife agency gave themselves something of a wolf management buffer by adopting minimum numbers of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs.

          Back when the wolf experts were assembled to draft the "Plan", which was approved in August of 1987, the contention among those so-called "experts" was that only the dominant alpha male and the alpha female would mate  - and all subordinate male and female wolves would not.  That theory was pretty much debunked when it was discovered that the studies conducted which came to that conclusion had been done with captive wolves - not free ranging open country wolves.  Wolf researchers now realize that there are often several breeding pairs within a pack, and that breeding also takes place when nomadic wolves come together and form a new pack.

          Still, MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks claims that only about 25-percent of the "known" wolf packs within the state have a breeding pair. 

          When the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan was drafted by a team of "wolf experts", the belief was that only the alpha male and alpha female of a pack would breed, leading to the stipulation that a recovered wolf population would only occur when there were 100 wolves with 10 breeding pairs in each Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.  The states voluntarily pushed those minimums to 150 wolves with 15 breeding pairs in each.  The popular belief among wolf researchers during the late 1980's and 1990's was that, to prevent too much competition for available prey, the alpha male and alpha female of such dominant breeding packs not only did the breeding for that pack, but for subordinate satellite packs as well. 

          One such researcher was Dr. L. David Mech, who was deposed as an expert witness during the 2008 wolf delisting hearings.  In his book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species", published in 1970, Mech also supported and promoted the popularized notion that only select dominant males and females bonded for breeding purposes.  He based his writings about wolf breeding behavior on the earlier studies conducted by wolf behaviorist Rudolph Schenkel - on captive wolves enclosed in sizeable compounds.  During the late 1990's, Mech spent several summers living with and studying  wild wolf packs in the Northwest Territories - and discovered a completely different breeding behavior.  He has since worked to correct the misinformation he helped to perpetuate.

 

          What he observed were wolves which often whelped several different litters of pups within the same pack, with different parents, or at least with different females.  Mech also came to realize that the offspring of these packs generally became nomadic between ages 1 and 2, roaming the tundra until they joined the offspring of other packs to form an entirely new pack - which became a new family group, and a new breeding pack.  He had established that free-roaming wolves did not adhere to the breeding behaviors exhibited by captive wolves. 

 

          This more widely spread breeding pattern is not limited to the wolves of the open tundra or the Far North.  Mech also realized that such breeding behavior also occurs in the Northern Rockies.  In an article he wrote for International Wolf magazine, Winter 2008, he shared this observation of such breeding in the Greater Yellowstone Area, "There, young wolves disperse at a later age, when 2 to 3 years old instead of 1 to 2, thus making packs larger and containing more mature individuals than most packs do elsewhere.  In these packs where both the mother and some of her daughters mature, all sometimes get bred during the same year, the daughters usually by outside males."

 

          The myth that "only the alpha male and alpha female breed" is just one of many lies that the residents of the Northern Rockies have had to live with since the launch of the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project in the early 1990's.  It's as if an agenda driven U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service handed state wildlife agencies like Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks a script, and demanded that they follow it to the letter - and to not allow facts or the truth tempt them to steer  back in favor of logic, common sense, or honesty.

 

          By its own admittance, MT FWP has not had the expertise to manage wolves.  Over and over again, the agency has referred to its management of wolves in this state as "Adaptive Wolf Management", claiming that the agency has been learning as it goes.  That amateur approach to controlling the impact of apex predators such as gray wolves, mountain lions and bears has resulted in the catastrophic loss of big game herds in most of Western Montana.  Easily, 50 to 75 years of wildlife conservation has been lost to the state encouraged proliferation of wild carnivores - and Montana's wildlife agency continues to insure growing predator numbers and problems by enforcing hunting regulations which guarantee that come next spring there will be more of the predators on the landscape than before the start of the previous fall hunting seasons.

 

          What MT FWP wolf specialists and biologists don't know about wolves, or mountain lions and bears for that matter, has turned much of the state into a wildlife wasteland - and Montana's governor and legislature continues to allow it to happen.  One thing is for certain, FWP has absolutely no clue about the true number of wolves in the state - or how many of those 146 packs have breeding females and males.  The evidence now says there are one heck of a lot more than 37 breeding pairs.

 

          Robert Fanning, of Pray, Montana, who is the founder and president of the 3,000 member strong group known as the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, says, "When it comes to wolf biology, no one at MT FWP has credentials even close to that of Dr. L. David Mech.  No one!"

