Update: June 1, 2010

It has been brought to my attention that commercial guides and outfitters who plan to use the National Forests are required to obtain special use permits from the National Forest Service.

I have an update for you contrasting conditions leading to Wisconsin closing their bear season in 1985, and conditions in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula right now, in 2010.

Wisconsin’s bear season was closed in 1985 due to over harvest from 1981 through 1984. According to former Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Manager, Mike Gappa…biologists were concerned over the high percentage of bears 3 years of age and younger (48.5%) being harvested. Baits used for bear population census also identified a serious decline in the state’s bear numbers. They estimated the statewide population to be less than 7,000 bears. With full support from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, WDNR went to the state legislature and got approval to close the bear season and revamp the state’s bear management program.

Contrast between Wisconsin in 1985 and Michigan in 2010 is alarming. Less than a year ago MDNRE estimated the statewide bear population to be about 19,000 including cubs. CCARE (Concerned Citizens Against Resource Exploitation…a pro hunting, fishing & trapping organization) received a letter from MDNRE’s lead fur bearer biologist, Adam Bump on 1/28/10 advising the statewide bear population had been revised down to 11,100 bears excluding cubs. The 11,100 was the estimate prior to the 2009 bear season. 2,026 bears were harvested in 2009…further reducing the estimate to 9,074 excluding cubs. Back in 1985 Wisconsin’s estimated statewide bear population was at about .5 bears per square mile. In 2010, Michigan’s estimated bear population in the Upper Peninsula, using the very generous number of 9,000 bears in the UP… figures out to be .5 bears per square mile. In Michigan’s Upper Peninsula the percentage of bears 3 years and younger being harvested is currently at 68.6%! Wisconsin’s DNR was alarmed when bears 3 and under was at 48.5%. To quote one of Wisconsin’s bear biologist’s, “that ought to throw up a red flag to somebody.” Yet, MDNRE’s Wildlife Division proposes issuing 12,375 kill tags for a bear population of 9,074 bears excluding cubs (cubs are not fair game in Michigan).

Concerned Michigan sportsmen need to contact the Natural Resources Commissioner representing their region and tell them to get back to managing the state’s natural resources using sound science.

Rich Hare
Ontonagon, Mi

Photo from fOTOGLIF

The Natural Resource Commission, at their monthly meeting scheduled for March 4, 2010, will make the final decision.

According to CCARE spokesman, Charles Markham, “This proposal is not based on sound science.” In a letter received by CCARE last month, the lead bear biologist for DNRE stated the MI black bear population was 11,100 prior to the 2009 bear season, a revision from the 19,000 bear estimate in the bear management plan signed by Director Humphries in June 2009.

DNRE records reflect that 2026 bears were harvested in 2009 leaving around 9,000 bear. 12,300 kill tags is a proposed increase over the previous year!

Markham explains, “The proposed 12,300 harvest tags is unsustainable “Even factoring cub numbers, DNRE has proposed the issuance of more kill tags than the total estimated number of bears in Michigan.”

CCARE urges all those concerned about Michigan bear populations to contact the Natural Resource Commission through Teresa Gloden at glodent@michigan.govprior to March 4 and express your outrage. Ask the NRC to reject this proposal and base wildlife management decisions on sound science.

For more information, visit the CCARE website at www.ccare.ws

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.

