Wildlife and People

Bill Introduced to Delist Gray Wolves Nationwide

Chaffetz to Push Legislation Removing Gray Wolf from Consideration under Endangered Species Act

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT-3) Press Release, September 22, 2010 [here]

Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz announced he will seek to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act. Rep. Chaffetz joins Democrat Congressman Chet Edwards in supporting HR 6028, which would ask Congress to amend the 1973 act “to prohibit treatment of the Gray Wolf as an endangered species or threatened species.” The move comes in response to a recent court ruling effectively reinstating endangered status for the wolf in the entire western United States.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) first issued the decision to delist the wolf in 2008, after the species had met recovery goals of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves for eight consecutive years. Wildlife biologists estimate there are 1,700 wolves in several western states. Wolves were first placed on the endangered species list in 1974.

“Wolf populations have grown significantly since first receiving protection under the Endangered Species Act,” said Chaffetz. “They have grown well beyond their target populations. The wolf is devastating wildlife populations and cattle. This is a vital issue to farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and outdoor recreationists. It is appropriate to have the wolf delisted at this time.”

Bipartisan recommendations by both the Obama and Bush Administrations have recommended the de-listing of wolves and turning their management over to the state wildlife agencies.

“We need to ensure that wildlife management plans are retained at the state level rather than the federal level,” said Chaffetz.

###

F&G Commission: Open Letter to Hunters and Idahoans

Idaho Department Fish and Game. September 3, 2010 [here]

Wildlife managers and biologists agree that the wolf population in Idaho recovered years ago, and that wolf numbers now need to be controlled to reduce conflicts with people and wildlife.

The recent court decision bypassed science and put Idaho wolves back under the protection of the Endangered Species Act based on a legal technicality. Now we must deal with a difficult situation.

The Endangered Species Act severely limits Idaho’s abilities to manage wolves, and it is tempting to turn wolf management over to the federal government until wolves can be delisted again. But U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have told us they wouldn’t manage wolves to protect Idaho elk herds, and they don’t share our motivation to protect the interests of our ranchers, pet owners, hunters and rural communities.

We looked carefully at our options and potential consequences. We decided that as long as we are making a difference, we must stay engaged in wolf management to protect Idaho’s interests and rights. Only as a last resort will we leave the fate of Idaho residents and wildlife entirely in the hands of the federal government.

Part of the reason we feel that way is because of how we got to where we are.

With the court decision to relist wolves for the second time, the federal system has failed us. Defenders of Wildlife and other special interest groups are using a parade of lawsuits to tie the federal government in knots, and the result is against common sense, responsible wildlife management, and the stated intent of the Endangered Species Act. While we will work within the rule of law; we will use all of our influence and authority to make this right and put wolf management back in Idaho’s hands where it belongs.

Idaho’s lawyers will ask a court of appeals to overturn U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy’s ruling, but we believe the best solution is to change the law directly. We will work with Idaho’s congressional delegation, Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter and other states to resolve this problem through federal legislation. Solutions will probably not be easy or quick. We will need all of the support we can get to make this happen, and we will keep you posted as to how you can best help these efforts.

While we are pursuing change in the courts and in Congress, we will make the most of the authorities available to us. We support Gov. Otter’s efforts to reach a new agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure as much flexibility as possible in managing wolves. The Idaho Fish and Game Commission recommended that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be in charge of Endangered Species Act enforcement while Idaho focuses on protecting its elk herds and reducing wolf conflicts. It should also be the federal government’s role to fund wolf management, and we support restricting the use of hunters’ license dollars for wolf management as long as wolves are federally protected.

We will continue to insist on population control, particularly in areas where wolf predation is hurting our wildlife. The processes for getting federal agency approvals involve considerable paperwork and time and impose requirements that are an additional source of frustration. For example, because of federal legal requirements, Idaho Fish and Game managers have to use wolf population estimates that are “minimum,” so we know we are underestimating the number of wolves in Idaho.

Likewise, to control wolves to protect elk herds under the “10(j)” provision of the Endangered Species Act, Idaho must demonstrate wolf predation impacts based on data that takes time to collect. We must also have our proposals reviewed by at least five scientists outside our agencies. That means we end up a year or more behind the times, using data that often doesn’t match up with what you see in the woods today. We have gotten to the point where we will soon submit a “10(j)” proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for wolf control actions in the Lolo Zone, and other proposals are being developed. When delisting occurred previously, we were poised with a proposal then, too.