 

          He points out that in May of 2008, Dr. Mech swore in federal court that, at that time, there were 3,000 wolves in the Northern Rockies.  Fanning commented that one does not have to be Einstein to do the simple math to come up with the true number of wolves now roaming Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.  That math, based on the 30-percent annual growth rate Mech has determined for a healthy wolf population, and allowing for all natural and man caused wolf losses, would still reveal a current wolf population of around 5,000 wolves in the three states.  Montana's share would be in the neighborhood of "at least"  1,800 to 1,900 wolves - not the "at least" 625 wolves now claimed by FWP.

 

          Former USFWS biologist and division chief Jim Beers says that the minimizing of wolf numbers and the number of breeding pairs is all a part of the subterfuge used by state and federal wildlife agencies to counter anyone who does that math and challenges that there are far more wolves than those agencies claim.   He calls the notion that only alpha male and alpha females breed nothing more than pure bull feces!

          Beers adds, "Any male canid ...dog, wolf, coyote, dingo... will crawl on his belly through shattered glass and dig under a penitentiary wall to get at a female in heat."

 

          Things are going to heat up in Montana as true sportsmen groups push for farther reaching legislation calling for the emergency reduction of predator numbers, as phony wildlife conservation organizations are exposed for what and who they really are, and possibly even a lawsuit that is likely to be filed against Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for willingly having a hand in the destruction of big game herds.  Looks like things are going to heat up in Big Sky Country  -  Toby Bridges, Northern Rockies Big Game Recovery Project 

To Flag A Violation Of Wildlife Management Ethics, Drop Us An E-mail To - lobowatch2@gmail.com

 

         

 

 

Of Wolves and Junk Science

  

       

 

          It is now very apparent that when plans were first being made to bring wolves back into the Northern Rockies, knowledgeable "wolf scientists" must have been extremely rare - and extremely far and few in between.   When one takes the time to mull over the so-called Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Plan, and especially the long and drawn out 1994 Environmental Impact Statement filed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, drafted before the first wolves were released into the Greater Yellowstone Area in 1995, and compares the "facts" within those two documents with what we now know has happened and continues to happen, it becomes very clear that the chosen experts knew little if anything about wolves.

          In those days, the team of wildlife biologists, managers, ecologists and environmentalists pushing to "reintroduce" wolves into the Yellowstone ecosystem and throughout the Northern Rockies definitively established that to achieve a recovered wolf population it would take 100 wolves, with a minimum of 10 breeding pairs, in each of three states -  Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.   And that goal was achieved in 2002.  At that time, according to the "Recovery Plan" and the 1994 EIS, management was supposed to have been turned over to the state wildlife agencies.  But, it was not.

          Although the team of "scientists" and "wildlife biologists" who drafted both of these official documents signed off on the recovery goal numbers well before the first wolves were released, intervening environmental groups, including the Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity, began filing lawsuits to prevent wolf management hunts.  And this is even though the wildlife agencies of these states had voluntarily planned to insure a minimum of at least 15 breeding pairs in each state.  And that battle continues to this very day. 

          By the time wolves had reached the agreed upon recovery goal in 2002, it was already evident that those scientists who drafted the plan and EIS had missed their predictions, their claims and their promises to a concerned public by a country mile.  Hunting is not just a recreation in the Northern Rockies, it is a way of life, with many families relying heavily on the harvest of elk, deer and other big game to supplement how they keep their family fed.  It is also big business.  In fact, in Montana alone hunting is an annual $230-million-plus boost to the state's economy.  And well before the first 17 wolves were released into Yellowstone National Park in 1995, Congress proclaimed that the planned project was to "not hurt hunting", to "not hurt ranching", and that the release of wolves in the Northern Rockies was not to threaten any other endangered species - i.e. the grizzly bear.

          Wolf impact on other wildlife resources was realized by 2002.  One of the first elk herds to be severely impacted by wolf depredation was the Northern Yellowstone elk herd.  In 1995-96, when the first wolves were released, that herd numbered between 19,000 and 20,000 - and as wolf numbers quickly grew in and around the park, elk numbers dwindled quickly.   That summer when wolves reached their recovery numbers, this herd was already down to 12,000.  Currently, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd numbers less than 4,000 animals.

          The so-called wolf experts who contrived the Recovery Plan claimed that the average wolf would kill around 14 big game animals yearly.  Subsequent research, observing what was actually happening once the wolves had far surpassed the recovery goals, established that the average wolf was killing between 20 and 30 big game animals annually - for sustenance.  Likewise, they were killing nearly the same number - simply for the sport of killing, eating nothing.  That meant the average wolf was killing between 40 and 60 animals each and every year.  The "scientists" who drafted the plan failed to even address what is now referred to as "sport killing" or "surplus killing".

