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.

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

A recent article published in Newsweek magazine once again raises the question.

When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. “Survival of the fittest” is still the rule, but the “fit” begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren’t the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There’s nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

The Newsweek discussion is in part the results of a study done on Ram Mountain in Alberta, Canada with big horn sheep. The study claims that over a research period of 30 years, the sheep have a 25% reduction in horn size and both male and female sheep have gotten smaller. Some, as in the author of the Newsweek piece, want to blame trophy hunting for at least a certain amount of this decline.

First of all, it should be pointed out that at the conclusion of the article, the writer states that none of the information provided can be proven.

At present, researchers’ alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove. To make scientific claims about the effects of hunting on the evolution of a species, researchers like Melnick would need thorough data from animal populations that lived at least several decades ago, which rarely exist. Evolution, it turns out, is a difficult beast to study in real time because it is the product of so many factors—changes in climate, habitat and food supply, as well as gene frequencies—and because it occurs so slowly. Researchers began tracking sheep on Ram Mountain in the early 1970s, corralling the entire population every year to make measurements and trace genealogies. “You cannot really just go out and take data and look for a trend,” says Festa-Bianchet. “Even if you find a trend it can be due to environmental changes, to changes in density. You’re really trying to tease out the genetic part of the change.”

I would guess that the writer thought the idea of blaming trophy hunting as good fodder for a story. The facts are the facts and from both ends of the spectrum we can speculate as to what evolutionary results are caused from.

I asked around a bit to see if I could muster up some information about the Ram Mountain survey area to see if this might help us better understand the study parameters. Dr. Charles Kay, Utah State University, told me the area under study is small with a lot of outside influences.

The study area, Ram Mt., is rather small and is located relatively close to Calgary. It is also accessed by a high-speed paved highway. In addition, the hunting is NOT by permit only. Instead, there is NO LIMIT on the number of hunters. Hunters are restricted to 3/4 curl or larger, THUS, the hunting pressure on this unit is extreme, unlike sheep hunting most places in the West

This information was verified by Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary, Canada. I also later confirmed that horn requirements are for a full curl.

The truth is we know far too little to make these kinds of claims and also leave too many unanswered questions. Without knowing the complete data of the study area, which includes hunting and harvest information, it is extremely difficult to draw real conclusions. However, if that particular area is over hunted, we might be able to make conclusions based on that study area but I fail to see how one can extrapolate from an isolated study that trophy hunting of game species worldwide is leaving us with species being represented by the “weak and scrawny”.

Over a year ago I spoke with Lee Kantar of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Kantar is the head deer and moose biologist for the state. I talked with him in reference to an article in a Pennsylvania newspaper that accused the lack of trophy deer in that state to archery hunters. This blame game was similar to the one presented in the Newsweek article in that archers were blamed for having first crack at the trophy deer and being notorious for taking only the larger horned animals leaving the “weak and scrawny” for the rifle hunters.

Kantar’s response dealt win many aspects that could possibly affect the species.

In the big game management world researchers have been looking more at potential consequences of trophy hunting and how it affects social hierarchies as well as the genetic structure of a particular herd. In order for real effects to take place, a significant number of older age class animals would need to be removed from the herd consistently over a number of years to start to have effects. In isolated herds with low total population numbers this could certainly be of concern and researchers have looked at some bighorn sheep populations to identify how these issues effect things.

If the big horn sheep population on Ram Mountain is shrinking and is being over hunted, there could be reason to believe the species is suffering on Ram Mountain. In short, it might be mismanaged, we just don’t know.

The theory though that hunters are taking only trophy game leaving only the weak and scrawny is a tough sell. While this may be a possibility in small pockets here and there, the idea that hunting has weakened the species isn’t very likely. For one, the number of animals taken is such a small percentage.

Kantar points out that in part of the state’s game management plans, there are several things that get considered and one of them is the percentage of hunters who they believe hunt only for “trophy” game.

But during the last 5 year increment from 2001-2005 our average annual yearling harvest was about 43%. That essentially indicates that 57% of the 2.5 year and older bucks escaped or survived for another year. IF you compare these numbers to other states it will tell you that Maine is looking pretty good as far as herd age structure and annual survival.

This is why it is important to have game management that is geared toward the healthy survival of the animal and not necessarily how many tags can be sold. To conclude that trophy hunting is weakening a species is also to say that there is widespread and extremely poor management of those game species.

There are things to ponder and questions to be asked if we are to consider trophy hunting as a cause for a weaker species. A myth that is perpetuated consistently is that hunters only take “trophy” game animals. This is understandable because most people only see on TV and in magazines stories about hunting trophy animals. After all, who wants to write or read a story about some average game animal taken by Fred and his hunting party? There are still ample “meat hunters”. Are the demographics changing? I believe they are but not to the extreme that it is affecting the game species. And even if there are more hunters only interested in trophy game, then fish and game management should adjust their plans to meet the changes.

The fact remains that only a percentage of hunters consistently pass up a smaller animal in hopes of taking a larger one. Are we even considering the vast number of alpha males that escape the intent of the hunter each year?

We must also consider the passing on of the genes of the dominant or alpha male, the one we say ensures the survival of the species. Is there a determination as to what age this so-called alpha male must be before its genes are any good to be passed on? Are these game animals being hunted before, during or after mating season? Are we ignorant enough to believe that only the biggest and strongest males get to do the mating while the eager, younger one stands by content to watch?

