Dear Colleague;

Reading this popularization of wolf/elk tripe all dressed up as "science"
suggests what it must have been like to read German Socialist propaganda in
the early to mid 1930's about the role of Jews, Gypsies and Slavic people in
preventing Teutonic domination of everyone else.  I say this not to be
dramatic or hyperbolic but to put into perspective the superabundance of
such turgid geysers of prose that we have been exposed to constantly for 20
years now.

If Goebbels et al could convince everyday Germans that if the government
eliminated "inferiors", remaining Germans could be bred like cattle and
dominate the world; how much easier must it be to convince 21st century,
urban Americans that putting wolves (and bears and cougars and
"free-roaming" buffalo) throughout rural America is good and not at all
dangerous or harmful in a "restored ecosystem" performing "naturally?"

You ask what I "think of this article?"  Like so many I have read over the
years, I see a writer making a living from writing "about nature" and in
this controversial matter, "covering both sides".  I quote, "the herd in one
drainage may not act like the herd in the next" (oh, thank you for that
gem.) "Habitat, land management, snow depth, elk numbers, and the ratio of
prey to predators were all in play and those factors were as varied as the
temperatures from night to day."  (A colorful description of the obvious, to
say the least.)  "Has harassment from predators reduced production in elk
herds?"  OOOH, I'll bet she was told these things are so complex that we
need "more" research and "more" government "support.

I see University professors busy grinding out worthless but "fascinating"
observations such as "poor nutrition plays a huge role in the ability for
elk to get pregnant" and "poor nutrition can delay sexual maturity in elk
herds."     The there is the telling remark indicating the agenda: "Lots of
wolves do not mean the decimation of elk."  These axe-grinding (i.e. wolf
protectors at any cost just like those anti-"untermenschen" German
propagandists) go on to tell us that they "argue that there was no
correlation between numbers of wolves and pregnancy rates as pregnancy rates
were at their maximum. Wolves did, however, affect elk calf recruitment
rates, which was to be expected, since wolves kill calves."  For those
uneducated out there, this glaringly obvious point means that since wolves
kill elk calves we should not be surprised if that affects the number of elk
young replacing old and dead elk each year."  Not to worry though because
the same "researcher" tells us later that, "they studied the kill rates of
different packs in different areas and came up with the conclusion that,
while wolves did have effects on elk populations in some areas, they have
little to no effect in others."  To think, people not only read and believe
this nonsense, these "scientists" actually make a living grinding it out!

Then there is all the "look-over-there-behind-that -tree" observations from
students and researchers in search of employment and grants.  We have,
"While wolves can and do have an impact on elk populations in specific
areas, bears seem to be the bigger issue."  "McWhirter speculates there is
some sort of short-term energy required by elk to be bred back the next
year, kind of like a runner carbo-loading before a race."  "Middleton
suspects there is some sort of mismatch between the greenup period and the
time elk most need nutritious food."  "A lack of food and/or food that has
low nutritional value equals a lack of body fat in female ungulates, and a
lack of fat means females don't conceive at the same rates as females that
are on high quality forage. In the mountains, the time to gain that body fat
is during the summer green-up period."  "July temperatures in the upper
Lamar valley had increased by eight degrees Fahrenheit over the past
twenty-one years. Extreme drought and reduction in precipitation and snow
pack only compounded the issue."

All of the foregoing is merely purposeful and self-interest distractions.
Note how the USFWS is mentioned as a cooperator but how they are only
shadows in the background cited only for an old study by "Fish and Wildlife,
U.S. Geological Survey, and Yellowstone National Park researchers that found
that sixty-nine percent of calves on the north ranges of the park (i.e.
Yellowstone) died within their first year."  This conveniently fails to
identify predation, much less predation by those sacred grizzlies and wolves
that USFWS is forcing everywhere.  Also, the study isn't "really" a USFWS
study but a USFWS/USGS/NPS study that everyone and no one is really
responsible for.  That is strange, is it not, since USFWS is THE federal
management authority for all the Lower 48 wolves and have been locked in a
court fight with Wyoming over this matter and the future of wolves in
Wyoming for more than a decade now?

The only sensible guys in the article are the Wyoming Game and Fish and, not
to take anything away from them personally - like Alaska F&G and recently
Idaho F&G - outspoken and firm oversight by Wyoming residents AND State
officials from the Governor on down tends to concentrate the mind and
behavior of state employees marvelously.

So, with all these "meaningless?" comments on what I have just read, let me
comment on the "data".

