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.

•    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.

Opinion by George Dovel

George Dovel is Editor and Publisher of The Outdoorsman.

In 2003, North America’s foremost wildlife scientist, Dr. Valerius Geist, made the following observations:

“The miracle of North American conservation is that it is basically a blue-collar system, grounded in the political and financial support and the active participation of large numbers of middle-class citizens who bring their basic honesty and decency to bear on important issues. This is just the opposite of the elitist system that has existed throughout Europe for centuries and is spreading like cancer around the world today, even right here at home.

“Because of the democratic nature of American hunting and wildlife management, and the demands for accountability it implies, our system has worked miracles in returning wildlife to a continent that, just a hundred years ago, saw the near-extinction of most big game animals and other wildlife. In my mind, this represents the world’s greatest environmental achievement of the last century.”

In 2006, representatives of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) adopted and agreed to fund the “Public Trust Doctrine in Fish and Wildlife Conservation.” This was essentially a doctrine reaffirming that wildlife is the property of the people, held in trust and managed for them and by them, and that hunting shall remain a democratic process available to all of the citizens who own the wildlife – not just the wealthy.

Yet WAFWA and the state wildlife agencies are exploiting the wildlife by selling it to the wealthiest hunters and excluding less affluent families from equal opportunity to harvest the wildlife they jointly own. The so-called “North American Model of Wildlife Conservation” is ignored in their rush to promote wolves and agendas that destroy the wild game sportsmen spent more than half a century restoring.

A week or so ago, in an exchange of emails between scientists and other concerned outdoorsmen like me, Dr. Geist wrote the following observation:

“I may be permitted to take this opportunity to comment on another matter, namely the futility – in the long term – of narrow conservation efforts such as those of the Wolf Recovery Foundation.

Best regards
Val Geist

Whether you are a hunter or fisherman, a natural resource manager, or just a citizen who is concerned about the ongoing depletion of our valuable wildlife resource and our way of life, I urge you to contact your State legislators and express your concerns to them. Write letters to the editor, call in on talk radio, and do whatever you can to energize your fellow citizens.

Remember English philosopher Edmund Burke’s warning, “The only thing necessary for the triumph (of evil) is for good men to do nothing.”

And when your efforts are criticized I urge you to remember this:

“He who fears criticism is hopeless. Only those who do things are criticized. To hesitate for fear of criticism is cowardly. If our course is right, be not afraid of criticism; advocate it, expound it, and if need be, fight for it. Critics always have been and always will be, but to the strong-minded, they are a help rather than a hindrance. Take your part in life’s stage and play your part to the end.” Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Tom Remington

According to IDFG, since January 1, 2008 until November 24, 2008, they have 325 confirmed kills by wolves – 100 cattle, 212 sheep and 13 dogs. For all of last year, there were 278 confirmed kills – 57 cattle, 211 sheep and 10 dogs. Can we conclude that there are more wolves?

Perhaps but we could also say certain conditions made the wolves more hungry or as some would probably like to say, the ranchers aren’t taking care of their livestock.

The same report says that again from January 1, 2008 until November 21, 2008, 136 wolves have been killed – 86 authorized through Wildlife Services for various reasons, 13 taken under the ESA 10j rule and 37 other, including illegal kills.

During the whole of 2007, 77 wolves were killed – 43 by Wildlife Services, 7 by 10j, and 27 other. Can we conclude there are more wolves?

OregonLive.com has a short article today that says that Steve Nadeau, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game large carnivore coordinator, reports that wolves are “moving onto private land”. He also was quoted as saying:

“You can’t just keep stuffing wolves on top of each other,” he said.

This doesn’t make sense according to other talking points we hear about how wolves are loner animals who love the wilderness and are fearful of humans and just want to be left alone. We have to ask why the wolves are moving onto private land? Maybe because the wolves have no fear of man and they see man and his activities as a food source, much the same way as bears do.

But if Nadeau is saying that “You can’t just keep stuffing wolves on top of each other”, isn’t that also an admission on his part that wolves are on the increase? Can we conclude there are more wolves?