As you can tell, we are in a tough struggle to regain state management, with scientific and legal battles on many fronts. We are concerned that some matters are dividing our community when we need to be united. For example, there are some who want to argue about what happened in Idaho politics when wolves were introduced in 1994. While we commit to learning from history, we do not want to waste our energy trying to attack, defend, or change the past.

We are fighting a national battle of perception. It is easy to paint an ideal world of nature from a desk far away from rural Idaho. We need your help to explain why it is important to manage Idaho’s wolf population, just like we manage other wildlife. Someone who wouldn’t think twice about calling animal control to pick up stray dogs in the city may not think about how wolves are affecting the lives of Idahoans in similar ways - unless we tell them.

National activist groups try to portray the average Idahoan as a wolf exterminator, lazy hunter or crazy extremist. We need your help to prove them wrong, just as Idahoans did when we participated responsibly in the first wolf hunting season in the lower 48 states. We need your help to support change through social networks across the country.

If state authorities are further undermined by court decisions or inaction at the federal level, there may come a time where we decide the best thing to do is to surrender and leave wolf management up to the federal government until wolves are delisted. But for now we believe the best place to fix the system and protect Idaho’s interests is by staying involved in management. We appreciate your support.

Idaho Fish and Game Commission

Coy Wolves or Coywolves?

The judge fulminated: wolves are endangered because they lack genetic exchange capacity. But the judge was very wrong. Wolves are canines, and canines are famously adept at gene exchange. To put it mildly and modestly.

Last December we reported [here]:

by George Dovel, From The Outdoorsman, No. 35, July-Nov 2009

In November 2007 when Evolutionary Biologists Jennifer Leonard and Robert Wayne announced that most of the several thousand “wolves” being protected in the Great Lakes region were actually wolf-coyote crosses, Utah Wildlife Ecologist Dr. Charles Kay commented, “What a mess!” During their two-year study of the genetic make-up of Great Lakes wolves that were delisted, the study did not find any purebred Eastern Timber Wolves, and only 31% of the wolves tested had any Eastern timber wolf “genes” in their genetic make-up.

When confronted with this information by the news media in November 2007, Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team Leader Rolph Peterson admitted they had known all along that the wolves were crossbreeding with coyotes. …

Now the little known but truly excellent Yellow Pine Times has done the research. Kudos to YP Sue, editor, publisher, and friend to all creatures.

Coywolves

by YP Sue

Halfthings

“Gray wolves and coyotes don’t usually play well together in the wild, but sometimes the mood is right and baby coywolves are born. Coywolves aren’t considered a separate species, but genetic research suggests that red wolves (extinct in the wild by 1980, now being reintroduced) originally descended from gray wolf/coyote hybrids. If coywolves persist, they may someday develop distinct enough taxonomy and behavior to require a unique Latin name.”

Quote lifted from [here]

*****

R. K. Wayne and S. M. Jenks. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus. Nature 351, 565 - 568 [here]

Abstract:

THE red wolf, previously endemic to the southeastern United States, declined precipitously in numbers after 1900 because of habitat destruction, predator control programmes, and hybridization with coyotes. Hybridization with coyotes probably occurred as these animals, which adjust well to agriculture, became numerous and moved eastwards. By 1970, red wolves existed only in extreme southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana. In 1967, red wolves were classified as endangered and a captive breeding programme was begun in 1974 after passage of the Endangered Species Act, about a year before they became extinct in the wild. Protein electrophoresis and morphometrics have been used to try to discriminate red wolves from hybrids and coyotes. But because the average substitution rate of mitochondrial DNA in mammals is much greater than that of nuclear genes, mtDNA analysis is a more useful way of distinguishing closely related species. We have now analysed mtDNA restriction-enzyme sites and cytochrome b gene sequence variation in captive red wolves and in 77 canids sampled during the capture period. We also used the polymerase chain reaction to amplify and then sequenced mtDNA from red wolf skins collected before substantial hybridization of red wolves with coyotes is thought to have occurred. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that red wolves have either a grey wolf or coyote mtDNA genotype, demonstrating hybridization among these species. Thus, the red wolf is entirely a hybrid form or a distinct taxon that hybridized with coyotes and grey wolves over much of its previous geographical range. Our findings, however, do not argue against the continued protection of the red wolf.