-   Climate change and diet have varied historically and will continue
to do so even after the passing of Al Gore and East Anglia University.  It
has not caused the recent drop in elk numbers any more than the recent
decline in Minnesota moose (according to U of M researchers, the Minnesota
DNR, and the Minneapolis paper) in the midst of a similar wolf population
explosion is the result of "climate change".

-   Elk cows' pregnancy rate declines are very likely due to the
constant harassment of wolves, a fact conveniently unmentioned.  Let me make
a biological observation that will send the University types into a tizzy.
Go to one of the modern Universities and observe top female athletes.  As
they train hard and perform great exertions - they become lean, have less
frequent menstruations (fewer eggs drop), their breasts get smaller, and
though they may "breed" they very likely get pregnant less often.  Even if
elk  food was "less available" or if climate change was "browning" food
earlier or if elk were avoiding good elk food/wolf areas (why are the wolves
in the good food areas for elk?  Duh.) the constant harassment of elk cows
by wolves creating both physical and mental stress on cows is undoubtedly
causing the cows to get pregnant less frequently despite the no doubt
Herculean efforts of the remaining bulls.

-   Observing that bears (both the ubiquitous black bears AND the
federally PROTECTED grizzly bears) are killing elk calves is simply a red
herring to prolong delaying any actions against wolves.  What should be done
about it (predation by wolves especially) is the question.  The perpetual
answer of the past 3 or 4 decades is to throw another virgin or two into a
volcano and be content with whatever results.  As Minnesota moose, Idaho
moose and elk, Wisconsin deer, and Montana elk are similarly disappearing as
wolves increase; the issue is neither local nor a matter only for hunters.

The University types and the USFWS are simply shills for the
environmental/animal rights organizations that get them money and authority
over others and rural America in particular.  If there were more state
governments and government employees like we see here in Wyoming I could
spend more time outdoors in my twilight years.  This paper is merely one of
a long string of soothing "science fictions" meant to be music to lull the
public to sleep while government implements evil things until it is too late
to stop them.  Like Wagnerian operatic songs of Teutonic greatness, these
"don't worry, the coming Native Ecosystem will be good for all of us"
articles are intended to tell us "don't pay any attention to all those
ignorant whiners and send your kids to our schools so they will benefit the
most in this new world we are building."

The American experiment over 200 years ago conceived and implemented a
marvelous benefit for all Americans, to wit the management and use of all
fish and wildlife for the enjoyment and use of all citizens.  Hunting,
fishing, and trapping were not available to the "common Man" previously,
much less was the government (or the King or whoever ran things) ever before
concerned about managing wildlife for the use and enjoyment of ALL citizens.
For a century now, Americans have studied and better understood how to
manage wildlife to benefit all citizens (hunters, fishermen, trappers,
birdwatchers, bird feeders, state agencies, furriers, outfitters, farmers,
ranchers, and especially rural residents of all stripes as well as the rural
economy.) 

Today, as this article tells us, elk hunting and all its many human benefits
is slated by the federal government to be gradually eliminated.  As the one
honest guy in the article (a Wyoming Game & Fish biologist) says, "The
productivity of the herd is so low it can't sustain the hunting pressure it
once did," "We haven't lost elk numbers. What we have lost is hunting
opportunity."  The wolves and the grizzly are merely weapons meant to:

-   Further eliminate hunting,

-   Make gun users (and therefore 2nd Amendment defenders) more scarce,

-   Force more and more ranchers and cattle (like loggers) off public
lands,

-   Justify closing off more and more "public" land,

-   Justify less and less resource management of public lands as these
"Mother Nature" and "Balance of Nature" imaginings are forced into place,

-   Make rural safety a growing issue for rural residents and rural
communities thereby driving down land prices for the benefit of the rich,
government agencies and their cooperators like TNC et al.

-   Mesh with other cockamamie schemes like "The Wildlands Project",
"Yucatan to Yukon", "Free-Roaming Buffalo", "Native Ecosystems" and
ultimately a rural America either owned or eased by government and
organizations with agendas hostile to private property, an independent
citizenry, and the Christian belief in the special nature of mankind,

-   Establishing legal precedents that authorize the federal government
to use any animal at any time to force state governments, local communities,
and individuals to do what it wants.