Just last week, Jim Unsworth, Idaho Fish and Game Deputy Director, said wolves were the biggest cause of elk herd reduction in the Lolo Hunting Zone.

The agency estimates cow elk in a remote area designated as the Lolo Hunting Zone have dwindled by as much as 13 percent each year. A recent study of radio-collared cow elk indicates that for the most part, wolves are to blame, Fish and Game says.

Not only is he blaming the wolves for taking its toll on the elk herd in this region, the IDFG says that they fear a continued reduction at the current rate will drop the level of herd sustainability below recovery rates. This could devastate the elk herd.

Can we conclude there are more wolves?

If this is “on the ground” evidence of what’s going on with wolf depredations, why is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reporting that wolf populations are on the decline? The Service provided no real proof of their claim other than to say that’s what they have concluded. They even said they didn’t understand why their conclusions would show that.

Steve Nadeau claims the wolves are on the move. Well, maybe they moved and Ed Bangs and his entourage at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have slept through the move.

It has taken a long time for the IDFG to begin to acknowledge that wolves are affecting at least the elk herds in Idaho. Some indications show that deer numbers are down as well. Could it also be the wolves are having a field day with them as well? It’s time to get the wolf off the ESA list and get them managed before we are forced into spending millions more dollars trying to recover elk and deer herds.

Can we conclude there are more wolves?

Tom Remington

Today, I was reading two opinion pieces in the Bismark Tribune out of North Dakota. One piece was written by Roger Kaseman, perhaps the self-appointed leader of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. Kaseman uses “deceptive” practices in order to convince readers that a group, also in North Dakota, called the, “Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights”, is using “deceptive” practices in doing battle against the Fair Chasers who want to outlaw hunting on game ranches. (Make sure you read all the comments that follow)

The second opinion piece was written by Willard Swanke, claiming to be the owner/operator of an elk ranch in North Dakota. Swanke believes that ranchers own their livestock and the property he keeps them on and has the right to harvest is animals as he sees fit.

Neither editorial brings anything new to a long running debate about ethics and property rights. Convincing one side or the other the come to their senses is much like asking the Pope to convert to Judaism.

Although the battle seems to be between elk ranchers and landowners seeking to protect their property rights and those in Kaseman’s camp eager to rule the universe and force their ideologue down the throats of others, the reality is that each side is trying to win public opinion. After all, Kaseman’s Krusaders are attempting to get enough signatures to force a citizen’s initiative vote in November. Fore Kaseman to realize success, he and his gang must convince the voters of the evils behind ranch hunting. For Swanke to shut down their efforts, he and other ranchers must convince the public they have rights.

Part of Kaseman’s argument against the Property Rights group is that he claims they have no right to offer hunts to paying customers. He claims there are no “laws” or “rights” that guarantee the ranchers, therefore the practice should be issued good riddance as he fears keeping it alive will destroy his hunting heritage.

What often gets lost in all of these debates is history. I’m not talking history of last year or a couple years ago. I’m talking about history back to the beginning of time. God created man with the intent that man be free. If not, He would not have given us choice. One of the consequences of having choice is we end up with people who bully, whine, cheat, steal, are greedy, jealous and anything else bad we can think of.

Before I proceed from here, I’ll have to say that if one exercises their freedom to not believe they are a creation of God, I certainly cannot expect them to agree with or understand much of this discussion.

Lost in our history from generation to generation is the fact that this country was founded upon the belief that God is the Creator. He is referred to often in many things written in our founding documents. Human beings are creatures of God, free to choose, free to have possessions, to own land, to grow and prosper.

People today too often believe that if a right isn’t specifically spelled out in the Constitution or enacted by our Congress, it is not protected and/or has no value. I should point out that everyday of my life and that of millions of others, we enjoy hundreds of freedoms not spelled out in some law book. It is becoming necessary I guess to spell out every right and its limitations as respect for those freedoms is waning.

After spending time reading the above mentioned opinion pieces and the many comments that went along with them, I was about to close up shop for the day and go to bed. Here it is, a few hours later still, and I’m pounding away on my keyboard to at least get the initial draft done.