Learn more about Will Graves below.

~~~~~

The following interview took place on 24 January 2010.

Q: Will, didn’t you work and travel extensively in Asia, Europe, and Africa during your career with the US government?
A: Yes. I was very fortunate to visit and work with a variety of people in places such as Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Poland, Siberia, the Karellian Peninsula, Iran, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Italy to name a few.

Q: What did you learn about wolves based on your travels and work in these foreign lands?
A: First and foremost, that the management of wolves depends entirely on people and not on any so-called “balance of nature”. When management and control of wolf numbers and their distribution is absent, the damage to human life, livestock, domestic animals like dogs, and wildlife increases as wolf numbers and densities increase. Unlike other large predators, wolves are very adaptable, wide-ranging, pack animals that keep expanding their range both as individuals and as packs that expand as food and opportunities present themselves.

I was amazed at how little attention was being paid to both the visible danger of wolves and the hidden potential for the spread of diseases affecting people and other animals when wolves were being Re-introduced into Yellowstone Park in the 1990’s. The lack of discussion and preparation for controlling wolves and the absence of any candid description of historical and current wolf experiences and research worldwide struck me as a potential problem of great magnitude.

In addition to the substantiated deaths of many rural people especially in Russia, particularly children and women year around, outbreaks of wolf attacks on humans occur periodically in severe winters or when wolves become habituated to humans when they are not hunted as during World War II in Russia or when their numbers and densities increase with resulting losses of certain prey animals. They are particularly dangerous when they become increasingly bold around humans and human habitations. When wolves come into Russian villages or begin appearing at rural American school bus stops or when, as I was recently told by a Montana rancher, one came into his yard and actually looked in a window of his home, this is a very dangerous situation and almost certainly a prelude to an attack. While trying to chase off such animals is futile, removing such animals should be done immediately. However, this is merely a stopgap because other nearby wolves are likely to soon adopt similar behavior; when wolves exist routinely in such proximity to humans, history and research in Russia show this to be a dangerous situation requiring constant caution and constant control of the wolves.

Also in addition to the observable losses of cattle, sheep, domestic geese and turkeys, pet dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, watchdogs, and wildlife like deer, elk, and moose, there is the hidden damage from the stress of constant harassment of chasing and stalking all the surviving animals resulting in reduced physical capacities to survive and reproduce. This resulting stress leads to reduced resistance to disease and reduced weight and stamina that constitutes a significant loss to ranchers, farmers, hunters, rural residents and wildlife populations in my opinion.

Q: Didn’t you begin your career as a US technician working in Mexico to detect and eradicate livestock diseases?
A: That’s correct. My first job for the government was in the USDA Bureau of Animal Industry program as Chief of a “horseback-only” Inspecting, Vaccinating, and Slaughtering Brigade in a tropical rainforest in Mexico. Our goal was to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease. My Brigade was based in Cozalapa, Oaxaca, Mexico.

Q: Will, today there is growing concern about wolves in North America and especially about wolves as carriers and vectors of diseases and infections such as tapeworms. What diseases, if any, are wolves susceptible to?
A: I am not a disease expert but I have had a lifelong interest in animal diseases and their pathology, especially the more infectious diseases. In 1978 a Russian Biology Degree candidate noted that wolves carried Brucellosis, Deer Fly Fever, Listerosis, Anthrax, and other diseases. Another Russian scientist noted that the wolf can be infected with more than 50 types of parasites including various tapeworms as you just mentioned. Other Russian specialists have reported that wolves are potential vectors of foot-and-mouth disease. Wolves, just like other Canid animals such as dogs and coyotes are susceptible to and can carry rabies, distemper, and other dangerous infections like Neosporum caninum that causes abortions in grazing animals like livestock and big game animals such as elk, deer, and moose.

Q: Can you describe how some of these diseases are spread and how this affects rural communities where wolves are present?
A: Yes. You mentioned Hydatid diseases or tapeworms earlier. There are quite a few species of tapeworms and several are fairly common in wolves. When infected wolves defecate, minute tapeworm eggs are present and may become airborne when the feces dries so kicking or handling wolf feces is not advisable. The eggs may be deposited on nearby grasses, berries, mushrooms or other plants with water runoff after rains or even heavy dew. These eggs are readily passed onto dogs that commonly have a habit of smelling other canid’s feces and often rolling in it. When the dog returns home it may lick the owner or drool in places leaving eggs on objects but most significant is the fact the dog introduces the eggs into the human living space where toddlers and others are exposed to airborne eggs or eggs on surfaces that may enter the lungs or mouth or a cut. Dogs with tapeworms often drag their anus on the floor to relieve the itching that results from the tapeworms that are spreading inside them, thereby further infecting the human living space. In Kazakhstan, where wolves are common, research indicates that rural dogs have tapeworm infection rates several times higher than that of their urban cousins. In many areas of Asia and Eastern Europe it is a long-standing tradition that dogs are unclean and thus are never allowed into buildings of any kind. Like the tradition of not eating pork in some cultures, traditions like no-dogs in homes and ritual washing of hands when entering another’s house are speculatively attributed to avoiding diseases historically associated with dogs.

Wolves, like dogs, can carry these parasites without noticeable effect while they range far and wide.
Livestock such as cattle and sheep are susceptible to infection of the tapeworms carried by wolves. One case of a horse infected with tapeworms in Washington State was recently noted. To the best of my knowledge, infected domestic livestock are mildly debilitated, although the chances of the worms entering organs would make the animal more vulnerable to disease and potentially less healthy in an overall sense. Domestic livestock can be vaccinated for tapeworms.

Wild big game animals like deer, elk, moose and mountain sheep are also susceptible to infection with tapeworms. Infected animals, like infected livestock, show little outward signs of the infection but they are similarly debilitated by various problems like shortness of breath from infected lungs. More problematic however is the likelihood of other kinds of infections in their less healthy state, and in my opinion their becoming more vulnerable to environmental factors like predation, winter stress periods, weather extremes, and periodic food scarcities.

Humans that live in or near wolf areas need to be especially knowledgeable and alert. Humans infected by certain tapeworm species carried by wolves risk having cysts and tapeworms incubating in their body for as many as 20 years. The tapeworms may infect the lungs, liver, kidneys, heart, or brain. These last two can be fatal. Diagnosis of emerging symptoms can easily appear to be many other things so that examinations may miss the cause of the problem.

This is a thumbnail sketch of wolves and their relationship to Hydatid Diseases. Other diseases and infections such as Neosporum caninum, a disease probably spread by wolves and causing abortions in livestock and big game animals like deer, elk, and moose need more research, rural awareness and public education about the risks and costs of such infections. Brucellosis, Rabies, Distemper, and Anthrax are other diseases known to be carried and spread by wolves.

There is also speculation that wolves may carry some diseases or infections on their fur or in their paw pads that may be picked up near dead animals or as they pass through infected areas like pastures and big-game wintering areas. Remember that wolves don’t spend their lives in a restricted local area like other wildlife such as most cougars or bears or coyotes or foxes. Individual wolves often roam far and wide and packs have been observed to travel over large and changing areas in the course of a year. Wolves, like dogs, are fairly omnivorous so that when a food source becomes scarce such as disappearing big game or more tightly guarded livestock; wolves are fully capable of moving into new areas and then beginning to feed for example near the edge of a rural community on domestic birds like geese or turkeys or even into towns where wintering big game animals may be seeking safety. Wolves that begin feeding on cattle in pastures just like wolves feeding on big game animals in wintering “yards” will be frequenting pastures or certain wintering yards repeatedly thus compounding the chance of both picking up certain infections and subsequently spreading it to like animals from which the infection originated.