          These same wolf specialists also failed to address other aspects of wolf impact that just may prove to have an even greater impact on elk, moose, deer and other big game populations - and that is the stress the wolves put on pregnant females.  With the reintroduction of the wolf into the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, the spring calf to cow ratio has nose dived.  In many areas where the survival rate was once 30 to 50 calves per 100 cows, it is now down into the single digits - 6 to 9 per 100 cows.  Elk biologists realize that it takes at least 30 to 35 calves per 100 cows to sustain a hunted elk herd.  Just to sustain itself without being hunted, a herd must realize an 18- to 20-percent calf survival.

          Wolves, mountain lions and grizzlies all account for a high rate of calf loss during late spring and early summer calving.  However, where wolves very likely make the biggest impact on the calf-to-cow ratio is through the winter,  prior to calving time.  Wolves put continual pressure on its prey base during the lean months of December, January, February and March.  Constantly kept on the move, there is little time for elk to fatten up for the harshest weather of the year.  And as cow elk become heavier with a calf fetus inside, the stress of that constant pursuit is now causing a high number to abort the fetus.  And this is an impact factor that our wolf "scientists" either purposely ignored, or were not knowledgeable enough about wolves to even realize.

          Another oversight was just how this would affect the overall health of big game herds, especially elk.  When USFWS brought in the first Canadian wolves into the Yellowstone area, the Northern Yellowstone elk herd averaged 4 to 5 years of age.  Due to the excessive loss of calf recruitment, the herd has gotten much older on the average - now between 8 and 9 years of age.  Many cows are now reaching an age where reproduction becomes biologically impossible.

          Math is an integral part of science, the part which can be most easily manipulated.  That can now be witnessed with the "guesstimated" wolf populations that now roam the upper two-thirds of Idaho, all along the western half of Montana and in the northwest quadrant of Wyoming - and which are now moving into Washington, Oregon and Utah.  In 2008, our experts claimed the region was home to around 1,700 wolves - even though the wildlife agencies in these states do not have the technology or the manpower to accurately assess.  The hundreds of thousands of sportsmen who spend most of the year in the outdoors said that number wouldn't even account for half the wolves in the Northern Rockies.  And one of the most respected wolf scientists in the world, Dr. L. David Mech, of Minnesota, tended to agree with them.

          Mech was deposed as an expert witness for the 2008 wolf delisting hearings, and in his declaration he established that even with natural death losses, and wolves culled by hunters and animal control officers, the Northern Rockies wolf population was, then, more than 3,000.  Today, the number is more like 4,000 to 5,000 - with as many as 1,600 to 1,800 in just Montana.  Still, the wolf specialists with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks continued to downplay the wolf numbers, claiming in early 2011 there were "at least" 566 wolves in the state.  As the agency got closer to the 2011 wolf season, they admitted that the population could be around 800.  Next door in Idaho, wildlife managers also touted a number far below the real number, claiming  around 900 as the state went into the fall 2011 wolf hunting season.  Sportsmen in these two states said that combined there were "at least" 3,000 to 3,500 wolves in Montana and Idaho.       

          The "science" Dr. Mech presents that scares the daylights out of those who continually push for more wolves is the level of reduction it's going to take in order to stop the destruction of other wildlife populations.  In that same declaration, he stated that to just stop the growth rate of depredation could mean eliminating upwards of 50-percent of all wolves in the Northern Rockies.  To pull big game populations out of what is referred to as a "predator pit" situation would require culling 70-percent or more of existing wolves.

          Plaguing the science of the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project even more is the wolf which USFWS chose to transplant from north-central Alberta, Canada as the replacement wolf for the "reintroduction".  It is not the same subspecies as the wolf that was native to the region.  Prior to the importation of those non-indigenous Canadian wolves (Canis lupus occidentalis) , the native wolf of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming was a smaller subspecies (Canis lupus irremotus) .  Many residents of the region have stated there were still several small pockets of the native wolf in remote areas when USFWS began bringing in the larger and more aggressive non-native Canadian wolves - and that those native wolves were soon eliminated  by the invasive species.