I just couldn’t give up before doing a quick glance through some of my favorite websites. The last site I visited, was that of Hugh Hewitt, one of my favorite conservative writers. I found a guest article posted by Donald Kochan called, “James Madison’s “On Property”". It was like manna from heaven as it would pertain to the debate in North Dakota over ranch hunting, property rights and the effort to ban them.

Kochan directs his readers to an essay written and posted at a University of Chicago web page. The essay was written by James Madison about property rights. As Kochan points out, the essay is short but powerful.

Here’s a couple of excerpts from Madison’s essay.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

If you read the entire piece, you will see that Madison talks about opinions, thoughts and religion as a form of one’s property, to be valued and respected. While it seems he places an almost ultimate value on possessing property, he does not indicate that differing opinions should be stifled. What he does say is that when we bring in government to make rules to regulate and take away a man’s possessions and property, this becomes an “unjust” government.

Here’s a bit more.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Wow! Incredibly powerful material. Why have we not continued to teach our children the history, the meaning of a truly free society, one that respects the rights and possessions of others? Why is there no value in that any more? Why are we bent on destroying that which has made us great?

If we are to define, restrict and force government into our lives to a point where we are told how to live, where to live and in what manner we must conduct ourselves at all times, surely we have lost our freedom and with that will follow the loss of desire to be creative and prosper.

Tom Remington

I’ve written a couple times over the past few months about the CWRA (here and here) but Knight brings to the attention of American sportsmen what could await us should this act be approved.

The intent of the existing Clean Water Act was to ensure that our navigable waters remained pollution free. We have witnessed some abuses of this act through narrow interpretations by our court system. The Clean Water Restoration Act, according to Knight, goes far beyond navigable waters, leaving us to wonder just how far this regulation and court-interpreted Act would go.

In reality, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) does not “restore” the CWA. Instead, it greatly expands its scope and jurisdiction. The bill would bring federal oversight to activities that affect all “waters of the United States” as opposed to merely “navigable waters” as called for in the original CWA. “Waters of the United States” is broadly defined in the legislation to include “all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments.”

I spoke with Knight by phone last fall and we discussed the prospects that with enactment of CWRA and the typical efforts of environmentalists, particularly through lawsuits, hunters could be facing ridiculous restrictions on such things as constructing duck blinds, whether portable, temporary or permanent without first obtaining permits.

Knight gives prime examples in addressing foreseeable problems in the upper Midwest – some of this nation’s top waterfowl hunting grounds.

Both “prairie potholes” (depressed areas that temporarily hold rainwater and snowmelt) and “sloughs” (swampy depressions typically comprised of stagnant water or mud) are specifically named in the CWRA as “waters” that would be subject to regulation – a departure from the original Clean Water Act. As a consequence, driving posts into water and mud near a prairie pothole for construction of a duck blind could constitute discharging dredged or fill material into the “waters of the United States,” which is illegal under the CRA without a permit.11

In addition, hunters who fire shot over and near prairie potholes, lakes, rivers, ponds and wetlands could be considered polluters under the CWRA. In 1996, a U.S. District Court in New York ruled against a shooting range when it found that expended shot, even non-toxic steel shot, is considered a pollutant under the current CWA.12

But the passage of the CWRA wouldn’t just affect hunters. It could have unusual and ridiculous consequences for anglers, recreational boaters and all shooting sports. Knight says that with the wording of the CWRA, that includes virtually every place there is or has been water and leaving much of the interpretation of what would be considered a pollutant up to the courts, anything and everything that is put in the water, including the fisherman, could conceivably be prohibited.

This means trout and small-mouth bass fishermen could lose access to their favorite rivers and streams, as wading in these waters necessarily disturbs rocks and sediment, and therefore could be considered harmful to fish and other wildlife. Lead lures, sinkers or split-shot could be deemed pollutants.

Recreational boating could be restricted or banned in certain waters due to the incidental discharge of engine cooling water, bilge water, deck runoff or ballast water. In fact, environmental litigators have already struck a blow against recreational boating under the current CWA.