One last thing; there often seems to be many hidden agendas at work whenever we talk about wolves. For instance, when Russians are asked about wolves as vectors for foot-and-mouth disease or anthrax, they are often reluctant to say anything. This might be because of rumors about wolves spreading anthrax from a weaponized anthrax burial site where wolves were able to recently gain access. Anthrax and foot-and-mouth are candidates for biological weaponry research and thus things that can cause trouble for the indiscreet. Similarly in the US discussing claims about wolves “balancing” nature or about their danger to and disruption of rural American life are similarly clothed in fictions and political correctness about everything from lethal controls to federal government liability for damages and harm caused by their wolf protection program.

Q: One last question: what would you recommend that the US and Canada do to avoid the potentially catastrophic effects of a growing and habituating wolf population that threatens rural residents, rural economies, and rural communities today?
A: First, we have to educate the rural and urban publics about the real and hidden effects of wolves. This is a primary function of government in my view. Such education would address candid facts about:
- Lethal wolf damage to livestock and wildlife, and how to avoid it.
- The increased stress on livestock and wildlife and how to minimize it.
- Areas away from people where wolves are to be allowed and areas where they are not allowed.
- The need for constant monitoring and for lethal controls by government where wolves threaten humans.
- Diseases and infections carried and spread by wolves and how to avoid them.
- The dangers of wolf habituation and what it portends.
- The toll on rural watchdogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, work dogs, and pet dogs that results from wolves and how to minimize it.
- The serious total consequences of these things on rural residents and rural lifestyles if not prevented.

Second, wolves need to be kept as completely as possible out of any areas where they have a probability of interacting with humans routinely. A combination of government hunters, public hunters, and legalizing the killing of problem wolves by threatened citizens without the threat of government prosecution are really permanent necessities as long as maintaining wolf populations in acceptable numbers and areas is to be achieved. This will require expensive but continuous monitoring and research to constantly adjust to wolves and their proven capacity to adapt to human changes throughout thousands of years of recorded history.

Will, thank you for sharing these insights based on your travel and experiences. More Americans than you might imagine owe you a debt of gratitude for taking the time to share this valuable information and your suggestions with us. Jim Beers.

* Details about Will’s book, “WOLVES IN RUSSIA: Anxiety Through The Ages”, may be found at his website: WolvesinRussia.com

Note: If you found this interview worthwhile please share it with every rancher, farmer, dog owner, hunter, politician, friend, and relative that you know. If you know of any publication that would use it, please ask them to publish it. This is a serious matter of national importance and all of us need to understand it before we can come together to resolve it. JB

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7atcomcastdotnet

The 2009 RMEF grants will affect Cheboygan, Delta, Montmorency, Muskegon, Oakland, Otsego, Ottawa and Presque Isle counties.

“Our volunteers in Michigan devoted themselves to the 2008 fundraisers that made these grants possible. This is where Elk Foundation banquets, auctions and other events transform into on-the-ground conservation work, and it’s part of the payday for all of our supporters who are passionate about giving something back to the outdoors,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

RMEF has been a major supporter of the Pigeon River Habitat Initiative in each of the past four years and in 2003. Contributions have helped secure conservation easements, develop forest stewardship management plans, provide technical assistance for landowners, offer cost-share programs to help with wildlife plantings, and more.

Collectively, these efforts have impacted hundreds of acres for elk and other wildlife.

“RMEF has been a great partner and supporter for this project. There is no way we could accomplish the goals of this project without partners such as RMEF. Funding from RMEF also helps us leverage additional funding for conservation efforts in Pigeon River country,” said Eric Nelson, habitat specialist for Huron Pines, which manages the Pigeon River Habitat Initiative.

Elk Foundation 2009 grants for Michigan, totaling $19,544, will help fund the following projects, listed by county:

Delta County Sponsor the Delta Youth Archery Initiative to introduce young people to archery instruction, equipment, competition, safety, sportsmanship, ethics and leadership.

Montmorency County Renovate an elk display with a new life-sized mount of a bull elk to be used for educational purposes by the City of Atlanta, ?Elk Capital of Michigan.?

Oakland County Sponsor the Sherman Middle School National Archery in the Schools Program to introduce youth to archery in a school environment.

Otsego County Promote long-term land protection, improve habitat for wildlife, discourage invasive species and develop sustainable forestry management as part of the Pigeon River Habitat Initiative (also affects Cheboygan, Montmorency and Presque Isle counties).

Ottawa County Sponsor the Ottawa County 2009 Youth Hunter Safety program (also affects Muskegon County).

Partners for 2009 projects in Michigan include Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Huron Pines, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, other agencies, schools and organizations.

Since 1984, the Elk Foundation and its partners have completed more than 80 conservation projects in Michigan with a value of more than $4.6 million.

Before a move such as delisting, the USFWS must provide a 60-day public comment period and evidently this was not done. Because of that, the U.S. Government and the HSUS, et. al., reached an agreement that puts the wolves in Minnesota back under a “threatened” status and the rest of the wolves return as endangered. Wolves in Idaho and Montana that have be removed from the list, are not affected.

According to the news source that can’t be named or linked to, the agreement states that “if the Fish and Wildlife Service tries again to remove the wolves from the endangered list, it will hold a 60-day comment period.”

A spokesperson for HSUS said that this gives the USFWS the opportunity to reconsider their “failed wolf-management policies” and put an end to what they called “reckless plans” to start hunting wolves as part of the management plans.

The USFWS says it plans to regroup and attempt to delist the Western Great Lakes wolf population again.

Tom Remington

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivy

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

On November 8th 2005 a 22-year-old honors and scholarship student in Geological Engineering, Kenton Joel Carnegie, from the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, was killed in northern Saskatchewan by a pack of wolves. While he was almost certainly not the only victim of wolf predation in North America in the past century, judging from conversations with native people, and a closer review of case histories, this was the best-investigated case to date . In the process of that investigation matters were uncovered that need to be discussed as they have significant policy implications for wildlife conservation and human safety. However, we need to review what happened to Kenton Carnegie, as it is relevant to considerations following.

Mr. Carnegie was in a university co-op program that allowed students to gain hands-on experience from visits to mining operations. He was flown in to Points North Landing a mining camp close to Wollaston Lake in northern Saskatchewan. Bad weather delayed his return. On November the 4th, 2005, Todd Svarchopf, an experienced bush pilot and Chris Van Galder, a geophysicists, two of Kenton’s camp companions, had an encounter with two aggressive wolves on the airfield close to camp. The two young men beat back the attack, photograph the wolves and told everybody in camp. The incident was apparently belittled, even though two days before Kenton was killed, the young men were warned at a dinner at a local lodge by an experienced northerner, Bill Topping (a part-time car pilot, that is, a guide who leads heavy trucks through the labyrinth of dirt roads in northern Saskatchewan). He admired the pictures and told his guests that they are lucky to be alive!