Some also think it is the big ole boys that are the strongest and therefore survive the most when in fact we know that often those male animals use up much of their stored fat supplies to do the mating and are susceptible to winter kill. Are we only considering the older the male the better the gene?

Perhaps a good question to be asked has to do with the theory of reduction in size of both antlers and body. If this is true, then we should probably not be seeing the continued breaking of records that come from harvesting trophy animals. If we are shrinking the species, leaving only the weak and scrawny, how do we explain the new records being broken? There is argument to be made that if hunting were removed from this equation, the size of the species would shrink even smaller, that it is the generations of hunting that has added to the viability of a species. Man is a predator and we cannot continue to attempt to exclude him from life’s equations.

And to go along with that same theory, studies are showing us that the number of hunters is decreasing, therefore the number of animals being killed should be decreasing as well, removing some of the pressure of trophy hunting. So, will this negatively or positively affect our game species?

The Newsweek article brought up the topic too that sometimes evolution makes for smaller antlered/tusked animals, perhaps even reduced body size, in order to adapt for survival.

The short of it is that claims of evolutionary changes in species cannot be made over short periods of time (30 years) and in small, uncontrolled study areas. Even though the author points out that the scientists say their theories can’t be proven, I am left wondering if the aim of the article isn’t politically motivated.

Tom Remington

Reprinted by permission from the author:

Valerius Geist, 2008. Commentary. The Danger of Wolves. Wildlife Professional Vol 2, No. 4 pp. 34-35. Winter 2008 edition.

E-mail: kendulf@shaw.ca;

February 14th 2008

Below is the original manuscript. Note the end-notes!

Who and What killed Kenton Carnegie?

Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada.

On November 1st 2007 a six-member coroner’s jury in Saskatchewan ruled that wolves killed Kenton Carnegie, a 22-year-old 3rd year honors and scholarship student in the Co-op program in Geological-Engineering at the University of Waterloo. He was killed on November 8th 2005 at Points North Landing near Wollstone Lake in northern Saskatchewan. Though he was the best-investigated human victim of wolf predation in North America in the past century , there have been other victims such as five-year-old Marc Leblond, killed Sept. 24, 1963 north of Baie-Comeau, Quebec , and more according to native people. It is they who pointed out in conversation that wolves “eat the evidence” and also disperse it, making detection and confirmation of cause of death very difficult. In addition there have been a number of attacks on people in Canada and Alaska in recent years , and more are expected as wolves become more numerous and disperse after decades of control.

Victims of wildlife tragedies in North America tend to be blamed for the event , and it was not different in Kenton’s case. It greatly upset Kenton’s family, as did the whitewash of wolves that could only mislead the judiciary and the public . They thus asked two (Correction: three!) scientists to look independently into the matter. One was Alaska biologist Mark McNay, the other was Brent Patterson of Ontario, the other was myself. At the coroners inquest only one expert witness was allowed to testify on behalf of the Carnegies and the court chose Mark McNay. His presentation was effective!

The Kenton Carnegie case is significant as it points to deficits in scholarship pertaining to wolf/human interactions, and consequently to flawed assumptions underlying wolf conservation legislation her and in Europe. As alluded to above, a sideshow to be noted in passing is an attempt to blame black bears for Kenton Carnegie’s death . However, this assertion failed to survive scrutiny by peers and by the court. Nevertheless, it was reported in important popular outlets and remains uncorrected in such, thereby still misinforming the public . There is a danger of a parallel to Farley Movat’s book “Never Cry Wolf” which was quickly exposed as erroneous by Canadian scientists, but whose informed voices were ignored by the public and the literati, which even now accepts that book on face value .

The coroner’s inquest in Saskatchewan, however, only answered the narrow question of who killed Kenton Carnegie. To this the answer is: wolves. Change the question to what killed Kenton Carnegie and the answer is: the belief that wolves are harmless and do not kill people. Yet, I must confess that I too embraced a similar view during my career and well into retirement, having been taught such even in graduate school, and reinforced by years of experience with painfully shy wilderness wolves. However, a misbehaving pack on Vancouver Island, and a review of historical matters, taught me otherwise . The myth of harmless wolves is a well-established modern dogma. It is deadly! Belief in this myth has killed at least three persons in North America alone in the last decade, two of which were bright, educated young people.

Nobody at Points North Landing noticed that the wolves involved were not merely habituating, but were targeting people as prey . Wolves do this in the very same manner as coyotes in urban parks when targeting children . Both canids explore humans very cautiously and over a protracted time period before mounting the first, exploratory attack. This two wolves had done four days prior to Kenton’s death. They attacked a bush pilot and a geophysicist outside the camp, but the two young men beat back the wolves and photographed them. While the behavior of wolves signaled at Points North Landing a disaster waiting to happen, nobody recognized it as such even after the failed wolf attack. The belief in the harmlessness of wolves was firmly entrenched.

Ironically, while coyote biologists recognized that the smaller coyote will target people as prey, wolf biologists were denying that wolves were a danger to people. A wolf biologist in the service of the Saskatchewan coroner likewise failed to recognize that wolves, habituated to camp garbage delivery, were also targeting people .