We already have seen the courts rule that spent lead and steel shot, as well as clay targets, from shooting ranges, for example, are deemed a pollutant. With expanded control by the government to all waters, which includes watersheds and wetlands, where will this leave shooting ranges, etc.?

EPA notes that lawsuits “have been the driving force behind most legal actions against outdoor ranges.”28 For example, in 1994, the Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, an environmental organization, successfully sued the New York Athletic Club under the CWA because the club had been operating a trap shooting range on its property. In this case, the court found that debris from clay targets and expended shot, including non-toxic steel shot, are pollutants under the CWA. According to EPA, “Based on the court’s decision… any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the ‘waters of the United States’ could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits.”29

More recently, Blue Eco Legal Council, an environmental organization, filed a lawsuit under the CWA against the United States Department of Justice, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Department of Defense, alleging that an FBI shooting range in North Chicago is endangering Lake Michigan with stray bullets.3

The majority of hunters, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts want to keep our land and our waters clean. As a matter of fact, sportsmen have contributed over $10 billion dollars in funds used for conservation but to give the federal government, which in turn would turn interpretation over to the courts, broad and sweeping jurisdiction over “all the waters” in this country, would not only be costly but could very easily tie up the courts with ridiculous lawsuits and seriously strip hunters, fishermen, boaters, landowners and effectively every American, opportunities to enjoy the natural resources God has given us.

The Clean Water Restoration Act, at least as it is written, should not be allowed to pass. Please contact your congressmen and let them know.

Tom Remington

What I’m bothered with is that without any evidence to base a claim, Idaho Fish and Game personnel are saying that the reason the kittens were malnourished is because hunters with hounds were so busy treeing the mother lion she didn’t have time to kill a deer and feed her young.

An Associated Press piece in the Seattle Times, repeats what Carl Anderson of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game said.

Three malnourished mountain lion kittens killed this week at the direction of a state wildlife biologist may have been starving because they and their mother had been treed so often by hunters that the adult cat had no time to hunt, the biologist says.

“It’s really unfortunate that this happened,” said Carl Anderson of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Anderson lays his claims based on anecdotal evidence that hound hunters were treeing a female cougar in the Mink Creek area so as to take photographs.

“I believe it is conceivable the female hadn’t had time to kill a deer for a while because she’s been on the run quite often,” Anderson told the Idaho State Journal.

It may be conceivable but I’m not sure that it is very likely when you consider the facts. One thing we should consider is how long it takes for three kittens to become malnourished to the extent described by authorities? We also have to consider just how many hound hunters it would take to keep one mountain lion busy enough for however long it takes to starve her kittens. It think it is probably more unlikely that would happen than Mr. Anderson’s claim of conceivable odds.

Mark Gamblin an Idaho Fish and Game supervisor in the Southeast Region, explained that the use of hounds is often for the purpose of taking pictures only. He reiterated state law which says it is unlawful to shoot a mother lion with kittens but he did say he doesn’t know what happened to the mother of these now dead kittens.

“I think it’s very unlikely that the mother would have abandoned the kittens,” he said.

It may be unlikely but using the same tactics as Mr. Anderson did, we can also claim the it is conceivable the mother did abandon the three kittens or that the mother was killed in some fashion and the kittens, unable to fend for themselves as officials claim, have been wandering about starving to death. Why wasn’t this claim made? Isn’t it as “conceivable”?

But maybe this isn’t how Idaho Fish and Game officials want the fairy tale to end. I think that it is extremely irresponsible for any fish and game personnel, which would include the top dog, to state publicly that hound hunters were the result of the three kittens death when they don’t know that nor do they have evidence that can actually support such a claim. Until they do know the facts, they should be stating they don’t know and when they do they will pass the information on.

I don’t know if Mr. Anderson and any or all the rest of the Idaho Fish and Game have issues with hound hunting but making statements like this sure do make all of us ask questions. When officials release poor information based on one person’s speculative conceptions, it prompts media outlets to spew that same thing.