In fall and early winter of 2005 at Point North Landing there was evidence for circumstances facilitating an attack on humans by wolves, followed by the predictable exploratory attack by wolves on November 4th. That is, the events leading to the death of Kenton Carnegie follow the pattern predicting attacks on humans as described for wolves and earlier for urban coyotes targeting children in parks. It is a pattern of increasing observations of and habituation to humans followed by boldness and attacks on pets and livestock, followed by closing in and testing humans with skirmishes prior to the fatal attack. Both species of canids explore alternative prey in much the same manner. Unfortunately, nobody recognized the growing danger . Moreover, how wolves target people was not a question asked by current wolf biologists, probably due to the overriding belief that wolves do not attack people. Four wolves at Points North Landing had begun feeding on camp refuse that fall and were habituating increasingly to human activities.

November 8th 2005, at about15:30 Kenton Carnegie notified Van Gelder that he was going for a walk along the lake and expected to return by 17:00. Kenton had gone to the west shore of Wollaston Lake before when going fishing. This area is isolated and not open to unauthorized traffic. At about 18:15, because Kenton failed to appear for dinner, Chris Van Galder and Todd Svarchopf search for him, but could not find him in camp. Todd saw Kenton’s tracks in the fresh snow leaving camp, but not returning. About 18:30. Chris and Todd and Mark Eikel, co-owner of the camp, drove out in a truck searching for Kenton. Fresh snow had fallen and the party followed the clear footprints, which head south from camp. Because of the fresh snow, the tracks were easy to follow (this accounts for the crisp foot-prints of wolves etc. as photographed the following mid-day by Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] Constable Alfonse Noey). Kenton’s tracks headed towards the shore of the Lake. When Eikel and companions encountered wolf tracks, they reversed, and headed back to camp for Eikel to get his rifle, a more powerful flashlight and a radio. (There were no domestic dogs at Point North Landing). The party then drove to a nearby cabin, thinking Kenton might be there, but found none of his footprints. They returned by truck to where they had left of and soon saw that Kenton’s footprints left the road and headed down a trail toward the lake. There were wolf tracks on the trail. Then they saw Kenton’s footprints doubling back, and found a concentration of wolf tracks. Mark Eikel shone about with the flashlight and saw what he thought was Kenton’s body. He ordered everybody back to the truck, not wanting the others to see the sight. (Neither Todd nor Chris saw Kenton’s body). On the way to camp Mark Eikel called on the radio Robert Dennis (Bob) Burseth an employee of the camp, a long-term resident of the north and an experienced hunter. (19:00 hours) Burseth realized something tragic had happened and contacted his wife Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth who is the local coroner at Wollaston Lake, and asked her to contact the RCMP. Next, Chris Van Galder called the RCMP from camp and the company office was notified. About 19:30 Eikel and Burseth returned by truck to check on Kenton. Eikel believed that Kenton was dead, but he wanted to make sure that his mind was not playing tricks on him and he wanted to get a second opinion. They parked the truck and walked down the ridge on the edge of the lake noting many wolf tracks. Mark Eikel shone with the flashlight and both could see Kenton’s body. They saw exposed flesh and ribs, from the belt up. The pants appeared to be on. Eikel and Burseth approached to within thirty feet. They stayed only a couple of minutes and returned to camp to await police and coroner, which arrived about 21:35 PM.

Neither Bob Burseth nor Mark Eikel returned to the body till they went there with RCMP constable Alfonse Noey and coroner Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth. Kenton’s body had been moved from where Mark Eikel and Bob Burseth had seen it some two hours earlier. The distance moved was about 20 yards. Officer Noey’s hand drawn map indicating the body was dragged 20 meters, a distance which he paced out the next day. (Wolves readily move their kills – even over a mile -as I can personally attest to having observed what they do with domestic sheep carcasses. That wolves move carcasses and human victims is well established in Eurasian experience. ). Much more of the body had been consumed (there was no clothing down to the knees). Asked by Constable Noey what had consumed the body, Burseth stated wolves. Asked by Constable Noey what kind of tracks Burseth had seen on location, Burseth replied that he had seen only wolf tracks. There had been four wolves running together about camp earlier (a black one, a white one and two gray-tan ones). The four had been seen on the runway (close to camp) on the day before, on the 7th of November. Burseth also saw three wolves running across the lake towards the kill site at about 7:45 AM on the morning following Kenton’s death, that is, on the 9th of November. Eikel confirmed that four wolves had been seen near the camp and garbage dumpsite.

About 21:50 Constable Noey and coroner Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth begin securing and inspecting the site. Constable Noey took the lead, and the coroner and Bob Burseth and Mark Eikel followed him in single file. (This minimizes disturbance to the original tracks). As Constable Noey approached the site of Kenton’s body he saw two wolves near the body (he refers to sighting these two wolves repeatedly in his report and in conversations with others). He discharged two rounds from his shotgun into the air to scare away the wolves from the body. Constable Noey noted many wolf tracks on the land and on the snow of the frozen lake. Constable Noey ordered Burseth and Eikel to remain on the trail, while he and the coroner went in to examine Kenton’s body. Eikel was instructed by Constable Noey to discharge his rifle into the air, as the wolves could be heard in the bushes near to the body. Bob Buresth made a fire on the trail certain it would keep the wolves away.

Constable Noey and Mrs. Tsannie-Burseth examined and photographed the body and surroundings for 40-45 minutes. Then Constable Noey called Constable Marion on a satellite phone and advised him of the condition of the body, and of the wolves in the area, at which point Constable Marion authorized the removal of Kenton’s body and the return of the party to Points North Landing. With the assistance of Eikel and Burseth, the coroner and Constable Noey placed Kenton’s body into a body bag, which was tagged by Constable Noey with time and date. At that time Constable Noey discovered that his GPS unite was missing, and searched the immediate area of the last resting site (disturbing site – after the fact!). He instructed Eikel to insure that nobody be allowed to enter the area and was assured by Eikel that only CAMECO employees may use the road between their mine (Cigar Lake Mine) and the Points North Landing, and that they have been instructed not to get out of their vehicles close to the camp. Constable Noey next took down witness statements.

On the following day, November 9th 2005, at 13:00-14:14 Constable Noey, coroner Tsannie-Burseth and Bob Burseth attended again to the scene in daylight taking pictures, and analyzed the scene. Here are their joint results as summarized in the report by constable Noey.

1. The footprints of Kenton heading south were followed by a wolf who stepped into Kenton’s footprints (this wolf had thus cut off Kenton from the camp, as the two wolves had tried to do on November the 4th with Chris and Todd). Constable Noey surmised that this wolf was following and possibly stalking Kenton.
2. Constable Noey followed Kenton’s footprint south past the kill site, which went for a distance of about 60-80 meters (undisturbed by previous day’s activities). Here Kenton was on the shoreline. Noey surmised that Kenton, at this point in sight of the camp, may have been trying to get somebody’s attention at the camp as there was a clear line of sight to the camp.
3. At this point more wolf tracks converged on where Kenton stood, so the report by Constable Noey. The wolf tracks were coming from the south along the lakeshore. (Several wolves approached from the south while one wolf approached Kenton from the north. That looks like a hunting strategy executed by the wolves. Since several wolves approached Kenton from the south, and one wolf from the north, there must have been more than 2 wolves involved. He was thus killed by at least three wolves and possibly by all four!)
4. Here Kenton’s footprints turned back towards the road (that is up the trail, heading north toward the camp).
5. From here it is 10-20 m along the trail before the snow is disturbed, indicating an altercation. Constable Noey noted that the snow was disturbed as if somebody was rolling in the snow.
6. Footprints now head across the trail a little way into the muskeg-shrub. The footprints indicate that Kenton was running. He was half on trail, half on muskeg. There was a lot of disturbance of the snow.