Hunters et al simply want to maintain and enjoy their rights, freedoms,
liberties, culture and traditions.  They were always happy that
birdwatchers, families on vacation, school groups, etc.  used the lands
hunters bought and maintained for hunting.  Hunters, just like fishermen and
trappers, always had the biggest stake in maintaining abundant wildlife year
after year.  The same can be said of loggers  regarding trees and of
ranchers regarding the use and management of forage.  Yet, all of these are
under attack on both public and private lands by this unholy alliance of
federal agencies and federal politicians enabling the evil agendas of the
environmental and animal rights extremists that ultimately want to destroy
this great nation and rule whatever is left.  I say "EVIL" as I remember
what a former female colleague told me years ago after attending a meeting
with these environmental extremists and animal rights' radicals and the
female Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  This applies to
everyone reading this as it did to me "Be very careful, they really hate you
and they are truly evil people."

Your final question, "how can they keep accurate counts and designate
certain areas as "high" and "low" wolf populated areas?" is a good one.  The
answer is that they can't.

Wolves locally can be estimated by their presence, sightings, and impacts
like dead and injured livestock, dogs, and wildlife.  They can be noticed
more when they hang around bus stops or shadow kids as this gets people's
attention.  They can be said to be "numerous" or "up" or "down" based on
sightings by aerial elk counters or wolf counters covering areas they cover
annually. Wolves can move long distances (individuals can cover 100's of
miles) and they move in packs at certain times of the year and break up into
small groups or individuals at other times.  They get hungry in the winter
when they have to burn a lot of calories and they look for more food when
they have pups in a den.  It is not impossible that you count wolves you saw
yesterday or the day before when counting just 20 or 30 miles away.

What they cannot be said to be is some "statewide number" or some absolute
number over some area larger than say a County or some large basin today.
Wolves do not move consistently or over the same trails.  They do not gather
in the same places year after year.  They learn quickly and avoiding
airplanes or riders is not really all that difficult so large counts lack
consistency.  Any large-scale (area-wise) count is unreliable as are any
year-to-year comparisons of wolf numbers because of the large areas they
roam and the impossibility of affording large-scale counting year after year
in a short period to avoid over-counts or under-counts.  Unfortunately,
these large-scale "counts" are how they are used in courts and in crooked
state agency reports and by federal experts to drive the whole wolf
replacing rural Americans program like China's Chinese replacing Tibetans
program.

Ninety-some percent (except for Northern Minnesota) of all the wolves in the
Lower 48 are in totally new territory.  The wildlife, dogs, and livestock
are just beginning to learn to try and live around wolves just as the wolves
are learning to live and eat in this Cornucopia of wolf food called the
Lower 48.  Under "Native Ecosystem" conditions wolves came and went with
buffalo and elk and moose et al.  Under "European Settlement" wolves had to
shift from their "Native Cuisine" to cattle, sheep, dogs, foals, kids, and
lone unarmed men and women (See everyone from John James Audubon to early
newspaper accounts for lots of such incidents and consider all those
unfortunates that simply "disappeared" assumedly killed by Indians or
robbers or snake, etc.)  For 150 to 200 years American settlers clearly
understood that wolves were not compatible with civilization as their
Fathers discovered in places where they exterminated wolves like Ireland,
Scotland, England, Germany, etc.  Americans exterminated wolves to allow
livestock husbandry to prosper, to try and keep wildlife abundant, and most
importantly to secure safety and "domestic Tranquility" for themselves,
their families, and their communities.  As these wolves exhaust all the
fawns and calves and pregnant cows, they will spread and eventually be
forced to kill and eat other things just as their predecessors did 100 to
200 years ago.  Will man abandon rural America as planned or will rural
Americans do as their forbearers did?  Time will tell.

As you read this article, understand that this tripe is written by people
that think animals are as important as and even more important than humans,
their families, their economies, and their pursuits.  If they really meant
to understand what wolves are doing to elk, why not kill all (or as many as
you can) wolves, black bears, and grizzly bears in the area of these elk
herds for a decade or so and see what happens despite too-few carbs or
weather that isn't exactly what it was last year?  All of us know what would
happen.  The ONLY question then would be how many elk do we want year-around
based on food and local desires and how many wolves, black bears, and
grizzlies (or maybe none of one or two of those) do we want to share the
annual harvest of elk with?

That is not "old-fashioned" thinking.  That is realistic policies based on
reality and experience.  That is the "American Way" based on local autonomy
protected by a responsive state government that is nurtured and protected by
a federal government limited to national defense and nurturing fair and
productive interstate commerce.  This current process of radicals using the
federal government as a hammer to destroy rural America is no different than
radical tyrants and their followers in Moscow or Berlin or Peking subduing
the rest of the country and forcing them to live as the rulers want, for the
rulers benefit.

"There he goes again, ask him the time and he'll tell you how to build a
watch."

Jim Beers
21 March 2011