Pete Zimowsky is an outdoor writer for the Idaho Statesman and also has a blog. I think I may have visited his site another time. Mr. Zimowsky’s blog about this event points a finger directly at hound hunters saying the killing of the kittens gives hound hunters a “black eye”.

Whether Zimowsky is simply relaying the rhetoric he has been getting from IDFG or his blog is a representation of his own opinions, I’m not sure. He doesn’t give credit to the source of his information directly so we are left to assume.

Below is a list of some of the phrases he uses to describe the event.

….Idaho wildlife biologists believe their mother had been treed so many times by hunters with…. hounds

An Idaho Fish and Game officer believed the female lion hadn’t had time to kill a deer

it’s almost like the hunters involved pulled the trigger on the kittens.

The constant chasing of the female cougar apparently caused the deaths of the young animals.

Fish and Game doesn’t have any idea what happened to the mother.

From what I can gather, this is the kind of information being put out by the IDFG. Is this really in the best interest of the state of Idaho and its fish and game department? It is seldom that any state agency, particularly if there was in anyway an investigation taking place that may ultimately result in charges, would make statements not based on any reliable information.

IDFG “believe” this and “apparently” that happened and it was “just as if” and “may have”.

Unfortunately, this is the same tactic we have seen time and again from the IDFG. Whether it comes down from the top or individual employees are allowed to publicly make statements to further personal agendas, it has to stop. IDFG has made statements not based on facts before to discredit other entities like the Idaho Elk Breeders and when the state battled over bear hunting with bait, etc., as some examples.

I’ll admit that at times it is difficult to completely separate personal ideals from the job of being a wildlife biologists or an officer of the fish and game, but being allowed to make statements laced with “beliefs”, “may haves” and “conceivable” is irresponsible.

Tom Remington

Take for example the state of Idaho. Idaho is home to one of the best run domestic elk industries in the United States, in my opinion. It is well run, clean, disease free and brings a substantial economic contribution to the people of that state as well. Some people don’t like to see elk trapped behind fences even though elk have been domesticated world wide for centuries.

These people who have the problem, in some cases have organized and attempts have been made within the Idaho Legislature to shut down the domestic elk industry. Threats of running a campaign for a ballot initiative looms over the family’s heads who own elk ranches.

One of the tactics used, mostly to scare people, is the threat of disease. Elk can contract several diseases one of which seems to get the most attention, is chronic wasting disease. CWD is similar to mad cow disease but has never been found to be of the same threat to humans. In Idaho, the sale or importation of elk is strictly regulated. Animals are well cared for and tested for disease. Currently there is no live animal test for chronic wasting disease so every elk that is killed on a ranch must be tested for disease. No chronic wasting disease has ever been detected in any elk on any ranches in that state.

In North Dakota, a group calling themselves sportsmen, are in the process of gathering signatures for a citizen’s initiative to end all cervidae ranching in that state. Once again those wanting to shut down the industry spend a substantial amount of time trying to convince the public that disease from these ranches will infect the wild populations.

There is currently legislation being considered in Colorado that would create similar restrictions and a handful of other states have already passed legislation banning the industry in part or in whole.

Truth be known, no one is certain where the disease originated. Some studies suggest the disease is a “natural” occurrence that has been around perhaps since day one and goes through cycles. Some believe it originates on these ranches. Studies have indicated that the disease more easily is spread when animals, such as deer and elk, are congregated in large numbers. It is believed the disease is passed from animal to animal via bodily fluids but recent studies show that may not be the only way. Prions, which carry the disease, has been found in the soil and in some cases it is believed that it has been there a long time. Studies on the disease continue.

What some people don’t quite understand is that nobody seems to know which came first – the disease from inside out or from outside in. Because most all animals trapped behind fences are tested regularly for disease and testing of wild ungulates is spotty at best in some locations, wouldn’t it make sense that the disease would be discovered first on a ranch or a laboratory?

In states like Idaho, the fish and game there are dead set against the elk industry and would like to see it shut down. They too espouse the notion that the domestic elk industry poses a threat to the wild deer, elk and moose populations through the spread of disease.