7. From here it is a short distance north to the kill site, where the body was first discovered along with pieces of clothing. When seen a second time the body had been dragged about 20 yds.
8. In between were two sites where the tracks indicated that Kenton stood and shed a lot of blood. (Photos indicate considerable blood loss). A third place indicates he stood and dripped blood. The search party found the body there.

Constable Noey photographed till the battery of his camera gave out and collected all clothing pieces not found previously.

14:31 Constable Noey received a CD with photos of Van Galder and Svarchopf interacting with two wolves on the previous Friday, November 4th from Christy Oysteryk, and expresses surprise that neither had informed him of that attack. (In short, this attack by wolves, which the two young men were able to beat off – and photograph – was belittled. It was only post hoc, after Kenton’s death that the scary significance of that attack did sink in).

Two Conservation Officers from the Saskatchewan game department (SERM), Kelly Crayne and Mario Gaudet, arrived on the 10th in order to do their investigation. They stated in their report: “Officers investigated the site and found numerous wolf tracks in the area. No other large animal tracks could be found.”

In the light of what was to follow it is important to examine the nature and qualifications at tracking of the eight witnesses who were on the scene after Kenton was killed.

Mrs. Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth is not only the coroner for Walloston Lake, but also the Chief of the Hatchet Lake Band, and the Director of Education. She has three university degrees, is working on her doctorate in sociology, and has a long career in the public service. She grew up in the northern bush when her family was still nomadic and fully dependent on their skills at hunting, fishing and trapping, and was tutored by her father in tracking. This articulate, humorous grandmother still goes hunting.

RCMP Constable Alfonse Noey is, like Chief Tsannie-Burseth, a native, a hunter and a long-standing northern resident. (He produced a detailed report, based on his and Mrs Tsannie- Burseth’s on the spot investigations, as well as questioning all witnesses to the scene).

Robert Dennis (Bob) Burseth, employee at Points North Landing, has 17 years of experience in the region. He is married to the local coroner and chief Mrs. Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth. He is an avid hunter. (He killed the two wolves (at the dump) after Kenton’s attack. Shoots the bears that become a nuisance at the camp).

Todd Svarchopf, Aviation Officer and well-known bush pilot, employee of Sanders Geophysics, Ottawa, working out of camp. (He testified at the coroner’s inquiry that he had warned Kenton against going out).

Mark Eikel, the co-owner of the camp, Points North Landing, is an experienced outdoorsman and hunter. He shot the third wolf (250 – 300 yards away) after Kenton’s attack. (He claimed he would have seen a bear if it had been in the area. None had been seen for at least a month (inquiry testimony).

Chris Van Galder, geophysicist, employee of Sanders Geophysics, Ottawa, working out of the camp.

Kelly Crayne and Mario Gaudet, Conservation Officers, also examine the site on November 10th 2005. (Any black bear moving in or out of the site of Kenton’s body would have been detected in the crisp snow by these men).

Please note: the tracks and signs at the scene were thus examined by two senior native persons highly experiences in tracking, by two experienced northern hunters, by two conservation officers, by a seasoned bush pilot, and a highly trained physical scientist. Svarchopf, Van Galder and Eikel, who were first on the scene, identified only wolf tracks. They were vindicated by Bob Burseth, as he insisted that he saw only wolf tracks. He in turn was vindicated by RCMP constable Noey and coroner Tsannie-Burseth, who not only saw only wolf tracks at the site, but also saw and heard wolves so close to Kenton’s body, that Constable Noey fired his shotgun twice to spook the wolves away and asked Mark Eikel to discharge his rifle. Conservation officers Crayne and Gaudet also saw only wolf tracks. In addition, constable Noey and coroner Tsannie-Burseth, not merely identified wolves as the killers of Kenton Carnegie, but deciphered the track pattern left by wolves, showing a classic hunt pattern by wolves. The wolf pack had split and the wolves approached their prey from the back as well as from the front, cutting off any possible retreat. They documented multiple attacks and a progression of the victim to final collapse. Moreover, four wolves had been for weeks habituating to camp activity, ran in anticipation towards garbage disposal units and tore apart plastic garbage bags in the presence of humans, observed humans and staged an unsuccessful attack on two camp residents four days before they killed Kenton Carnegie.

Then came a surprise: The Saskatchewan coroner asked for the case to be re-examined by scientists, Drs. Paul Paquet, a wolf researcher, and Professor Ernest G. Walker of the University of Saskatchewan. Before their confidential report was submitted, Paquet informed the popular news media that he recognized immediately that a black bear had killed Carnegie. In pp. 29-30 of National Wildlife, February/March 2007 edition in an article entitled “Sexy Beasts” by Paul Tolmé we read: “Wolves remain a bogeyman today, as illustrated by the death of a Canadian man in 2005. When Kenton Carnegie’s mangled corpse was discovered near a remote Saskatchewan mining camp of Points North Landing, the Royal Canadian Mounted police immediately blamed wolves. The story made headlines around the world. But when noted wolf biologist Paul Paquet of the World Wildlife Fund investigated, he recognized immediately that a black bear killed Carnegie. “The problem was bias right from the start,” Paquet says. “When I looked at the photos, I immediately saw bear tracks,” Paquet says.” The National Geographic Society sent a team to film and re-enact Kenton’s death. Dr. Paquet acted as consultant. (Kenton’s parents were so upset by the resulting “documentary” that they wrote a letter of protest to the Society. Mrs. Tsannie-Burseth told me that she was upset and offended by the manner the camera and interview crew of the National Geographic had treated her. She told me she tried to speak to Paul Paquet at the inquest, but that he would not speak with here or even make eye contact with her). Victims of wildlife tragedies in North America tend to be blamed for the event , and it was not different in Kenton’s case. It greatly upset Kenton’s family, as did the brazen whitewash of wolves that could not only mislead the public, but also the judiciary. Distraught by the treatment they had received and the mis-attributions to their son, Kenton’s parents turned to four scientists and asked them to do independent investigations. Three agreed: Mark McNay ,a senior biologist from Alaska, Brent Patterson, as seasoned scientist from Ontario with considerable wolf experience, and the third was myself. All three wrote reports concluding that Paquet’s claim that a bear had killed Kenton Carnegie was untenable, and that wolves had killed Kenton Carnegie.

Paquet claimed the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and biased, an unsupported claim contrary to all evidence.

Paquet examining the photos of the site as photographed by RCMP constable Noey, mistook the tracks of wolves heading across an overflow on the lake ice (where the wolves stepped through a thin layer of snow resting on water, and which consequently distorted their tracks) as bear tracks. McNay and myself used colleagues highly experienced with wolves (he from Alaska, I from Finland) to double check on our identifications. All concluded that the tracks in question as photographed by constable Noey were wolf tracks, and McNay demonstrated that the pattern of the distorted tracks on the overflow were of a regular canid trotting pattern, and quite different from the track patterns left by bears. That is, three independent peer reviews confirmed what the eight eyewitnesses on the site had observed.

Paquet claimed that a number of forensic signs identified the responsible predator as bear. These were that:
(a) wolves do not drag their prey from the kill site but consume such in situ. Yet Kenton’s body, he claimed, had been dragged some 50 paces (In North America the experience of wolf biologists studying free-living wolves in wilderness areas is that wolves feed on their prey in situ. In my personal experience here with wolves killing my neighbor’s sheep is that they always move their kills into cover, up to about one mile from the sheep pasture. The European accounts of how wolves deal with prey, livestock and humans included, is that they carry or drag such into cover away from where they attacked the prey close to human habitations . The resolution of what appears as opposites is quite simple: wolves, undisturbed, consume their kill at the kill site. Wolves, disturbed or close to danger, move their kill. And that’s what happened in the Kenton Carnegie’s case. The wolves fed at the kill site till they were disturbed by the first search party. When the second party arrived, the wolves had dragged Kenton’s body about 20 m – not 50 m.).