*****

Red Wolf (from Wikipedia [here])

The Red Wolf (Canis lupus rufus) is a North American canid subspecies which once roamed throughout the Southeastern United States and is a glacial period survivor of the Late Pleistocene epoch.[3] Its natural range extended from Texas to Florida northward to New York. Historical habitats included forests, swamps, and coastal prairies, where it was an apex predator. The Red Wolf became extinct in the wild by 1980.[4] A population of Red Wolf/Coyote hybrids [5]has been successfully reintroduced to eastern North Carolina.[6] Although this population has grown to over 100 animals, it is still highly endangered.

Description

The Red Wolf has a brownish or cinnamon pelt, with grey and black shading on the back and tail. Its muzzle is white furred around the lips. Black specimens have been recorded, but these are probably extinct. The Red Wolf is generally intermediate in size between the Coyote and the Gray Wolf. Males can reach up to five feet in length and 80 lbs. in weight. Like the Gray Wolf, it has almond-shaped eyes, a broad muzzle and a wide nosepad, though like the Coyote, its ears are proportionately larger. The Red Wolf has a deeper profile, longer and broader head than the coyote, and has a less prominent ruff than the Gray Wolf.[7] It moults once annually every winter.

*****

Coywolf: Are they a suburban legend, or a natural fact?

By Edie Johnson, The Chronicle, Feb 10, 2006 [here]

Goshen — Coyotes live in our neighborhood in Blooming Grove. They howled in groups at night through the spring and fall, and this year they sound like an inordinately large pack. I have seen three of them, two trotting right up my driveway. One of them, at the end of last summer, was pretty large.

If you have coyotes in your neighborhood, and if they look almost as much like a wolf as a coyote, there is a good reason. Researchers in the Northeast and Canada say the population of coywolf hybrids is growing in the region. Rumors of coydogs — a coyote/dog hybrid — have flourished for years, but now scientists are able to do DNA testing. Coydogs are rare, they have found, but coywolf hybrids are becoming more and more common as they adapt to life on small farms. The eastern coyote tends to be somewhat larger than those found in the Midwest.

“This is known as latitudinal cline - as you go north, animals get larger,” National Geographics expert Robert Winkler said.

A typical Midwest coyote would weigh 22 to 30 pounds, as opposed to a northeast coyote, which would weigh 32 to 38 pounds. This is a vast difference from the coywolf hybrids, which can range from 60 to 80 pounds for females, and 70 to 110 pounds for males. Of 100 coyotes studied in Maine, 22 were more than half wolf and one was 89 percent wolf.

*****

Coywolf (from Wikipedia [here])

The coywolf is a term used to refer to hybrids between a Coyote (Canis latrans) and the Gray wolf (Canis lupus) or the Red wolf (Canis lupus rufus). Wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, a fact which calls into question their status as two separate species.[1] However breeding experiments in Germany with poodles and coyotes, as well as with wolves, jackals and later on with the resulting dog-coyote hybrids showed a decrease in fertility and significant communication problems as well as an increase of genetic diseases after three generations of interbreeding between the hybrids, unlike with wolfdogs. Therefore it was concluded, that domestic dogs and Gray wolves are the same species and that the coyote is a separate species from both.[2]

The offspring is generally intermediate in size to both parents, being larger than a pure coyote, but smaller than a pure wolf. A study showed that of 100 coyotes collected in Maine, 22 had half or more wolf ancestry, and one was 89 percent wolf. A theory has been proposed that the large eastern coyotes in Canada are actually hybrids of the smaller western coyotes and wolves that met and mated decades ago as the coyotes moved toward New England from their earlier western ranges.[3] The Red Wolf is thought by certain scientists to be in fact a wolf/coyote hybrid rather than a unique species. Strong evidence for hybridization was found through genetic testing which showed that red wolves have only 5% of their alleles unique from either Gray wolves or coyotes. Genetic distance calculations have indicated that red wolves are intermediate between coyotes and grey wolves, and that they bear great similarity to wolf/coyote hybrids in southern Quebec and Minnesota. Analyses of mitochondrial DNA showed that existing Red Wolf populations are predominantly coyote in origin.[4] Researchers in the Northeast and Canada say the population of coywolf hybrids is growing in the Northeast region.[5]

*****

The red wolf (Canis rufus) – hybrid or not?