How could one uphold the view that wolves are harmless to people, despite centuries of recorded experience to the contrary in Russia , Finland , Scandinavia, Germany , India , Afghanistan , Korea , central Asia, Turkey , Iran , France or Greenland ? In the first instance, the overwhelming experience in North America is that wolves are very shy, difficult to see creatures that avoid people. The causes of such were normally not investigated, although some authors pointed to the facts that wolves were very much prosecuted and thus rare in 20th century North America, and that North Americans are usually armed and quickly eliminated troublesome wolves. Moreover, the killing of wolves in rural settings is not newsworthy, as I can attest to from personal experience . It is thus very difficult from North American accounts to decipher the conditions when wolves are dangerous to people and when they are not.

What about Eurasian wolves? Are they different, and is their behavior thus irrelevant to an understanding of North American wolves? Or are the accounts of wolf attacks on people exaggerated and untrustworthy, and the Little Red Riding Hood fairytale by the brothers Grimm based on misunderstanding, ignorance and exaggerated fears? A respected Canadian biologist, Dr. C. H. Doug Clarke, decided to investigate . He concluded that the killing of people by wolves in Europe was real, but that rabid wolves caused all the attacks. In exonerating healthy wolves, Clarke fell back on his experience with shy Canadian continental wilderness wolves, an experience much as my own and shared by others. One can trace the origin of the “harmless wolf myth” to him . And yet Clark erred! He failed to notice the distinction in behavior between attacks by rabid and by non-rabid wolves. There are differences!

Historically, the most frightening aspect of being bitten by a rabid wolf was the certain death of the victim from rabies. In modern times quick medical intervention can save the victim. Rabid wolves, so it was noted historically, attacked swiftly with great ferocity, bit multiple victims as well as livestock and non-animate objects, and aimed their bite at the face and head of the victim. Consequently, any survivor of a wolf attack could not have been bitten by a rabid wolf. Secondly, rabid wolves do not stalk, sneak or hunt, nor complete an attack, nor drag the victim away for consumption. Yet some victims were saved just in time after having been attacked, subdued and dragged away by wolves. Therefore, these were attacks by non-rabid wolves. Such occurred with sufficient frequency that a pattern of selectivity emerged: in predatory attacks, wolves targeted primarily children . Rabid wolves made no such choice . Also, adults could escape most attacks by single wolves, but never that of a pack.

The second problem is that accounts of wolf attacks are, of course, not scientific data. They are usually reports by witnesses as recorded second hand by the police, priests, doctors and county clerks. As there were few literate persons about in past centuries many attacks must not have been reported. The records are most subjective. There is suspicion that some reports, especially in newspapers, may have been padded or are somehow not trustworthy. Whether it is so is not for scientists to decide, but for historians! Records of predation on humans require the expertise of historian scholarship to locate, verify, clarify and place into perspective. What scientist can do subsequently is to winnow such reports for patterns and trends that relate to what happens to be known about wolf biology. And our modern understanding of wolf biology has been and is changing.

However, North American wolf biologists did not seek the assistance of historians. They also faced language and cultural barriers, and were prematurely enthralled by early insights based on young captive wolves. They also had an abiding respect for Clarke’s sterling authority. Consequently, they did not investigate foreign historical material systematically. Had they done so, they would hardly have concluded that the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood was based on ignorance, misunderstanding, malice or an exaggerated fear of wolves! Where wolves are de-facto protected by an unarmed populace, where the prey base is diminished and livestock is not abundant, wolves focus on humans – then as now – with frightening consequences. No sovereign would expend the high costs, accept the losses in economic activity or the meager results of wolf control in centuries past were it not for telling reasons .

To the above one must add two factors, the first being: the global impact of a very popular book by a famous Canadian author, Farley Mowat, depicting wolves as harmless, lovable mouse eaters. While Canadian biologists did not fall for this prank , the literati did and are still falling for it. Secondly, this book was most welcome to the Communist Party in Russia, which had systematically suppressed information about man-killing wolves since 1917, but especially during and after World War Two, in order to forestall the call for arms by the populace. So western environmentalists and eastern communists shouted with one voice praising the harmlessness of wolves. The Russian scientist Mikhail P. Pavlov disclosed the matter in a book on wolves after the fall of Communism . His work, upon translation into Norwegian, was denounced with furor leading to the responsible ministry destroying the translation. It was subsequently published in Swedish . An English translation lingered unpublished, as nobody wanted to touch it. It has recently been published .

The historical and current evidence indicates that one can live with wolves where such are severely limited in numbers on an ongoing basis, so that there is continually a buffer of wild prey and livestock between wolves and humans, with an ongoing removal of all wolves habituating to people. The current notion that wolves can be made to co-exist with people in settled landscapes (in multi-use landscapes surrounding houses, farms, villages and cities) is not tenable. Under such conditions wolves becoming territorial will confront people when such walk dogs or approach wolf-killed livestock. In addition even well fed habituated wolves will test people by approaching such, initially nipping at their clothing and licking exposed skin, before mounting a clumsy first attack that may leave victims alive but injured, followed by serious attacks. While a healthy man can fight off a lone wolf with some chances of success, a lone person cannot defeat a pack. And such killed Kenton Carnegie.