What if the table is turned? What if the government agencies became the ranchers? What if local, state or federal governments owned elk or deer ranches? Would they then be as concerned about their own animals infecting wild animals on the outside of their fences? Or would their focus turn to protecting their animals inside the fences?

Oregon is another state where groups are trying to put an end to the elk ranching industry. These groups along with state officials lament over the idea that these ranches, like in Idaho and North Dakota, will spread disease. No cases of chronic wasting disease have been discovered in Oregon or Idaho for that matter, whether on a ranch or in the wild.

So, here we have a state claiming that fencing in elk will cause disease and that it can be spread to animals outside the fences. The thought process behind this is that animals can touch nose to nose through the fence or that in some cases, deer will be able to jump fences and get in.

Yet, in Eastern Oregon, near La Grande, the government runs a substantial elk ranch there. What is there concern? Disease getting in or disease getting out? Perhaps they don’t really have any concern at all about disease.

Thanks to reader Mark, he sent me an article he found in the Express-Times out of Pennsylvania. I chuckled when I read the first two paragraphs.

The elk herd at Trexler Game Preserve will get a higher fence meant to keep out company under a proposal that was expected to gain Lehigh County Commissioners’ approval Wednesday night.

Specifically unwanted are white-tailed deer that can transmit the fatal chronic-wasting disease to elk at the county-owned preserve.

The Trexler Game Preserve is owned and operated by the county. Their concerns are that deer FROM THE OUTSIDE, will jump the fence and get in threatening their herd of elk with chronic wasting and other diseases. How bizarre! Yet intelligent enough to consider protection one’s investment.

Are we to conclude that the government can run disease-free preserves and a private rancher can’t while under the regulations of the same governmental agency?

When I spoke with elk ranchers in Idaho about this same scenario, I discovered that many ranchers were quite concerned about their investment in elk being threatened by disease contracted from outside their fences. As I said before, Idaho has no known cases of CWD in the wild or on ranches. Should CWD show up in wild deer, elk and moose, this certainly will raise the fear factor considerably with the elk ranchers.

At the Trexler Game Preserve in Pennsylvania, officials there are putting funds together to raise the fence around the elk herd to 10 feet at an estimated cost of nearly $50,000. This will prevent the deer from jumping the fence but does very little in terms of keeping the animals from touching through the fence – an event that little is known as to how often if any it actually takes place and how real a threat it is.

So, now I have to wonder. In what direction would officials be focusing their concerns about disease if this involved a private game preserve? Would their concerns be about disease getting out or disease getting in?

Tom Remington

The ESA when it became law in 1973 was a plan to help protect disappearing species of wildlife. I can’t believe that it was designed to do what history has shown are the results of such an act. Because of extremists and special interests an American landowner is forced to give up their rights to prosper and protect their own property in order to save an animal. Not only is this wrong, the landowner has to do it at his/her own expense.

Animal rights groups continue their assault on Americans by filing lawsuit after lawsuit while using the ESA as the basis of many of their attacks. What’s sad is that too often they are winning.

Let’s take a moment and look at a few of the more recent events taking place across the country that should give readers a chance to at least ask if the ESA needs to be reworked.

Today in the Colombian, a newspaper out of Washington state, Erik Robinson shares examples of how twisted the ESA interpretation has become and how extreme views are becoming costly to innocent wildlife species at the behest of saving another.

In the far west, the U.S. has been protecting the spotted owl for some time. Forget that some scientists believe the owl was never endangered to begin with. Its protection has cost American industry millions of dollars. It has gotten to the point where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is prepared to start shooting barred owls in hopes of saving a few more spotted owls.

Another incident involves the saving of salmon. Sea lions are hanging around the Bonneville Dam looking for an easy meal of salmon as they work their way up the fish ladders. Government officials are considering killing many of those lions in order to save some more fish.

Is this how it’s done?

In Maine the Animal Protection Institute has filed a lawsuit against the state of Maine in order to stop all trapping in most of that state where the Canada lynx habitat is. In 8 years, trappers have inadvertently trapped and killed two lynx and API wants all trapping to stop. Reports have been circulating that if API is successful in winning this suit, they will file a similar one to stop fishing in any waters in Maine where endangered species of fish live – namely the Atlantic salmon.