Montana EDU [here]

The red wolf originally ranged over much of the southeastern U.S. By 1970, it was extinct from its original range and propagated in captivity. The USFWS has spent a great deal of money and effort on captive rearing and reintroduction in the SE United States.

Hybridization with coyote (C. latrans) suspected as early as 1940’s. Hybridization was implicated in the decline of the red wolf.

Wayne & Jenks (1991) – analyzed mitochondrial DNA (maternal inheritance) and concluded that the red wolf ORIGINATED as a hybrid between coyote and grey wolf (C. lupus).

- also concluded that red wolf mitochondrial DNA is now predominantly coyote origin

- suggested that red wolf has never been a valid species or subspecies

- suggested that existing red wolf population is substantially coyote in origin (coyotes not protected)

Nowak (1992) – red wolf hybridized within last 100 years with coyote, but pre-dates European colonization of N. America as a distinct species in the fossil record

- morphological analysis supports interpretation that red wolf is an intermediate stage of canid evolution from a small, coyote-like form to the modern gray wolf – and distinct from both [the evidence he presents could also be interpreted as indicating hybridization if the skull traits he used are subject to blending inheritance]

Idaho County Wolf Disaster Declaration

On Sept. 16 the Idaho County Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution declaring a disaster as a result of the introduction of wolves (in 1995-1996 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service).

The Resolution is [here]. It declares that wolves are causing “vast devastation of the social culture, economy, and natural resources of Idaho County” and that “public safety is compromised, economic activity is disrupted and private and public property continues to be imperiled.”

The Idaho County Board of Commissioners requested that Governor Otter issue a Disaster Proclamation declaring wolves to be a “managed predator” to be controlled, and that the State contract with the USDA Wildlife Services to eradicate wolf packs near homes, ranches, livestock, and recreation areas “by any means necessary”.

The Idaho Statesman is reporting that the Resolution uses the words “shot on site”, but that is typical MSM hyperbole. That language does not appear in the resolution. The Idaho Statesman is a trashy rag (well, if it they like to dish out hyperbole, then they ought to be able to take it).

Idaho County declares disaster over wolves

By JESSIE L. BONNER and JOHN MILLER, The Idaho Statesman, 09/16/10 [here]

BOISE, Idaho — Officials in Idaho County want Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter to declare an ongoing disaster that will allow wolves to be shot on sight, citing attacks on livestock and wildlife.

County commissioners declared a local disaster Thursday. The governor’s office was aware of the county’s move but had not seen it and couldn’t immediately comment, said Otter spokesman Jon Hanian.

“We heard about it just at the close of business today,” Hanian said. “Beyond that, I don’t have a comment about it, until we’ve had a chance to read it, review it and make sure the governor has seen it.”

Last night in a 30-minute Idaho Public TV presentation Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Director Cal Groen and State Wildlife Manager Jon Rachael were asked about this resolution. Groen said he hadn’t seen it. Rachael admitted massive elk declines and said, “That’s not socially acceptable.”

IDFG’s involvement in wolf introductions and the devastation of Idaho elk herds is well documented [here].

Wolf populations have burgeoned in Idaho and Montana since the USFWS illegally dumped exotic Canadian gray wolves there in 1995 with the full (and illegal) complicity of state wildlife agencies such as IDFG. Wolves are in no way endangered, despite the lunatic decisions by Federal Judge Donald “Genetic Exchange” Molloy.

It remains to be seen whether Gov. Otter will heed and side with the elected representatives of Idaho County residents, or with radical jingoists from urban enclaves thousands of miles away.

No Evidence Links Lolo Elk Loss to Habitat

Ed Note: This excellent essay appears in The Outdoorsman No. 40 June-Aug 2010. The entire issue is [here]. Some previous posts regarding elk in the Lolo Zone (upper Clearwater River watershed, Idaho) are [here]. Excerpts from other issues of The Outdoorsman are [here].

By George Dovel, editor/publisher The Outdoorsman

Shortly after World War II ended, the Washington, D.C. based Wildlife Management Institute recommended the Idaho F&G Commission invite thousands of out-of-state hunters to harvest “trophy” Idaho big game animals in remote backcountry areas allegedly to prevent damage to habitat. The result of similar recommendations to other western states is evident in the sudden big game harvest increases during the 1950s followed by eventual severe harvest declines during the mid-1960s and early 70s.