1 Kenton Carnegie’s death was investigated on location on November 8th and 9th 2005 by by Constable Alphonse Noey of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth, coroner at Wollaston Lake, with witness statements by Chris Van Galder, Todd Svarchpf, Mark Eikel, and Robert Dennis (Bob) Burseth, as well as forensic investigations. A second investigation on location was carried out by Kelly Crayne and Mario Gaudet, Saskatchewan Conservation Officers on November 10th 2005. The case was reviewed for the chief coroner of Saskatchewan in a confidential report by Drs. Paul C. Paquet and Ernst G. Walker, August 6th 2006. The case was reviewed for Kim and Lori Carnegie, parents of deceased Kenton, by Mark E. McNay who produced a report and testified at the coroner’s inquest. A second scientist asked to investigate the case was Valerius Geist who submitted a two-part report, but was precluded from testifying at the coroner’s hearing. (Correction: A third scientist was Brent Patterson. We three came to similar views). All these reports plus a time line of the tragedy and a critique of Paul Paquet’s position are accessible …….??????(How do we make them accessible???).

2 Gerard McNebel, Noember 18th, 1963, Winnipeg Free Press, p. 12.
3 Mark E. McNay 2002. Wolf-human interactions in Alaska and Canada: review of the case history. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(3):831-843. Mark E. McNay 2002 A case history of wolf-human encounters in Alaska and Canada. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13). J. Beatty. 2000. Vargas Island wolves too used to human contact, observer says. The Vancouver Sun, July 5th, pp. A1-2. Dan Kerslake and Dan Zakreski 2006, reported on the attack on Fred Desjarlais in Saskatchewan, CBC News Online, March 7th 2006. There was a wolf attack in Alaska on Becky Wanamaker on 7 July 2006. See Katie Pesznecker, Anchorage Daily News, July 13th, 2006. September 6th 2006 a lone wolf attacked and wounded six people, four of which were children, in a provincial park near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontariao, The Hamilton Spectator, Sept 7th 2006. Larry Pynn. 2007. Port Moody kayaker fights off starving, predatory wolf. Vancouver Sun. August 1.
4 James Gary Shelton 1998 Bear Attacks. Pogany Productions, Hagensborg, BC. Shelton makes a point of how viciously victims of predatory attacks have been pursued and maligned in Canada and the US by enumerating such in some detail.
5 pp. 29-30 of National Wildlife, February/March 2007 edition in an article entitled “Sexy Beasts”. by Paul Tolmé. Also a video produced by the National Geographic Society, whose misrepresentations upset the coroner Rosalie Tsanni-Burseth, as well as Kenton Carnegie’s parents
6 Paquet, Paul C. and Ernst G. Walker 2006. Review of Investigative Findings Relating to the Death of Kenton Carnegie At Points North, Saskatchewan. Office of Chief Coroner, Saskatchewan Justice, #920, 1801 Hamilton Street, Regina, Saskatchewan. S4P 4B4, Canada.
7 Paul Tolmé, ibid. & National Geographic. Ibid.
8 Banfield, A. W. F. 1964. Review of F. Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf. Canadian Field Naturalist. 78:52-54; Pimlott, D. H. 1966. Review of F. Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf. J. Wildlife Management. 30:236-237.
9 Geist, V. 2003. Vancouver Island wolves. The Virginia Wildlifer, June 2003, pp. 35-39.
10 Geist, V. Sept. 29th 2007 When do wolves become dangerous to humans? & statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie…(website???)
11 Baker, R. O. and R. M. Timm 1998. Management of conflict between urban coyotes and humans in southern California. Pp. 229-312 in R. O. Baker and A. c. Crabb eds. Proc. 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis
12 Paquet and Walker 2006 ibid.
13 See Will N. Graves 2007(edited by V. Geist) Wolves in Russia, Detselig, Calgary. Mikhail P. Pavlov, 1982. “The Wolf in Game Management”, 2nd edition 1990; Publisher: Agropromizdat, Moscow.
14 The historian Dr. Antti Lappalainen (opetusneuvos.lappalainen@kolumbus.fi, +35895416946) published his research findings on lethal wolf attacks on humans in Finland under the title “Suden jäljet”, The Tracks of the Wolf, ISBN 952-5118-79-7. Capstick, 1981. Maneaters, Safari Press, Ca. pp. 108-114.
15 Hans Friedrich von Flemming. 1749. Der Vollkommene Teutsche Jäger, Leipzig. P. 108. Brehms Tierleben, p. 137 in my condensed ed. 1952, Safari Verlag, Berlin. D. Müller-Using, M. Wolf and E. Klinghammer 1975 p. 203 in Grzimek’s Animal Encyclopedia, Vol. 12 Mammals III, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York.
16 Jahala and Sharma 1997 Child-lifting by wolves in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Wildlife Research 292:94-101). Jahal 2003 Status, Ecology and conservation of the Indian wolf Canis lupus pallipes Sykes J. Bombay Natural History Society 100 (2&3) Aug.- Dec. pp. 293-307). See also Rajpurohit, K. S. 1999. Child Lifting: wolves in Hazaribagh, India. AMBIO 28(2), 162-166.
17 Roy Stewart (2004) In his book about travels in Afghanistan “The Places in Between” ( p. 123, Harcourt Books). On the Internet newkerala.com Kabul 18 Feb 2005, It was reported that hungry wolves were driven by freezing cold in the mountains to invade Afghanistan’s villages and have killed and devoured four people in the last two weeks. This was reported by the official Bakhter News Agency (BNA). Heavy snowfall is driving wolves from the mountains toward villages and in addition to four people being killed by wolves 22 have been bitten in Paktia Province which borders Pakistan.
18 The Korean experience is summarized by Robert Neff in Devils in the Darkness, 2007/05/23, copyright 2007 Ohmy News. http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=362934&rel_no=1&isPrint=print
19 Also on the internet on timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers on 2/27/05 from Ankara Turkey it was reported that a ten year old boy named Onur Bahar was killed by a wolf in a field near his house on the outskirts of Talas. The wolf went for the boy’s throat and torn his left arm off.
20 An Iranian colleague reported that in rural areas of Iran villagers were disarmed and lived in great fear of wolves. Possession of weapons during the Shah’s regime was severely punished by the secret police.
21 (French) Moriceau, Jean-Marc (2007). Histoire du méchant loup : 3 000 attaques sur l’homme en France. pp. p.623. ISBN 2213628807. (added subsequently!)
22 Freuchen, P. 1935. Arctic Adventure. Farrah & Rinehart, New York. Peter Freuchen lost a companion to wolves (p. 23, pp. 329, 332) , shot a wolf stalking his children (pp. 347-348), had harrowing experiences with wolves trying to enter his cabin (pp. 16-19). His writings support an observation made to me by a long time resident and hunter in Greenland: where there are wolves, there are no people and vice versa!
23 A report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of responses by the listening public to their airing of the Kenton Carnegie case. Here is a sample of cases of Wolf/Human interactions that were never aired by the Canadian new media. http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolves/3.html CBC Sakatchewan copied July 2nd 2006.
24 The view of “harmless wolves” was first popularized in Lenin’s and Stalin’s Communist Russia apparently to justify keeping the rural population disarmed (see Pavlov 1982). It was subsequently developed independently in North America, and it is the North American version, which was transplanted later to Europe, becoming a dogma in the process.
25 In an unpublished paper entitled “The Beast of Gévaudan” Dr. Clarke concluded: “Down the long list of recorded attacks by wolves it becomes clear that the Russian baron in his troika is folklore, but the rabid wolf is grim fact. The pattern is universal. The famous wolves of medieval song and story were all rabid”. P. 26 of Russell J. Rutter and Douglas h. Pimlott 1968 The World of the Wolf. Lippincott C. New York.
26 (French) Moriceau, Jean-Marc (2007). Histoire du méchant loup : 3 000 attaques sur l’homme en France. pp. p.623. ISBN 2213628807. (added subsequently)
27 For an account of how rabid wolves act see Chapter 6, Wolf Attacks on Humans by Will Graves (2007) (edited by V. Geist) Wolves in Russia, Detselig, Calgary. Pp 87-103.
28 Hans Friedrich von Flemming in 1749. Der Vollkommene Teutsche Jäger, Leipzig.
29 Banfield 1964. ibid; Pimlot 1966 ibid. See also John Goddard 1996 A real whopper (cover story). Saturday Night, May issue Vol 111 Issue No. 4, p46, 8p, 3bw.
30 Pavlov, Mikhail P. The Wolf in Game Management;; Date of Publication: First edition 1982, 2nd edition 1990; Publisher: Agropromizdat, Moscow; Chapter 12, “The Danger of Wolves to Humans” (pp 136-169); Translated from Russian by Valentina and Leonid Baskin, and Patrick Valkenburg. Edited by wildlife biologists Patrick Valkenburg and Mark McNay. Dr. Leonid Baskin is a well-known Russian zoologist with whom I have worked and co-published in the past. Appendix A. Pavlov’s chapter in Will N. Graves 2007. ibid..
31 Elis Pålsson 2003 Vargens Näringssök och Människan. ISBN 91-631-3651-1, Älmhult.
32 See Appendix A in Graves 2007. ibid.
33 C. D. C. Linnell et al. 2002 The Fear of Wolves, Norse Institutt for Naturforskning. NINA
Oppdragsmelding 731, Trondheim, Norway.