(b) Paul Paquet is quoted in the National Wildlife article p. 30 “The clothes and skin been stripped away, indicating the so-called banana-peel eating technique common to bears”). (How could Paquet know that? How many clothed human bodies handled by wolves have been available for examination in North America? Moreover, he ignored that the four wolves in question had plenty of experience ripping apart and peeling back the plastic of plastic garbage bags, saturated with human smell, in order to reach discarded camp food).
(c) The wolves had not consumed the victim’s liver and heart, which is also very uncharacteristic of wolves. I quote from National Wildlife: “Carnegie’s heart and liver -”the most desirable morsel for wolves” Paquet says – were left intact”. (Internal organs had been consumed – namely the ones surrounded by fat. And that fits with my own observations how wolves, disrupted by approaching humans, “scheduled” their feeding on sheep they killed: fat first. Paquet did not take into account that the wolves had been disturbed twice and were not able to finish with the corps. Furthermore, on p. 48 of Will Grave’s book on the Russian experience with wolves a Russian scientist reports that wolves, in feeding on a freshly killed moose, the heart, lungs and liver had not been touched. Dr. Kaarlo Nygren from Finland made similar findings.

However, ALL forensic signs of a “bear” presume that the bear was standing or moving in about 1.5 inches of fresh snow. For instance, if a bear peeled away the clothing, then the bear must have had his paws on the ground in the snow. Also, the bear must have moved in on the kill site, leaving tracks, dragged the body, leaving tracks, ran way when the first search party arrived, leaving track, returned to the carcass, leaving tracks, and left again when the second party arrived – again leaving tracks. And he would have done so all on land. There would have been massive bear track sign of multiple entries and exits and massive trampling around the body.

There were no bear tracks!

My Finnish colleagues, spontaneously, identified a lonely fox track beside the abundant wolf tracks.

If they found the track of a fox, would they have missed the tracks of a bear?

All the forensic sign pointing to “bear”, as proclaimed by Paquet, are thus misidentifications, as the only bear that could have left such signs at the site of the tragedy must have been suspended in mid-air, as none of his paws reached the telltale snow. Furthermore, Paquet’s repeated insistence that his approach alone was in the spirit and methodology of science, and was supported by superior experience, has demonstrably no basis, as shown by three peer reviews and the coroner’s inquest.

Moreover, Paquet failed to notice that the wolves involved were not merely habituating, but were targeting people as prey. Wolves do this in the very same manner as coyotes do in urban parks when targeting children. Both canids explore humans very cautiously and over a protracted time period before mounting the first, exploratory attack, which two wolves had done four days before Kenton’s death. Ironically, while coyote biologists recognized that the smaller coyote will target people as prey, those studying free living wolves were denying that wolves were a danger to people. While the behavior of wolves thus signaled a disaster waiting to happen, nobody recognized it as such even after the failed wolf attack on Van Gelder and Swarchopf four days prior to the attack on Kenton. The belief in the harmlessness of wolves was that firmly entrenched.

The coroner ruled that only one expert witness would be allowed to testify on behalf of the Carnegies’ and chose Mark McNay. After listening to eyewitnesses at the scene, to Paul Paquet and the presentation by Mark McNay, the six-person jury rejected Paquet’s presentation, unanimously, despite his being assisted by counsel. The jury ruled that the cause of Kenton Carnegie’s death were wolves.

1 There have been other victims such as five-year-old Marc Leblond, killed Sept. 24, 1963 north of Baie-Comeau, Quebec Gerard McNebel, Noember 18th, 1963, Winnipeg Free Press, p. 12.
2 The following draft of a paper on wildlife habituation I presented at a symposium entitled “Wildlife Habituation: Advances in Understanding and Management Application”. by The Wildlife Society in Madison, Wisconsin on Sept. 27th 2005. Due to personal circumstances I was not able to finish this paper for publication. It is entitled: Habituation of wildlife to humans: research tool, key to naturalistic recording and common curse for wildlife and hapless humans. I published the relevant excerpt on wolves as Appendix B pp. 195-197 in Will N. Graves 2007 Wolves in Russia. AnxietyTthrough the Ages.(edited by V. Geist). Detselig, Calgary.

3 Baker, R. O. and R. M. Timm 1998. Management of conflict between urban coyotes and humans in southern California. Pp. 229-312 in R. O. Baker and A. c. Crabb eds. Proc. 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis).

4 The advocacy in favor of the “benign wolf” hypothesis is so powerful, that the better educated the persons, the more likely it seems that they are to become true believers and endanger themselves. So far exceptionally well-educated people have become victims of lethal attacks. Kenton Carnegie is not the only victim of the “harmless wolf hypothesis”. So was 24-year-old Wildlife Biologist, Trisha Wyman, who was killed on April 18th 1996 by a captive wolf pack in Ontario. I had a long phone conversation with Dr. Erich Klinghammer of Wolf Park. He was called in as an expert witness to examine the Wyman case, and discovered quickly that there was great surprise at her death, as wolves are not supposed to attack people. Ms Wyman had visited the park previously and spent some time studying the wolves. She was given the dream job of looking after and interpreting the wolves. She lasted three days! She and the people surrounding here, just like Kenton and the people surrounding him, were imbued by the myth of the “harmless wolves” as advocated by North American wolf specialists in the late 50’s and 60’s. Keepers of wolf packs can inform themselves by turning to the people running Wolf Park. These have been researching wolves for decades and have detailed advice on how to handle captive wolves and wolf-dog hybrids. They would have been quickly disabused of any naïve faith in conventional, but mis-presented science about harmless wolves.

5 See pp. 87-104. chapter six in Graves (2007) ibid.
6 James Gary Shelton 1998 Bear Attacks. Pogany Productions, Hagensborg, BC. Shelton makes a point of how viciously victims of predatory attacks have been pursued and maligned in Canada and the US by enumerating such in some detail.
7 Will Graves 2007 chapter six. ibid
8 in an e-mail of March 28, 2007 Dr. Nygren wrote to me: “They (the wolf pack) ate one ear and tip of the tongue when waiting for their turn in the abdominal cavity. The fore-stomachs were left largely untouched until almost all the good stuff was taken from the intestines. So did the liver, heart and lungs. They were taken out almost ten hours later when all the pups and their mother were lying flat around the place with their stomachs full. Then, almost in the midnight, the male came in starting to rip the carcass in pieces. A bite and a kilogram or two. He ate as much as he pleased, then pulled out the liver, ate some of it and dropped. Soon, he started to walk towards the sleepy pups who immediately jumped up and hurried to meet him with cheerful faces, tails wagging and showing submissive gestures. They looked funny with their round bellies and saw-buck like appearance. A roundish white spot cranially from their thighs on the belly coat had appeared and was visible even in the dim light of autumn. This seems to be a good visual sign of a well-fed wolf. When they poked the father’s lips with their noses, he threw up everything what was in his stomach. The pups immediately ate up it. and returned to their beds. The male walked back to work, filled his stomach and did the feeding procedure several times. He seemed to have a pet among the pups. It was the smallest, a female always chased out first by the mother and siblings. The female never fed the pups like the father. In the next morning, the flesh of the prey was practically stripped off with bare bones protruding and some legs completely cut off the carcass. So, the fat reserves seemed to be the preferred bits, not the liver, heart and lungs. We have seen the same many times in the field. Guts first. Even the dogs are usually first opened from the belly and the abdominal cavity emptied. I have seen many dogs cut in two around the diaphragm, caudal halve eaten completely or transported somewhere. Heart and lungs are, in many case, were left inside the breast cavity”.
9 Baker, R. O. and R. M. Timm 1998. Management of conflict between urban coyotes and humans in southern California. Pp. 229-312 in R. O. Baker and A. c. Crabb eds. Proc. 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis).

Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada.
V. Geist
Ph/fax: 250-723-7436
e-mail: kendulf@shaw.ca

Draft April 22nd, 2008.

Essay no. 2. Fair Chase

