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.

The Utah bill is at:
http://le.utah.gov/interim/2009/pdf/00001506.pdf

Utah news stories about this are at:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13818284

and

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/story/Utah-to-Feds-Keep-your-laws-off-our-guns/x9NOL-GMukKofxGgxcmo8g.cspx
or HERE

The list of states with introduced FFA bills includes: Alaska, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Kentucky, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Colorado are poised to introduce FFAs. Quite a few other states are intending to introduce in the near future. See:
http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

Things I am looking for, but not limited to.

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

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

Send Pictures to:

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

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

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

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

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

“Don’t you?” said I. “Well; suppose you’ve been climbing a mountain late in the afternoon when the sun is on the other side of it. It is a mountain of big boulders, loose little stones, thorny bushes. The slightest misstep would send pebbles rattling, brush rustling; but you have gone all the way without making that misstep. This is quite a feat. It means that you’ve known all about every footstep you’ve taken. That would be business enough for most people, wouldn’t it? But in addition you’ve managed to see everything on that side of the mountain – especially patches of brown. You’ve seen lots of patches of brown, and you’ve examined each one of them. Besides that, you’ve heard lots of little rustlings, and you’ve identified each one of them. To do all these things well keys your nerves to a high tension, doesn’t it? And then near the top you look up from your last noiseless step to see in the brush a very dim patch of brown. If you hadn’t been looking so hard, you surely wouldn’t have made it out. Perhaps, if you’re not humble-minded, you may reflect that most people wouldn’t have seen it at all. You whistle once sharply. The patch of brown defines itself. Your heart gives one big jump. You know that you have but the briefest moment, the tiniest fraction of time, to hold the white bead of your rifle motionless and to press the trigger. It has to be done very steadily, at that distance, – and you’re out of breath, with your nerves keyed high in the tension of such caution.”

But most wonderful of all was a great buck, of I should be afraid to say how many points, that stood silhouetted on the extreme end of a ridge high above our camp. The time was just after twilight, and as we watched, the sky lightened behind him in prophecy of the moon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ramblings and thoughts of a modern-day hunter? Surely I think not but it could be although a rare find.

My good friend and chief photographer for Skinny Moose Media, Milt Inman, discovered a book in a pile of what looked more like trash than treasure while browsing a yard sale not that long ago and came upon a book looking old, faded and frail. The book had a friend and found a new home.

“The Mountains” by Stewart Edward White just might be a modern-day treasure looking for a reading deer hunter to inspire. White is the author of other books; “The Blazed Trail”, “Silent Places”, “The Forest” and others. “The Mountains” is illustrated by Fernand Lungren and was published by McClure, Phillips & Company of New York in 1904.

Over one hundred years have passed since White moved about the trail looking for deer. What has changed? That really depends upon who might be reading the book. For me, it could have very well be written today, with the exception of the use of certain words and terminology of its day. For others the tactics described would be ancient history, something that happened in an era long ago passed by.

I think not! You see, I’ve never been one to hide out in a ground blind or sit uneasily in a tree stand. For those who do, the accounts described above could just as easily been written in ancient Greek. It would have as much meaning.

All too often in the so-called modern era of deer hunting, nearly every article written or hunting tip given focuses on blinds, tree stands, scents, lures, calls and about every assorted gimmick and gadget ever invented and those yet to come. The art of tracking doesn’t seem to be practiced as readily as it did once but I can attest that it’s not dead.

I discussed this book some with Milt before I confiscated it and he brought to my attention that much of what White writes about in this book is similar to what a family of big buck deer hunters from Vermont talks about and spends time each year trying to teach to other hunters.

The Benoits all grew up in Vermont. There’s Larry the father and sons Lanny, Lane and Shane. They love to deer hunt and their passion is tracking down big bucks. As they say, the proof is in the pudding and if you look at the success these guys have had, you cannot deny that they must know more about the art of tracking than the average deer hunter.

A couple years ago, Milt and I traveled to the far reaches of Northern Maine to a small town called Allagash to attend a Benoit Brothers’ Big Buck Tracking School. I wanted to cover the event as a writer and I took Milt along to take pictures and to use his perspective on issues.

There were two things the Benoits emphasized all during their instruction – shooting and tracking. Shooting is obvious. As Lanny pointed out and as White points out in his book over a hundred years ago, you have a very brief moment to “hold the white bead on your target” and shoot. But, Lanny further points out that if you have been successful enough to “eliminate the obvious”, as White describes it, you’ll have perhaps as much as a split second to react and shoot. If you can’t shoot, the hard work leading up to the shot is all for not.