Posted by Tom Remington

I’ve been working with the folks at KTP and Bob Adams has given me a great Internet connection speed so that I can stream audio and video from our web site. You will be able to do that by clicking this link at Skinny Moose Media broadcasting. We will make this link available at several of our websites so that you can more easily find it.

Let me first give you a bit of information about what we intend to do. The Kittery Trading Post has put together a great slate of events leading up to the actual drawing. Skinny Moose Media intends to be at KTP around 3 p.m. when the festivities begin. We will set up and stream as much audio and video of what’s going on around KTP. We will be somewhat limited in how much we can move around but we’ll do the best we can. I hope also to have a few interviews with some key and interesting people.

Once the actual drawing of names begins, I plan to set up a camera on the podium and just let the audio and video run so nobody misses their name if and when it is called. We plan to provide a link at the same page above that you can check on where we will post photos all through the night as well.

For those interested in listening and/or viewing the stream, here are some pointers. First, you must have high speed Internet access. You will only see the screen constantly trying to buffer if you don’t. Depending on your Internet service provider’s download speed, you should be able to stream constant video and audio.

Should the occasion present itself, which more than likely it will, where you get disconnected from the stream, you may have to refresh your browser page and select the “play” button to begin again.

This should be a great opportunity for those who can’t make the drive to Kittery for the event and those who don’t want to wait until the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife get the list of names posted to their website.