Elk Study Proves Habitat Did Not Cause Decline

By 1964, elk harvests in the Clearwater had declined dramatically so the “Clearwater Elk Ecology Study” was launched – with the first five years devoted to evaluating habitat quantity, quality and elk use. The next four years found high conception and calf birth rates but very poor survival during the first two weeks after birth.

The result of the first nine years of careful study was that 13 years of extended either-sex hunting seasons and too few surviving calves – not habitat – were responsible for the mid-1960s elk decline.

The next 10-years of study proved that reduced cow elk numbers could no longer provide enough newborn calves to feed the black bears during the brief calving period, plus feed other predators later and still provide replacements for the elk that die each year. Trapping and relocating 75 bears in 1976 tripled the number of surviving elk calves, and doubling the bear bag limit in year-around seasons restored the elk in a few years.

The 19-year study and a dozen similarly extensive peer-reviewed studies in Canada, Alaska and the Great Lakes all arrived at the same conclusion. Where multiple predators, including wolves, existed with alternate prey species, it was necessary to reduce the number of predators dramatically once prey populations were reduced – regardless of whether the prey reduction was natural or man-caused (as in excessive hunter harvests).

By 1985 even wolf expert David Mech admitted he was responsible for resurrecting the “balance of nature” myth as a graduate student and wrote “Far from being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically.” He illustrated the necessity to dramatically reduce wolf numbers whenever their prey declined and F&G agencies in the Northern Rockies promised wolf numbers would be carefully monitored and controlled if they were introduced.

more »

Rep. Rehberg (MT) Seeking Your Solutions To Wolf Problems

by Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, September 10, 2010 [here]

Ed Note: this is another excellent commentary from the Nation’s premier hunting, fishing, and outdoor activities pundit, Tom Remington. I strongly encourage you to visit and bookmark Black Bear Blog [here].

Montana Representative Denny Rehberg (R) Montana, in an editorial [here] in the Missoulian, is asking us for our ideas and solutions to the ancient and stalled atrocity known as Wolf Introduction.

If you think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that anything other than what can easily be described as “Groundhogs Day”, (a la, the movie with Bill Murray, where he wakes up each day to the exact same events over and over again.) can be done to blow up that damned alarm clock, then jump on Rep. Rehberg’s bandwagon and give him an earful (be nice now).

He says he listens first to his people and then reacts to what they want. Is this true? If it is, this is at least your chance to take action so you can say you tried. Sounds like Rehberg is suggesting a legislative solution.

He offers sample questions, assuming these are answers he’s also looking for. Let’s see if we can help him out.

What is the responsibility of the government to reimburse producers for livestock killed by predators that are protected by federal policy? The private funds that have been used for these reimbursements in the past ended on Sept. 10, 2010.

Reimbursement for damages never should have been put in the hands of private entities. You can read this as environmentalists. But this is water under the bridge and they have reneged anyway.

This entire debacle was the doings of the Federal Government and they should be held solely responsible for reimbursements to all citizens who have lost property and damages of any kind, physical and emotional. They should be held responsible for all costs of litigation, damages amassed over the years and what lies down the road. The Federal Government should be paying for all costs of wolf management, if you want to call it that, and directly paying the states for all revenues lost and expenses accrued due to wolves and the destruction they have done.

If this liability bill gets large enough and angry taxpayers realize how much of their money is being spent to aid and abet the perverts who think wolves are above humanity, then perhaps efforts to do something legislatively can be done.

[My thoughts: the Federal government has 100% responsibility, since it was through the Fed's horrendous decision-making and intransigence that these damages were inflicted.]

Do we want to use a legislative scalpel to address the gray wolf issue narrowly, or is it time for a much broader reform of the entire Endangered Species Act? One option will be easier and faster, but the other may prevent similar fights down the road.

Why not both? What Idaho needs or wants may not exactly match what Montana or Wyoming, Oregon, Utah, etc. wants. Those needs, based on geography as well as social demands, will be different. However, in line with the answer to the first question, it’s time to wake up all of America to the intrusion of Government. It isn’t just taxes, health care, and mosques being built. The berries are ripe. People are waking up and pushing back against totalitarian governmental control.

