United States District Judge Donald Molloy's August 5 decision to restore full endangered species protection to the Canadian gray wolf in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming virtually guarantees that more people will fall victim to the proliferating and increasingly brazen predators. In addition, elk populations as well as populations of other wild ungulates (moose, deer, goats, sheep, bison) may be driven to near extinction levels in many parts of the Rocky Mountain Northwest due to wolf predation. Ranchers also have experienced a sharp increase in wolf killings of cattle and sheep, enough so that some cattlemen and sheepmen have been driven into bankruptcy.

In March, Candice Berner, a 32-year-old schoolteacher, was killed by wolves near Chignik Lake, Alaska. In mid- August, members of Berner's family from Pennsylvania gathered on Three Star, a mountain near Perryville, Alaska for a memorial service for Candice. An AP story of the memorial gives the following brief account of the young teacher's last day alive:

Ms. Berner, a petite, accomplished athlete, who studied education at Slippery Rock University, was a special education teacher. She had just finished her day teaching at Chignik Lake, another of the small communities dotting the Alaska Peninsula, back on March 8 when she decided to go running on the road to the village airstrip.

Unbeknownst to Candice Berner, a pair of wolves was stalking that same road and, as the AP story recounts, "Ms. Berner, alone, unarmed, with headphones blocking all cues, became their instant prey. Area residents on a snowmachine who came down the road shortly thereafter saw blood on the road and found her body."

Wolf attacks on humans have been relatively rare over the past century in comparison, for example, to bear attacks. However, claims by environmental activists and their sympathizers in the major media that wolves never attack humans (and historically never, or very rarely, ever attacked humans) have been proven false by Candice Berner's fate. And the Berner case is not unique, as the following stories show: Ontario man killed in wolf attack, coroner's jury finds; Six injured in rare wolf attack;
Wolf Attacks on Humans (an historical survey); The Danger of Wolves to Humans.

Only days before Candice Berner's memorial, Judge Donald Molloy of the United States District Court in Missoula, Montana, ruled in favor of a coalition of extreme environmentalist and animal rights groups* that had challenged a wolf control program approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the states of Idaho and Montana. That program allowed hunters to take 220 wolves in Idaho and 75 in Montana. Those numbers were established by the state and federal wildlife officials as a modest attempt to trim the burgeoning wolf populations that are devastating wild elk herds, as well as other wild ungulates.

According to the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) only 188 wolves were taken by hunters against the statewide harvest limit of 220 wolves in 2009. In Montana, 72 wolves were taken by hunters in 2009, out of the total permitted quota of 75.

The wolf hunt, predictably, set the enviro/animal rights litigants howling, notwithstanding the fact that the wolf population in Idaho alone is at least 1,000, which is ten times the total agreed upon by the same litigants and federal and state officials in 1994 of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in each of the three states.

In an August 16, 2010 statement, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission noted:

In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves were captured in southwestern Canada, with 35 released in central Idaho and 31 released in Yellowstone National Park. By 2000, the northern Rocky Mountain wolf population had expanded to include more than 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves.

The Commission went on to report:

In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves were captured in southwestern Canada, with 35 released in central Idaho and 31 released in Yellowstone National Park. By 2000, the northern Rocky Mountain wolf population had expanded to include more than 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves.

The Commission further noted that in 2008 it had adopted a Wolf Population Management Plan "intending to manage wolf populations at the 2005 level (518 wolves), being in excess of five times the 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves required for Idaho under the federal recovery goals."

Deceit, Fraud, and Federal Felons
However, even after exceeding by five times the originally agreed-upon goal, federal and state officials, together with the powerful environmental lobby, pressed on for more. Officials now give a minimum estimate of 1,700 wolves in the three-state recovery area. But as we have previously reported, (NatGeo's "Wolf Wars" Flacks for Radical Greens and Wolves Will Thrive Despite Recent Hunts) many experts believe those statistics are suspect, and reputable wildlife biologists estimate the real wolf totals are much higher, perhaps as high as 3,000 — or more.

Even so, Defenders of Wildlife and their colleagues have upped the ante and are now saying that a wolf population of 5,000, or even 6,000 is now needed in the three-state area that they initially said would only be allowed to reach a total 300 wolves.

Critics of the ever-escalating wolf population proposals charge that government officials and green activists are colluding in a deceptive campaign of "keep-moving-the-goal-line" politics. But it is even more serious than that say others, including Jim Beers, a former USFWS wildlife biologist with more than three decades of experience in federal and state agencies. Among the many charges Mr. Beers levels against federal employees in his May, 2010 study, "Criminal Activities by Federal Bureaucrats and Others Involved in the Introduction, Protection and Spread of Wolves in the Lower 48 States,"
are these:

— theft (misappropriation, diversion) and misuse by USFWS Administrators of at least $60 Million;

— Introducing wolves from Canada into Yellowstone National Park after the U.S. Congress had refused to Appropriate funds for or to Authorize such action;

— Failure to file Wildlife Importation Forms (Form 3-177) upon importing wolves from Canada into the United States for release soon thereafter in Yellowstone National Park;

— Using tax money to bribe a witness aware of government theft of funds to keep quiet.