Below is a copy of the flyer KTP is circulating with a list of some of the events. After the flyer, you’ll find a link to the KTP website where you can find a complete list of events.

Full schedule of events from the Kittery Trading Post.

Tom Remington

As she scouted a fishing hole for walleye, Ms. Lavoie became separated from her husband. Barely 10 minutes later, Mr. Lavoie felt something was amiss and went searching for his wife of 51 years. Metres away he came upon the nightmarish scene of her body being dragged into the forest by a bear.

The bear was aggressive and only momentarily was scared away. 73-year old husband Alexandre tried to get his wife’s body out of the woods but couldn’t do it alone. He went for help and when Lavoie returned with police, the bear was back.

The Lavoies were described as being experienced and prepared for such outings.

According to her family, the attack on Ms. Lavoie happened so quickly she didn’t even have time to scream, let alone reach for the bear spray she carried with her. As accomplished hunters and campers who were born and raised in northern Canada, the Lavoies were well-versed in the recommended tools for avoiding and dealing with bear attacks.

Our deepest sympathies go out to the Lavoie family and the unbelievable experience that Mr. Lavoie had to endure through this. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family.

As an aside – as is typical in news stories like this, the usual point is made as follows from the article.

According to the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources and Fauna website, black bears are the species most commonly found in Quebec. This species rarely attacks humans and only four people have been killed by black bears in that province over the past 25 years.

“Only four people have been killed by black bears in that province over the past 25 years.” Isn’t that reason enough to change that same old talking point about bears so as to better educate people that bears do attack people and do so for unexplained reasons? Even though it sounds as though the Lavoies were experienced and were at least prepared to some degree, can we assume that changing this statement might prompt people to take a bit more serious the need to be prepared when heading into bear country?

Tom Remington

Vermont is not very far away at all. At its farthest reaches of the Northeast Kingdom, the state is separated from Maine by perhaps only 25 miles of New Hampshire. Down south, the distance between Maine and Vermont at its widest point might stretch to 85 miles.

If you look at the map I provided, I drew a straight orange line across the northern boarder of Vermont, eastward into and across Maine. Mind you this line does not follow any longitudinal boundaries but is only for comparisons of geographic regions.

The reason for this is so that you can see that Maine and Vermont are not very far apart and that the southern part of the state of Maine appears to compare somewhat geographically with the entire state of Vermont. But does it?

For those who have been following, Maine just recently made public a report from the Northern and Eastern Maine Deer Task Force, a group commissioned to study why there are so few deer in northern and eastern Maine and what can be done about it.

Unfortunately for Maine deer hunters, this past winter was a bad one. Lots of snow that came early and often, piling the white stuff in excess of 200 inches in some locals. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is rating this years winter severity as high as 14% above what would be considered normal – that would be Wildlife Management District #1.

Consequently, MDIFW Commissioner Roland “Dan” Martin announced last week that Any-Deer Permits were going to be cut drastically for the 2008 deer hunting season. Maine, like several other states, uses the issuance of doe permits or in Maine, Any-Deer Permits, as perhaps the most important tool to regulate the deer populations to meet management target goals.

In the Department’s Agency Rulemaking Proposal, Commissioner Martin outlines his recommendation that 51,125 Any Deer Permits be made available to hunters this season in 13 of the state’s 29 Wildlife Management Districts, a decrease of 15,150 permits from last year and a reduction of seven management districts that were open to Antlerless Deer Permit holders last year.

While this is all taking place in Maine, only a stone’s throw to the west is Vermont, who also in an announcement last week, said they are going to double antlerless permits because they have far too many deer in most locations. Not only are they going to double the antlerless deer permits, they are also going to up the bag limit from two to three deer. How can this be? How can Maine have such a devastating winter that is going to result in slashing antlerless permits in virtually every Wildlife Management District and yet Vermont is looking to double theirs AND up the bag limit?

I grew up in Western Maine only 10 miles from the New Hampshire boarder and about 50 miles from Vermont. I am quite familiar with a lot of the geographic differences and I can tell you that at times winters in Maine and Vermont can be quite dissimilar.

Getting back to the line I drew on the map, everything in Maine north of that orange line is like no-man’s land. Heavily forested with mostly harsh to extreme winter weather every season. It was the southern districts of Maine that I wondered how different it can be than Vermont.

I fired off an email to Lee Kantar, deer specialist and wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. I gave him a link to the story about Vermont doubling permits and asked how much different can it be between Maine and Vermont? I have great respect for Lee and all the biologists at MDIFW. They work hard and do a remarkable job considering their limitations through budgets and the pressures of politics that are always a threat to good science.

Lee admitted he wasn’t well versed on Vermont’s deer management programs but did share some thoughts on the differences in geography.

Vermont does have a substantially different geography. They are about 75% forested and 25% of the land base is in agricultural – that is 1.5 million of 6 million+ acres. Maine with all its land has about 1.25 million ag acres and a lot more forest. That in general is a much different dynamic for Vermont’s deer. The Green Mountains run up the spine of the state and is national forest land, that in combination with their Act 250 law provides additional protections to their deer wintering areas that we do not have. They also have an overall milder climate.

Act 250, or the Land Use and Development Act, was created to better manage land use and growth in Vermont. One key aspect of Act 250 says, “provides habitat for breeding, feeding, resting, and shelter to both game and nongame species of wildlife.” This is also expanded out to say that you can’t put development into deer wintering yards.