          Sportsmen are now seriously questioning how USFWS chose to bring in an entirely different wolf to repopulate one of the richest wildlife ecosystems in the U.S.  They tend to feel that bringing in that subspecies would be no different than if the agency arbitrarily chose to truck a few thousand pronghorns from the plains of Wyoming down to Mexico to supplement the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, or to help out the endangered Florida Keys Deer by transplanting noticeably larger whitetails from the Midwest.  Then there's Idaho's extremely endangered woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), will USFWS come to their rescue and transplant Central barren ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus) from the Canadian Arctic?  Is this science...or playing God? 

          More and more, people who live in the Northern Rockies are accusing USFWS of actually violating the Endangered Species Act by introducing, not reintroducing, a wolf subspecies that never lived in the region.  And that those non-endangered Canadian wolves have destroyed any chances of ever truly re-establishing a population of the native wolf.  The manner in which USFWS, with the encouragement of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Defenders of Wildlife, pushed for such an accelerated recovery project of wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park has many residents suspecting their agenda has much more to it than re-establishing a wolf population.  More now claim it is all a part of the spurious "Wildlands Project" (now called the Wildlands Network) and the United Nation's "Agenda 21" - with goals to greatly reduce human utilization of rural lands.

          A few years ago, one prominent NASA scientist,  James Hansen, was accused of illegally accepting more than $1.2-million from well funded environmental groups to support their "Stop Global Warming" agendas.  The manner in which some state wildlife agency biologists now seem to be favoring the "let nature balance itself agenda" has many sportsmen, who are the primary financial supporters of these agencies, wondering if the "selling out" problem has now come much closer to home.  In the same light, many overly radical environmental professors who are teaching our future wildlife scientists are now under public scrutiny.

          A new area of wolf-related science that has surfaced is the threat of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm - which close to 70-percent of all wolves tested in the Northern Rockies now carry - and spread widely during their long ranging hunts.  Every pile of scat left by these wolves could deposit thousands of the tapeworm eggs, which can result in cystic hydatid disease in elk, moose, deer, livestock - and even humans.  The eggs of this parasite can cause health and life threatening cysts on the lungs, the liver and on the brain.  Once contracted, detection of hydatid disease could take years.  Having the cysts surgically removed presents a new danger.  They are filled with a cloudy liquid, filled with tiny tapeworm heads, and should one burst, either during surgery or on its own, leads to a severe allergic reaction, called anaphylatic shock - and possibly death.  When a cyst does burst, it can spawn the growth of multiple new cysts, making surgery a tricky procedure.   

          As wolf numbers continue to grow in the Northern Rockies, so will the chances of contracting the disease.  It already has many outdoor oriented people afraid to enjoy harvesting and eating wild berries and mushrooms, which could be covered with microscopic tapeworm eggs.  Several cases in humans have now been reported, and a growing number of hunters are finding the cysts on the lungs and livers of elk, deer and moose harvested.

          In Montana, the junk science that severely taints the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project is now under full attack from those who are disgusted with the 70- to 80-percent loss of elk herds and other big game populations in the western regions of the state.  When running for the Governor's office, Democratic candidate Steve Bullock felt MT FWP's "more aggressive" 2012 wolf season, which also allowed trapping, was definitely a step in the right direction to bring down wolf numbers in the state.  Several hundred thousand sportsmen disagreed, claiming it was not enough - and so did Bullock's opponent in the race for the governor's office.  Republican candidate Rick Hill had a different kind of wolf management in mind, which would treat the wolf as a non-protected predator across the eastern half of the state, and would more aggressively manage wolf numbers up and down the western side of the state.  Hill also said that he would push hard for a complete overhaul of the state's wildlife agency.

          Since his election in November 2012, Bullock has signed legislation that lightened wolf hunting restrictions, but other than that he's done little to nothing toward resolving issues that allow wolves and other predators to continue destroying this state's big game herds.  Likewise, MT FWP continues to rely on junk science in its efforts to "manage" wolves.             

          Science is a wonderful tool when it is used for the right reasons.  But when it is used to lie and deceive, to cover up what's really happening, and to support a radical agenda, perhaps it should be handled as a criminal offense.  Montana resident Robert Fanning, the founder and C.E.O. of  the group known as the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd refers to the science used throughout the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project as "scientific fraud!"  

          The evidence says he's right. - Toby Bridges, Northern Rockies Big Game Recovery Project

 

Note:  Robert Fanning is one of many who feel that the Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Project is the greatest wildlife disaster of our lifetimes, and definitely not a conservation success story.  He believes those who are responsible should be held accountable.  He points out that Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd has carefully preserved it's standing to sue and expose this criminal scientific fraud.