Survival of Elk, Other Big Game Ungulates at Stake
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) is calling for immediate congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following Judge Molloy's decision to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves. The ruling means, says the Foundation, that state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations — even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future. RMEF says Judge Molloy "has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago."

"When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles — and possibly even compromise human safety — then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws," said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO.

The decline in the Greater Yellowstone's elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone's northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279.

Other areas have been similarly devastated by wolf predation. Perhaps the worst-hit areas have been the Lolo Wildlife Management Zones 10 and 12 in the Clearwater River watershed in Idaho. Citing herd data from the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, SaveElk.com has noted that in Zone 10 the number of cow elk has declined from 7,692 in 1989 to 824 in 2010, or 89 percent. In Zone 12 the number of cows has declined from 3,059 in 1986 to 534 in 2010, or 83 percent.

Equally calamitous, in Zone 10 the number of elk calves has declined from 2,298 in 1989 to 144 in 2010, or 94 percent. In Zone 12 the number of calves has declined from 856 in 1985 to 38 in 2010, or 96 percent.

"Clearly, the elk populations have crashed in these zones," says SaveElk.com, and, clearly, "the reason for the elk population crash is not hunting."

SaveElk.com points out that all the elk taken by hunters in Zones 10 and 12 are bulls, and "that does not affect population dynamics as explained above. Furthermore, Lolo zone elk harvest [by hunters] has also declined precipitously, from over 1,500 in 1989 to less than 150 in 2008 in Zone 10 and from nearly 600 in 1992 to less than 100 in 2008 in Zone 12."

"The principal reason for the crashing elk populations," says SaveElk.com "is undoubtedly the introduction of wolves in 1995, and the subsequent explosion of the wolf population."

The statistics tell an alarming story. But to them should be added the photographic evidence of the grim slaughter of the once-populous deer and elk herds, which can be seen here, here, and here.

Photographs showing the massive size that the imported Canadian gray wolves are capable of attaining can be seen here and here, providing sobering confirmation of critics' warnings that these formidable predators are not exactly the cute, cuddly creatures their advocates claim they are; they are, instead, an alien species that has been thrust into a new ecosystem and allowed to proliferate with unnatural protection to the point that they present a serious danger to all other species of fauna, the human species included.


__________
*The members of the coalition of radical environmental groups that have challenged the wolf hunts with lawsuits in federal court include: EarthJustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, The Humane Society of the United States, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Project, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council.

Related Content:

NatGeo's "Wolf Wars" Flacks for Radical Greens

Wolves Will Thrive Despite Recent Hunts



 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (16)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Sawtooth said:

... Long on bluster, short on facts. Where to begin? At the end: * Not even the most extreme enviro calls wolves cuddly. They supported restoration of the wolf because of their predatory nature. * Check with Idaho Fish & Game about wolf size. The 188 taken by hunters last year averaged 75 pounds. * Check with wildlife agencies in the three states about elk numbers in wolf country. Some places they're down, some they're stable and others they're actually increasing. Wolves are moving elk around, that's for sure; heaven forbid a "hunter" actually have to get out of his truck to put that elk rack above the barn door. * The decline in the Lolo elk herd is due partially to wolves but mostly to habitat issues. A century after the 1910 burn, trees have matured and are crowding out elk. Again, check with Idaho Fish & Game. * The court ruling has no bearing on livestock predation. None. In fact, the states are being more aggressive about eliminating conflict animals than ever. More than 1,000 have been killed since restoration. Notice that the ranching community has been relatively quiet about the judge's ruling; it's the hunters that are up in arms. * The Northern Range herd of Yellowstone is finally where it should be: About 6,000 animals. The elk were hammering the flora there, to the detriment of the ecosystem's health. Unless you're pining for the area to be a giant elk farm, you can't possibly be upset with this. * Quoting Jim Beers? Hilarious. * The enviros weren't suing because of Idaho and Montana; they sued because of Wyoming. Only one of those you list is opposed to wolf hunting. * In pointing to the deadliness of wolves, you cite two — two! — deaths. I presume you'll be going after dogs, pickup trucks and handguns next? Didn't think so. I get it. You hate wolves. But try showing at least a modicum of journalistic integrity.