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are issuing this final rule to comply with three court orders which have the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains. This rule corrects the gray wolf listing at 50 CFR 17.11 to reinstate the listing of wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North
Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, the northwestern portion of Ohio, the northern half of Montana, the northern panhandle of Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and in north-central Utah as endangered, and reinstate the listing of wolves in Minnesota as threatened. This rule also reinstates the former designated critical habitat in 50 CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) for the gray wolf in Minnesota, and special rules in 50 CFR 17.84 designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho and all of Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations. This action revises the CFR to comply with three court orders. In addition, this final rule takes additional
administrative action that removes archaic provisions from the gray wolf special regulation at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and makes corrections to the gray wolf special regulation at § 17.84(n) by removing language referring to a Western DPS.

How I understand this is that the Department of Interior (DOI) has cranked the clock back in time to 1978. My question now becomes, why stop there?

Quick history: In 1978 the United States declared the gray wolf “endangered” in all lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota. Wolves there were classified as “threatened”, essentially creating the first Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolves. Map 1 below shows areas shaded in gray as wolf protection areas. As you can see, Minnesota is listed as “threatened”. Map 1 also shows two areas of “nonessential experimental populations”(NEP) for gray wolves.

On November 22, 1994 (period of wolf reintroduction) the feds created the Yellowstone NEP, shown in the dark shaded area of the map. Again on January 12, 1998 a NEP was created in parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

On July 13, 2000, the USFWS proposed changes to the listing of the gray wolf that would have created 4 Distinct Population Segments. On April 1, 2003 what the USFWS ended up with was 3 DPS as can be seen in Map 3.

February 8, 2007, the USFWS published the final rule creating the Western Great Lakes DPS, in order to remove that segment of the wolf population from federal protection.

On February 27, 2008, the USFWS published the final rule designating the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS, in order to remove federal protection of the gray wolf in that area.

If you’re following along, you will now notice that within the lower 48 states there are no fewer than 5 DPS for gray wolves.

Lawsuits followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in a moment.

On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy, in a federal court in Montana, ruled the basis for delisting the wolf incomplete (he demands “genetic connectivity”) and also declared Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan was inadequate to ensure the sustainability of the gray wolf in that state.

The third lawsuit dates back to 2005 when courts in Oregon and Vermont ruled that the Final Rule of April 1, 2003 (that created the three DPS shown on the maps above) violated the Endangered Species Act. Subsequently the ruling invalidated the three DPS created in that final rule. What isn’t clear is whether these two rulings apply to the two NEPs.

If we take a closer look at Judge Paul Friedman’s ruling, we see that he also believes that the feds’ creation of the Western Great Lakes DPS was an illegal act. Here is what I wrote back in September.

Judge Friedman’s ruling states that the reason he remanded the case was because the USFWS failed to provide a reason, supported by the ESA, to justify removing the gray wolves in the Great Lakes region only. In remanding the case the judge is sending the issue back to the USFWS for an explanation. Judge Friedman said the ESA’s definition of a “Distinct Population Segment” is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.

What the Department of Interior has been forced to do is comply with the rulings of the three lawsuits. As a result the USFWS describes what is left for protection of the wolf.

As of the filing of the respective court orders, any and all wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, except in Minnesota, are listed as an endangered species under
the ESA. Any and all wolves in Minnesota are listed as a threatened species under the ESA. The reinstated regulations found at 50 CFR 17.95 designate critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, and the reinstated special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) govern the regulation of gray
wolves in Minnesota. The provisions of these regulations are the same as those in the prior regulations that were removed per our February 8, 2007, final delisting rule (72 FR 6052).
The reinstated special rules found at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) designate part of the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains as nonessential experimental populations. The provisions of the special rules are the same as those in the prior special rules that were removed per our February 27, 2008, final
delisting rule (73 FR 10514).
This means that wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Oregon, Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana are hereby listed as endangered (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in Minnesota are listed as threatened (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in southern Montana, Idaho south of Interstate 90, and all of Wyoming are hereby listed as
nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA (50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n)). The maps in the rule portion of this document illustrate the boundaries of the nonessential experimental population areas.

*Note* The Final Rule contains maps that show NEPs as described above.

What is becoming distinctly clear in all of these cases combined is that the DOI and USFWS have no legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment for any species.

In the Vermont court case, part of the two lawsuits that essentially rendered the three DPS of wolves in the lower 48 states illegal and a violation of the Act, Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s ruling stated the following:

The definition of “species” includes “any distinct population segment of any species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). The ESA does not define “distinct population segment” (“DPS”), nor is it a term used in scientific literature.

Judge Murtha recognizes that the “DPS Policy” “allows” for the USFWS to protect species based on the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population. This policy takes into consideration the “discreetness”, “significance” and “conservation status” of species. But Murtha obviously doesn’t think creating a DPS for management purposes and in this case, delisting purposes, is legal.

Judge Paul Friedman, who ruled that the WGL DPS was illegal, also stated that there is no definition of a Distinct Population Segment.

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

Judge Friedman tells us that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, is ambiguous when it comes to defining a Distinct Population Segment.

(16) The term “species” includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

Friedman claims that the USFWS has the authority to declare any area a Distinct Population Segment based on the above as described in the ESA. But most telling is that he says the USFWS cannot create another DPS within the broader DPS. Which of course makes no sense at all as would pertain to proper and quality wildlife management. (Note that most states through “best available science” practices, have learned that in order to properly manage wildlife, they must create wildlife management districts.)

As a result of the three court cases discussed above, I have to ask why the Department of Interior stopped their clock rewinding at 1978? Why not go back to pre-ESA. As we have seen by court rulings of Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne and the twelve parties that sued Kempthorne to put the wolf back under federal protection in the NRM DPS, tells us that creating DPSs is an illegal act. Any reasonable person would now question whether the federal government had the authority to create the first Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves in 1978 when it classified wolves in all the lower 48 states.

The confusing mess this has created now extends beyond just the gray wolf. It involves every species in existence in the United States. This is a clear example of the courts having inadequate knowledge of the issues making rulings that have now put the very species we may be wanting to protect in danger as well as stripping management powers from the USFWS.