Is this the intent of the ESA?

Crosswalk.com republished an article from CNSNews writer Randy Hall about a Montana rancher who has been charged with violating the Endangered Species Act because he shot and killed two wolves that were part of a pack destroying his livestock. As many as five head of cattle had been consumed by this pack of 13 wolves.

The owner of this particular ranch, Roger Lang, has spent huge sums of money in order to protect his property all for the sake of protecting a wolf that no longer needs protecting. This is out of pocket money, an expense he should not have had to incur in order not to infringe upon the ESA.

I am not alone in calling for the ESA to be either abolished or completely revamped. Brian Seasholes, an adjunct scholar with the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), says that the main threat to all wildlife is the encroachment by man into their habitat. For wildlife to be protected, agencies such as local fish and game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, depend on the landowner’s cooperation. Clamping down on a landowner like Lang will have very negative effects.

“Wildlife authorities can’t be everywhere, and more often than not, they aren’t,” added Seasholes, the author of an NCPA report entitled “Bad for Species, Bad for People: What’s Wrong With the Endangered Species Act and How to Fix It.” As a result, “landowners are the ones who bear the true cost of living with wildlife.”

Because farmers and ranchers tend to be “land rich and cash poor,” they may decide to quietly “shoot, shovel and shut up” or, more detrimentally, “make their land inhospitable to wildlife by erecting high fences or eliminating sources of water, he stated.

“That’s the great tragedy of the Endangered Species Act,” Seasholes added. “If one had deliberately tried to write a law that would do enormous harm to wildlife, it would be hard to top the ESA.”

As this assault on landowners rights continues, who can blame a landowner for “shoot, shovel and shut up”? I have often said that animal rights groups have very little real interest in what is best for wildlife. Their target is the end to all hunting, fishing and trapping nationwide – at whatever the cost.

We see first hand that this insane influence on our authorities now has them easily willing to shoot and kill other species in order to save another. Is there science behind that? Is this what the creators of the ESA had in mind when it was written?

In Maine, the API wants trapping stopped in order to protect three species – the bald eagle, the Canada lynx and the gray wolf. The bald eagle has been removed from protection in Maine because it is thriving and there are no confirmed cases of any wolves living in Maine. That leaves only the lynx but this brings me to another point which the way the ESA has been administered creates another bad situation.

Those who spend perhaps the most time in the woods are the hunters and trappers. They are the ones who see what’s really out there. Tell me what incentive is there for any hunter or trapper to report or help to document the existence of gray wolves or mountain lions in the Pine Tree State? It would be a death sentence for the hunter and trapper.

Once anybody can document that these animals exist in Maine, groups like the API will move in with more lawsuits to end many hunting and trapping opportunities. This is a clear example of Seasholes’ “shoot, shovel and shut up”.

I have all but gone public in telling people I know to keep your mouth shut if you see any wolves or mountain lions in the woods of Maine. While I wouldn’t condone the needless shooting of these animals, I certainly don’t consider shooting them for self protection and the protection of my property as being wrong. In those cases, I believe a shoot, shovel and shut up method would be in order.

The way the ESA is being administered is wrong, it’s unconstitutional, and if allowed to continue, will have a complete opposite effect than what its written intent was in 1973.

Tom Remington

Environmentalists then knew, beyond a doubt, that if they could stop the cutting of old growth timber, they could save the spotted owl, a creature they knew very little about.

They stopped the cutting and even in places where no cutting ever took place, the spotted owl’s population is racing toward extinction while at the same time, the barred owl population is growing leaps and bounds.

Some scientists attribute the loss of the spotted owl to the influx of barred owls but they’re not exactly sure why.

Makes you wonder how many of these environmentalists and scientists ever stop and think how much of this stuff is just going to happen anyway?

For those wishing to learn more about what is going on out in Oregon with the spotted owl, you can read these two articles.

So much for saving the spotted owl

and

To Oregon timber towns, it was the owl that roared

Tom Remington