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.
No comments:
Post a Comment