I wrote recently of the efforts taking place as we speak to list the Atlantic salmon in Maine as endangered or threatened under the ESA. From this information we now ask, can the USFWS and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) create a Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon? The feds are attempting to expand the listing and define critical habitat. This, according to the court’s interpretation, is creating a new DPS within a DPS.

Surely the Department of the Interior, in issuing this final ruling to return the gray wolf protection to 1978 levels, is telling us their hands are tied. They should have taken it one step further and rescinded the original declaration of a wolf DPS within the U.S. from the beginning. (Perhaps they knew that would actually get someone’s attention.)

This also raises some very serious issues with regard to the “Nonessential Experimental Population” of gray wolves in the Yellowstone National Park area and Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Was it a legal act to create these NEPs? The broader question becomes whether the federal government had legal authority to reintroduce wolves into these regions? Surely if they can’t create segmented DPS of a species for management purposes, they have no legal right to dump species into these illegally crafted NEPs.

Obviously the power and authority of the Department of Interior, which includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to manage wildlife has evaporated. Any so-called environmental or preservationist organization, with money behind it, can control the courts and get what they want. The Endangered Species Act is only as good as the lawsuits permit it to be. Perhaps it is time for the states to reclaim their sovereignty.

It appears the DOI has lobbed the ball back into the courts, figuratively and literally.

Tom Remington

The judge in Washington, D.C. (Paul Friedman) who ruled to place the wolf in the Great Lakes region back under federal protection says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can’t create Distinct Population Segments because there is no definition of what that is.

So the courts have the final say, albeit all too often based on puzzling reasons. Getting to that point becomes interesting to say the least. How do we know what we are reading and hearing about wolves and the management of them is true? Well, we don’t really. I, like a lot of other people, assume a lot but with some effort, that guessing can be reduced considerably……that is if you are open to the truth and gathering facts.

Is what we hear from state fish and game departments something we can believe in? Shouldn’t we be able to? If Montana says there are “X” number of deer, elk, etc. living within the borders of the state, shouldn’t we be trustful enough to believe that data to be true? Isn’t that what our license fees pay them to do?

And what about wolves. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks says there are “X” number of wolves, shouldn’t we also have faith in that number? After all, it would be utterly ridiculous to think a federal judge would make a ruling that affected so many people based on incorrect data……..wouldn’t it?

Not everyone does have that blind faith and that’s a good thing. There is danger in quiet submission, following along blindly to what those who are in authority tell us. This certainly is not what made America great and has resulted in the destruction of many societies that have come before us.

It’s also great to hear questioning of authority from someone else of authority, someone with background and experience, someone who’s been there.

I recently was the recipient of an email that contained an open letter from Allen Schallenberger to Jeff Hagener, Director of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. Allen Schallenberger is a wildlife consultant in Sheridan, MT, and former (retired) wildlife biologist for the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department, among a myriad of other interests. If you would like to learn a bit more about Mr. Schallenberger and read more of some of his writings, Mike at Western Institute for Study of the Environment, has a bit more.

Schallenberger’s open letter to Jeff Hagener addresses what he believes are serious problems with wolf management in Montana. With permission from the author, here is that letter.

Jeff Hagener, Director

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Dept.

P.O. Box 200701, 1420 East 6th Ave.

Helena, MT 59620-0701

Dear Jeff:

We have large problems in the wolf management program here in Montana. Speaking for some of the organizations copied below, we believe we have a wolf diva rather than a Montana public servant running that program.

The legislature passed requirements for the Dept. to monitor wolf packs and report their locations. That is being done very poorly. To go to wolf monitoring on your website you must click on wild things, threatened and endangered species, gray wolf, wolf conservation and management, wolves in Montana and the Northern Rockies and then finally the buried wolf monitoring. You will find that flight reports are mixed from 2007 and 2008 in a haphazard manner. That makes it very difficult to find the current flight data. No information is usually given on who made the flight, observer and pilot, flight and weather conditions, elevations used to search for animals in the mountains and other useful records such as areas not covered well or not at all. Instead the catch-all phrase “radio not heard” is used which covers a multitude of aerial coverage errors by the Dept. Animal locations are often to general to have any meaning and there is no effort to accurately identify drainages with the same names.

Your supposedly weekly wolf report often comes out bimonthly or monthly and is not timely. Inaccurate information and current and past history is put out for public education and often not corrected. Let’s take the Freezeout pack for example. That pack over the years has killed hundreds of domestic livestock and big game animals and appears to be responsible for the elk leaving the Blacktail and Robb-Ledford Wildlife Management Areas in winters since at least 2003. This spring it was decided to eliminate that pack after it killed many domestic sheep. At the time it consisted of about two or three adults and seven pups after three adults were removed this spring. The wolf diva put out a news release saying that the pups would have to be killed before the adults. To this date we have not had an accurate report of what happened to that pack and if all the members have been killed.

You report all the livestock verified killed and there may be eight to 10 times that amount based on detailed studies. You and the wolf diva present very little information on the big game animals killed by wolves, the effects on our game herds and where we are headed in the future. Also you have not told the public how elk herds and their distribution are affected by wolf harassment and predation. You have not provided an accurate assessment of how this is affecting hunters, ranchers, businesses, private and public land use. You have not come up with information on how closely wolves are tied to brucellosis and other disease problems. Recently a news release by the Dept. quoted a warden saying we should be outraged by the one moose shot and killed and left on the ground near Boulder. We are outraged that Dept. employees are not more concerned about the thousands of big game animals and livestock killed by wolves and the other problems wolves cause.

After reading the wolf reports it appears that many young women without much experience or appreciation for our big game ungulates are being hired by your Dept to work with wolves. Some appear to excel in taking pictures of fuzzy pups and showing them to school kids. FWP is pumping the press and public full of false propaganda not backed by wildlife science or wolf history. You could learn much from Alaska, Canada, Russia, Idaho and Wyoming wolf managers about wolf impacts. Quit saying wolves can kill and eat all the big game animals they want. Those animals are the property of the people of Montana who entrusted you with active, scientific wildlife management. Provide us soon, accurate information on numbers of each game animal species killed by wolves and the herds adversely affected by wolf kills and harassment.

Please respond soon on how you are going to improve the wolf management program. If that does not occur, our legislature should provide you detailed guidance.

Sincerely,

Allen Schallenberger

Experienced wildlife biologist and concerned sportsman

c. Gov. Brian Schweitzer, FWP Commission, Rep. Diane Rice, Rep. elect Robert Wagner, Senator elect Debbie Barrett, Senator Joe Balyeat, Montana Shooting Sports Association, Friends of Northern Yellowstone Elk, Inc., Montana Bowhunters Association, Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, Beaverhead Outdoors, Skyline Sportsmen, Anaconda Sportsmen, Tobacco Root Archers, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Montana Wool Growers, Montana Stockgrowers Association Western Ag Reporter, Billings Gazette, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, The Montana Standard, Missoulian, Daily Interlake, The Great Falls Tribune, Helena Independent Record, numerous ranchers and sportsmen.

Tom Remington