The second aspect is the one White writes about in knowing the obvious and removing it from what the mind takes in and sees. If you can accomplish such, you will see deer. The Benoits often talk about learning what a big buck will do. This begins with an understanding of where to find the big deer, taking into consideration all factors. You pick up a track and follow it. You have to learn and know your area, the terrain, escape routes, etc. and you have to recognize from the track what the deer is thinking, know his habits and use this to eliminate the obvious.

There will be mistakes. That’s how we learn, that is if we are willing to learn from our mistakes and apply them to the next outing. The more seasoned we become the more we will be able to remove from our visual all the obvious things – the rock, the tree, the flowering shrub, etc.. Then, once our minds are trained to know what to look for and how to apply all the information being processed, our success rate will go up. We will turn seeing no deer into seeing deer and in turn taking deer.

I agree with Milt, now that I’ve read that section of the book. Almost every aspect of what Stewart Edward White wrote about over one hundred years ago still applies today and accurately describes the Benoits methods they employ in tracking down monster bucks.

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

On Wednesday, I interview Dr. Rex Rammell of Rexburg, Idaho. Dr. Rammell is campaigning for the Republican nomination for the soon to be vacated U.S. Senate seat currently held by the embattled Larry Craig. Rammell faces one other challenger in the republican party, Lt. Gov. Jim Risch.

This is an interview you don’t want to miss even if you are not a resident of Idaho as we discuss topics that will affect every citizen in this country. We discuss not only Mr. Rammell’s campaign but property rights, the Endangered Species Act and spend a great deal of time talking about the problems connected with wolves, wolf management and the reintroduction of wolves to the Yellowstone National Park area.

Much of what is happening in Idaho with the onslaught of lawsuits against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, abuse of the Endangered Species Act and the stripping of property rights, is happening all across America. Tune in and listen to what Dr. Rex Rammell has to say about what he promises to do if elected to the U.S. Senate.

If you are not able to tune in for the original broadcasts, as always all shows are available at the Skinny Moose Radio website for your listening pleasure. You can stream the audio there on the site or download it to your hard drive to be listened to at your leisure or for podcasting.

Tom Remington

This weather pattern has reduced natural food supplies for bears. Bears generally prefer berries and other vegetation to eat but do munch on such things as dead carcases or kill their own if needed. When the fall rolls around, bear activity spikes as the animal must consume thousands of calories a day in order to fatten up for the long winter that lies in wait. With little or no natural food, bears resort to other means for food and that all too often this fall has meant breaking into homes, rummaging through garbage or maybe even finding a nice tender family pet to chow down on.

Not to sound crude here but a bear is a large animal that has huge hunger needs prior to its hibernation and very little can and does stand in its way when its focus is on food.

The Aspen Times News today is reporting that the Colorado Division of Wildlife has been discussing the prospects of what to do about the black bear population. What they are discussing and what they will do remains to be seen but already the Humane Society of the United States is getting their two cents worth in.

One aspect of the bear management DOW is discussing is the possibility of thinning the bear numbers in the Aspen area. After a record breaking year of answering bear problems resulting in the killing of 13 problem bears, relocating 24 and moving a handful of bear cubs into a rehab center, authorities are trying to decide if they need to up the bear permits issued for this area or find other ways to thin the numbers.

The Colorado state chapter of the Humane Society doesn’t believe hunting or thinning the bear population is necessary.

“It’s upsetting news,” said Holly Tarry, state director for the Humane Society. “Black bear populations manage themselves based on the resources that are available to them. Keeping them out of human areas is a human responsibility. We’re very disappointed that thinning would be an option.”

In case you missed it in Colorado, last June the state bear coalition met just outside Aspen and discussed ways in which to better manage themselves. Unfortunately, not many bears attended and didn’t get the word that eating out of dumpsters and breaking into expensive condominiums in wealthy Aspen could get them killed.

Give me a break. The bears manage themselves and this is more humane and in the best interest of everyone and everything? She is right on one thing. Keeping bear out of human areas is a human problem. The problem is she doesn’t like the way DOW takes care of the problem. She should notify the Aspen chapter of the bear coalition and ask them to do something about this problem next year.

On a more serious note, the DOW has more to look at than just whether there are too many bears. The fact is, there may not be too many bears. It could be that because of this year’s weather problems it appears there are too many bears because they went looking for food in town.

There’s a possibility a number of these bears could starve to death this winter because they didn’t get enough fat reserves built up to survive. I guess that is part of the self-management Tarry claims is more humane than hunting.

The issue is also being discussed about better bear proofing education. One of the problems that faces a town like Aspen is that the year round population is relatively low in comparison to the transient one. Many of the bear problems came from visitors and part time residents who don’t know and understand about being bear aware. This presents a different set of problematic circumstances for officials.

Before too many of us get too worked up over the prospects that us hunters are going out to Colorado and slaughter all the bears, we should give the Colorado Division of Wildlife a chance to manage the bears and figure out what to due after the winter.

Tom Remington