September 09, 2010

Flu-Bird said:

Stop this all Frankly those eco-freaks who want wolves introduced into parts of rural america should have a whole pack of these animals introduced into their own suburban neighborhood im sure they must think these animals are like oversized puppies becuase they have read the crap from various eco-freak groups and NATIONAL GEOGRAPHICS phonie article so why dont these ignorant flatlanders just go and welcome them to their area im sure the wolves would love it there with the pets and kids

September 09, 2010

Ridiculous, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Flu-Bird said:

Tony shut- up please Well tony spoken like a true deep ecologists so brainwashed on the crap movies like THE JOUNEY OF NATTY GANN,NEVER CRY WOLF or WHITEFANG(ALL PRODUCED BY DISNEY)im sure you think their overgrown puppies you pathetic ignorant stupid flatlander you

September 09, 2010

Bill Hahn said:

Once ran into a wolf During turkey hunting a few years, I ran into a gray wolf. I was on the ground and was hard to see because of my camo. The wolf was heading toward me after coming up from the river bottoms. When it got within about 75 yards, I took the safety off the gun and started walking toward it. It immediately saw me, put the brakes on and high-tailed it out of there. While the head was huge, the body was a bit skinny with a large tail. It was two to three times the size of a coyote. I was happy not to have to empty the gun into it. The best way to manage animals are to hunt them. A number of North American animals were taken to the brink of decimation before they were regulated through responsible hunting. Wolves should be no different.

September 09, 2010 | url

Sawtooth said:

... Agree with Tony and Bill Hahn. The article was complete crap, and fair-chase hunting is a better way to manage wolves than government sharpshooters. No need to empty your gun into a wolf, Bill; there are far greater threats out there. I spend lots of time in the Yellowstone backcountry. I never worry about wolves. Grizzlies, some. Moose, for sure. Even bison and elk can be crotchety. But never wolves. Anti-wolf wing-nuts like Flu-Bird trot out the same tired myths, over and over. But I'll give him this: It would do some of the so-called flatlanders good to have wolves; the coyote and deer problems on the East Coast would be solved quickly.

September 09, 2010

Jeff said:

Is this.... a attempt at becoming a fiction novelest?? if so you better keep your day job.

September 09, 2010

Lisa said:

Start thinking for yourselves.....this article is not Crap but the truth. I completly agree with this article. Those of you who do not need to have a gray wolf living in you back yard, having your live stock at stack, your income on the line and worse your children's safety at risk. If you want to keep the gray wolf, which is not native to this area and are much larger than the wolves from here, I will gladly introduce them to your neighborhood. I understand that since they re-introduced the wolf we are stuck with them, but we should be able to use measures to control the population and preserve other wild life they are destroying. There is such a large decline in the elk population, that soon they will be endagered. The solution, control the wolf population!! It's not rocket science, so stop pretending it is and look at all the effects they are having on our wildlife. I think those who are "tree hugers" need to get a clue and start thinking for yourselves. Learn to be FREE thinkers and stop falling into a conformed, controled thinking pattern. God gave you a brain, start using it or has that become estinct also? These are huge, dangerous animals and before anyone else gets killed, get them under control. But you "Green" freaks apparently do not care about human life, just the wolves!

September 10, 2010

Lori said:

... Only someone completely unfamiliar with the environmental and animal rights movements would use the word "radical" to describe the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, etc.

September 10, 2010

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Sus scrofa said:

Be sensible people. First, there is nothing that looks more like an animal in trouble than a jogger. I have seen world class athletes who are like gazelles. But most joggers, well see for yourself. Second, I would rather be in the wild with wildlife than in the wild with hunters around. Bullets carry very far. Third, the male wolf averages about 85 pounds. So, I guess your fear is very large. Fourth, I like how children are presented with great concern for their safety. I don't believe it to be sincere. The goal is to justify your desire to kill. Negligence is the #1 reason for the label of bad parent.

September 10, 2010 | url

Sus scrofa said:

... I would like to thank Mr Asher for the quality of his publication. Although I am a firm supporter of the wolf and wildlife, I recognize the hard work and the care taken to produce it.

September 10, 2010 | url

richard travis said:

to jasper bringing up bison heards it was man killing them just like u and all u stupid idiots out there poaching and then blaming some one or some thing else i live in michigan and we dont cry like u deal with it there hear to stay bye the way u want alittle chease with that wine

September 13, 2010

Immer Treue said:

... Your article is so poorly researched it is a sin you are a "journalist". You pander to fear. You are the type of person who would cry fire in a theater. The wolf size pictures you refer to have been identified as heavily edited/photoshopped. Your research must be supported with fact. Your work is filled with fantasy.

September 13, 2010

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

reality22 said:

Well written article.... I enjoyed the article! My cousins and I hunted the Slough Creek area north of the park for centurys, any down playing of the role of the wolf in the crash in that area is irresponsible. My cousins have a better pulse on that area then most game managers. It makes me wonder who some of the comments for this article are coming from.... I would not be surprised if they come from some of the leaders of depletors of wildlife. This year we did not go to Slough Creek & headed a different direction for a change. People like Sawtooth are turning more people against the wolf by their writings.....never the wolf, never the wolf!! When they first introduced the wolf the cousins recommended SSS. I on the other hand said they would not be that bad and game managers would never let them get out of control. I was wrong.... I see a revolt brewing ! It's people like Sawtooth that will push ordinary people over the edge! I hope Montana & Idaho revolt and send all wolf management back to the Feds..... they could clean house of the Sawtooth in the ranks at the Fish Wildlife & Parks. Gov Otter is headed in the right direction!

September 18, 2010