Kantar shared a bit of information he received from some folks in Vermont about their winter.

It’s amazing how variable winter has been across the northeast. We’ve had a good bit of snow but also had major thaws in Dec., Jan., Feb., and March. Unless we have some late winter storms with deep snow persisting into April, we’ll be seeing our 4th generally mild winter in a row, excepting a few local lake-effect areas.

He says that Maine’s winter will no doubt go down in the history books as being in the top five in regards to wildlife mortality.

Kantar says that in Maine, each year they begin the process of trying to determine what has happened from the end of deer hunting season until now, to see what this is going to spell out for the deer herd statewide. They look at each Wildlife Management District separately through an entire host of available data.

When we start the management decision process for our any deer permitting it begins with a look at how each district has faired over the last 7 years, where our population is in respect to district goals and what does the balance of mortality and recruitment look like for each district. Has mortality and recruitment patterns changed over the last year?

This is a good time to point out that even though Commissioner Martin has announced plans to reduce Any-Deer Permits for next season, the projected cuts are very much subject to change. Many people don’t realize that parts of Maine are in a very critical time for deer to be able to survive the winter. A long, prolonged winter season, delaying green up and weather that is difficult on fawns that will be born, will determine how many fawns live and also the nearly starved deer, whether they will pull through or not.

Maine has 28 winter severity monitoring systems. With this data and data collected over the past years, biologists will calculate out a winter mortality rate, all based on historic and current events collected in their data. Kantar points out the winter severity will vary all across the state. For those of us who live or have lived there, we know that weather in Fort Kent can certainly be completely different in Dover-Foxcroft, Eastport or Bridgton.

Once a mortality rate for this year has been calculated, it is compared with the 15-year mean.

This means how does this year compare with the average winter. Is mortality above and beyond “normal”? In the 07-08 preliminary analysis we see that winter severity and therefore mortality was above normal across the state. In WMD 24 along the coast it was as little as 2% above the norm, while in WMD 1 it was estimated at 14% above the norm.

From here biologists must then figure out how to make adjustments to the allotment of Any-Deer Permits to compensate for calculated losses in order to stay within the management plan for each WMD. Obviously, the higher the winter mortality, the greater the compensation – meaning fewer Any-Deer Permits issued. These of course will vary WMD to WMD depending on whether each district’s plan is seeking to reduce, maintain or increase deer numbers.

If this sounds complicated, it’s not. This is the simplified version of deer management and the utilization of the Winter Severity Index calculations. Deer management is complicated, using factors some of us have never heard of, say nothing about understand.

Mr. Kantar answered my questions in a more than satisfactory manner but I still had a couple more questions that I wanted to get answers for that also pertain to deer management and directly to the severe winters. He promised to get back to me but here is what I wanted to know.

I wanted to know how the management of predators, namely black bears and coyotes, are figured into deer mortality rates and the winter severity index. This is not something that can be easily answered. Hunters all across Maine are fed up with coyotes killing off the deer. Many, myself included, believe there are far too many coyotes in Maine and would like to see something done.

What I would like to know and pass on to readers is how biologists monitor coyote and black bear populations and the role they play in the winter mortality rate we’ve just been talking about.

The second question concerns how to explain to hunters about buck to doe ratios so that it is understood? I’ve written about this before but mostly I feel as though it is falling on deaf ears and those that refuse to believe that buck to doe ratios don’t become 1 buck in 100 does.

Kantar promised to take two Tylenol and call me in the morning.

Tom Remington

In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection.

Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.

What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that’s not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.

They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear –every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.

It is quite shameful I think, that we have resorted to thinking of extreme “what ifs”. Most people, at least those who have even heard that there is a push by environmentalists to list the polar bear, think it a simple act to ensure that the bear doesn’t get wiped out because of climate change. That’s not the case but more on that later.

When species are presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection, essentially what must be proven is that a species must be “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” What would set this ruling apart from others is that it would be based on something that hasn’t happened, on computer models that are being questioned by science as reliable and on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide is melting the ice globally. This has never been done before.

If Hewitt is correct in his analysis, which by the way he supports by sharing information stating such from the Center for Biological Diversity’s website, that having the polar bear protected would have sweeping affects on our economy, we have to ask ourselves how far could this “regulation” go?

As hunters and fishermen, shouldn’t we at the least be nervous that if the theory of global warming, caused by man, is used to protect the polar bear, what else can it be used to protect? The polar bear isn’t anywhere near in danger to “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” and if this ruling were to happen, then feasibly other game species could become protected, essentially putting the hunting and fishing industry out of business.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has made public a paper, written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour, that explains in great detail what is likely to happen should our federal government cave in to the pressures from the environmentalists and list the polar bear. They give six reasons why listing the polar bear is a bad idea.

* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.

* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.

* The anthropogenic global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.

* Listing the polar bear as threatened because of estimated future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.

* Listing the polar bear based on projected anthropogenic global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.

* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.

Knight and Ridenour point out that Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut’s Department of the Environment, says there’s no need to panic about polar bears.

Climate change is having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.

It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story.

If the environmentalists can convince the feds that global warming is threatening the polar bear and they choose to list it, then we can only conclude that our government believes the same and this precedent could set off a domino effect on countless other game animals with no end in sight. Knight and Ridenour don’t really believe the environmentalists are that concerned about the bear and are more interested in their carbon emissions agenda.