Many people have been asking me what my bone of contention is in this fight? The answer is simple. I’m an American. Wolves forced dishonestly onto American people and them being held as prisoners in their own land by environmentalism, the Courts and the Federal Government, is a hammer looking for any place else to fall. I want to prevent that from happening.

Actions need to be implemented to assure that nothing like this EVER happens again, that no peoples will be rendered to such dictatorial uselessness.

[My thoughts: reform the ESA. The idea that Constitutionally guaranteed human rights have been usurped for the alleged rights of animals is the most unAmerican thing ever perpetrated by our government. All of Congress took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Abide by it.]

Is it better to focus only on Montana for now, or should we expand our effort to national solutions that will include other impacted states like Idaho and Wyoming?

Answered already!

The truth is Montana, Idaho and other states, including the Great Lakes and Southwest Regions can’t wait for the long legislative processes. Emergency actions need to take place. If Washington was burning, I don’t think Congress would let it burn while they argue about how much to appropriate for a fire truck… or maybe they would. The good people of these states want to run their own affairs. No effort of the Endangered Species Act should be this far reaching and locally destructive, leaving citizens at the mercy of ridiculous court rulings that aren’t even based on existing laws; only political agendas.

Rep. Rehberg, let’s not turn this into a dog and pony show. If you are serious, then it’s time to get serious enough to do something that will immediately relieve the problems and then we can get to work on long term, long lasting solutions. Let’s give the citizens back their power of self government and sovereignty and then find a long term solution to stop the travesty that has become the Endangered Species Act.

[My thoughts: The issue is national.]

These are only some of my ideas. What are yours? Speak up! Let Mr. Rehberg hear what you have to say. You can send him an email. Or you can write or call. All that information can be found [here].

It’s time to call the good Congressman out on his offer to LISTEN. Give ‘em hell, Harry! Let freedom ring!

How to Confirm a Suspicion

By Jim Beers

There is a growing suspicion by rural residents that “pro-wolf” advocates are releasing wolves to supplement and extend the presence and future growth of wolf packs in the Lower 48 states. One wolf was killed in Ohio recently, a small pack was killed in Indiana, and a wolf was photographed by a trail camera in Illinois.

Where wolves now occur in the Upper Rockies, the Southwest, and in the Southeast; they have been forcibly introduced and militarily protected by federal bureaucrats utilizing federal laws and regulations that they drafted for politicians concerned with their reelection. This has resulted in:

- A spectacular loss of State Sovereignty over everything from resident wildlife, hunting programs, ranching, and rural economies to federal bureaucrats.

- Loss of big game populations like elk, moose and deer to wolves.

- Loss of livestock from cattle and sheep to llamas and pigs to wolves.

- Losses of pet dogs, watchdogs, working dogs, sporting dogs, and trailing dogs to wolves.

- Complete reorientation of rural lifestyles from how children go to and from school, what activities children can engage in outdoors, and where small children must be watched, to what disease potentials are from wandering wolves and how to keep any dogs safe from wolves.

- While it is still denied that wolves kill people; Russian records, American historical records, and recent killings by wolves in Saskatchewan and Alaska expose that lie. Wolves have killed numerous people worldwide for eons and at certain times in astonishingly large numbers.

- Diseases carried by wolves are both deadly and debilitating to humans, livestock, pets, and wildlife; yet no veterinarians or wildlife biologists will even comment on the dangers for fear of being exposed as either a coward or “politically correct” whenever one or more of the deadly diseases and infections are shown to have been or being spread by wolves.

Therefore, it is neither surprising nor improper for rural residents to be concerned that wolves are being spread surreptitiously in the Lower 48 states.

Wolves are NOT ENDANGERED in any sense of the word. They are “Listed” as “Endangered” and/or “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act only to assuage animal rights and environmental radicals’ agendas and to make federal rule over all remaining wildlife under state authority subject to federal rules and regulations.

So, for all you rural residents worried about whether these radicals are releasing wolves in your neighborhood, there is a simple remedy. In those states where wolves do not currently occur (this is where the radicals will dump them) your state still has authority over resident (as opposed Migratory wildlife like certain birds named in treaties and species claimed as “Endangered” by federal officials and their “Cooperator/Partners” like The Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Biological Diversity et al) wildlife.

more »