What environmental groups have been unsuccessful in accomplishing through the front door, they appear to be hoping to usher in through the back – namely, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions similar to those mandated in the U.N.’s Kyoto global warming treaty, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.

Once any animal is protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Act itself opens the door to lawsuits in which the courts have little choice but to administer the Act as it is written and interpreted. Knight and Ridenour point out the fact that the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “take” can be expanded beyond belief.

This definition gives regulators wide latitude in deciding which actions can be deemed “harmful” to a listed species or its habitat. It also provides ample fodder for environmentalist lawsuits to prevent certain public or private activities. Thus, in the opinion of federal regulators, should anthropogenic global warming be deemed harmful to the polar bear or its habitat under the ESA, the mere act of emitting greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, could be heavily regulated, or in some instances, outlawed entirely.

As I stated before, the entire premise of the environmentalists to get the polar bear protected is based on the theory of global warming. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming our planet is shaky at best, although those who have signed on to the theory refuse to take a look at the real science that disputes climate change as man made.

In the same radio broadcast on Thursday I spoke of earlier, an article I shared with listeners told of new data from new state of the art equipment showing that computer models that are predicting global warming are wrong and need to be reworked. With new information being learned daily about our complex weather patterns, isn’t it irresponsible to threaten our own economy based on a theory?

Few people also realize that if the U.S. lists the polar bear as threatened, it will only stop U.S. hunters from traveling to Canada and hunting the bear. Those numbers will be replaced by hunters from other countries and more than likely the amount of money being spent to hunt the bear will be significantly reduced. Much of that money is used for polar bear conservation. Safari Club International tells it this way.

Listing would undermine conservation by curtailing the involvement of U.S. hunters in Canadian sport hunting of the polar bear, disrupting an important source of funds to support polar bear management and conservation. Since the ESA listing would not stop polar bear hunting, but merely the ability of U.S. citizens to import polar bears, the listing would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing the number of polar bears taken. Instead, native subsistence hunters and/or sport-hunters from countries other than the U.S., who will likely pay much less for the polar bear hunt than U.S. citizens, will fill the market. The result of listing likely will be continued take at current levels, with less revenue for polar bear management and conservation. The $1,000 per import permit for research and conservation also would be lost.

How far do you think the environmentalists will go? How far do you think the government will go? What kind of affects would listing the polar bear based on the theory of global warming have in administering its management under the Endangered Species Act?

I encourage you to read the entire article written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour. It has tons more information and resources for you than I could possibly get into this column. Nobody wants to see the polar bear disappear. The population has doubled in recent years since hunting of the bear became regulated. There is presently ample treaties and agreements in place that have proven they will protect the polar bear. We don’t need to list the bear based on a theory. Not only is it unnecessary but it would be extremely costly.

There is one more thing you need to do. You need to go to this link to the National Center for Public Policy Research website and view the parody video ad they have put together about the polar bear. It’s light, entertaining and worth seeing polar bears dressed in formal attire.

Tom Remington

Those are the words spoken by Lee Kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife deer biologist when referring to the current winter that has gripped the state of Maine and buried it under record breaking snow falls in some areas and near records in others.

Biologists have been closely monitoring 28 check stations across the state collecting data in order to formulate a “Winter Severity Index”. This is used to help determine estimates of deer mortality as the result of weather. Kantar says this winter is on track to becoming the most severe, in terms of killing deer, in 57 years.

Deer yard up, or congregate in groups in areas of habitat that offers protection from the elements. Food is scarce anyway during winter and deer depend on stored fat supplies to survive. That longer and harsher winter is, the more deer will die from a combination of starvation and the demands Mother Nature places on the deer to use their energy to stay warm and move about in the deep snows.

The kind of snow pack plays an important role as well. Snow depths may be severe but if it packs hard, it helps deer to be able to move around, browse for food and avoid predation. Often deer are relegated to only a small number of trails made by the deer herd.

Biologists are hoping that this ongoing winter, where some areas of northern Maine have witnessed snows of over 170 inches, will break soon.

“The longer that winter stays, and the later it takes for spring to arrive and green up, the harder it will be for deer to hang on,” Kantar said. “Fawns are vey susceptible this time of year because they have not had time in their young lives to maximize body condition and size. They are still growing so they do not have the benefit of putting on much fat for the winter. It will be a brutal year for them.”

MDIFW biologists use the issuance of “Any-Deer Permits” as an extremely important tool in managing statewide deer herd numbers. In short, if deer numbers drop, so do the number of permits issued. On the flip side, if the state determines that certain Wildlife Management Districts have too many deer, more permits are issued. Officials at MDIFW will be meeting soon to been the process of pouring over the data so as to determine the number of permits to be issued for each WMD.

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

The MDIFW also released almost completed deer harvest numbers for 2007. 28,884 deer were taken, which is lower than expected numbers but still slightly above the yearly average. Here is a list of harvest numbers for the past 10 years.

2007 – 28,884;
2006 – 29,918;
2005 – 28,148;
2004 – 30,926;
2003 – 30,313;
2002 — 38,153;
2001 — 27,769;
2000 – 36,885;
1999 – 31,473;
1998 – 28,241.

Tom Remington