Wolves In Oregon

[theorren]

Here's a "new" article trying to calm people down about the wolves. They had the same article yesterday, but reposted it today...hmmm

<broken link removed>

 

[coyote223]

Another interesting read/perspective, stolen from another site.

they are antis many of us know this
below is an interesting article and a link to the site
How Legal Was The Introduction Of Canadian Wolves Into The Northern Rockies? | www.allamericanpatriot.com

How Legal Was The Introduction Of Canadian Wolves Into The Northern Rockies?


* Featured Stories

By Toby Bridges | LOBO WATCH

Stephen King would be hard pressed to come up with a blockbuster novel that is more suspenseful than the hate, fear and distrust that plagues the Western Wolf Recovery Project. One thing is for certain, if this story is ever written, based on truth, it will be filled with lies, deceit, secrecy, collusion, theft, threats, massive killings, human endangerment and government failure - all with a touch of international flavor. And that plot thickened on May 16, 2010, in Bozeman, MT, when former Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations, Jim Beers, spoke to a crowd of about 300 on the topic of the “Criminal Activities Associated With The Introduction, Protection, And Spread Of Wolves In The Lower 48 States”.
Beers, a 32 year veteran of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, went to work with that agency in 1969, as a wildlife biologist banding waterfowl in Minnesota. Through the years, he also served as a special agent, worked the Port of Entry in New York City to curtail the traffic of threatened and endangered wildlife (and the products made from those animals), and eventually worked his way up to Chief of Operations for the National Wildlife Refuge System. During the mid 1990s, he began working with the distribution of the excise taxes collected on firearms, ammunition and fishing tackle back to state wildlife agencies, under the Pittman-Robertson Act. Those funds are to be used exclusively for bankrolling state wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement, to insure hunting and fishing opportunities for sportsmen. And the amount collected annually totals into the hundreds of millions of dollars. (For 2009, the amount distributed back to state wildlife agencies amounted to more than $700-million.)

In his presentation to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon sportsmen, guides & outfitters, media and politicians, Jim Beers shared how he worked his way up through the ranks. And while working with the Pittman-Robertson funds, he was also appointed to work with U.S. Trade Representative groups and the State Department to address a European Union ban on furs taken with leg hold traps in the U.S. and Russia.

Beers has always considered himself a wildlife manager, holding a Bachelors Degree in Wildlife Resources. He sees the use of leg hold traps as an effective tool for managing furbearers, such as raccoons, foxes, coyotes and mink. And made an all out effort to get the European ban removed from U.S. furs. And thanks largely to his efforts, it was.

He says that he was fully aware of USFWS regularly meeting with “environmental” and “animal rights” groups in secrecy, and entering into under the table agreements with them. After the defeat of the efforts to outlaw the use of leg hold traps in the U.S., he noticed a very different attitude toward him. Beers feels that the outcome was not what USFWS may have agreed to with groups pushing for the elimination of leg hold traps in this country.

Later in the 1990s, while working with the distribution of sportsmen provided excise taxes, he began to question why the amount of Pittman-Robertson funds being distributed to state wildlife agencies had failed to increase over a several year period. This was during the Clinton administration, and a fear that the administration would make it increasingly difficult to buy firearms and ammunition resulted in frenzy buying and stockpiling. With such record sales, Beers rationalized that there should be a parallel increase in the amount of excise taxes collected - but he was not seeing that trend in the amount he had to distribute. His probing of this issue must have hit a nerve or two with upper USFWS management, and he suddenly found himself put on administrative leave, and told to “Go Fishing...With Pay!”

ABOVE: This lung came from an elk in the Sapphire Range in the Bitterroot Valley. After
consulting with the lab in Bozeman the cysts were identified as being Hydatid Cysts.
Photo by Duane Grey Spethman

TOP PHOTO: Robert T. Fanning holds the County Bounty record book. The book has the records of all the bounty brought in from 1895 thru 1945. Which was only 200 wolves in that time period. At that time the county consisted of Livingston,Gallatin, Ringling, Springdale and North to Yellowstone park over by Gardiner. A very large area with very few wolves.

He was also threatened, and told not to discuss the issue with anyone, or he could lose his job and health benefits. However, while Beers was not officially “on the job”, co-workers handling the distribution of Pittman-Robertson monies often asked him to take a look at this or that, and for advice. While stepping into the office to “visit” on one opportunity, one of those co-workers asked him to look over a massive print out of the expenditures made with Pittman-Robertson funds, and Jim was surprised to find numerous uses of the taxes collected to fund non-hunting and non-fishing related projects. Those discrepancies included funding for wildlife management lands used for the building of a prison, to fund park improvements, and for purchasing USFWS vehicles. None of which qualify for funding under the Pittman-Robertson Act.

So, what does all of this have to do with wolves? Read on.

Beers blew the whistle on the misappropriation of monies that were supposed to be used exclusively for wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement. And Congress launched an official inquiry.

What they discovered was that USFWS had embezzled as much as $60- to $70-million from the excise taxes collected on sportsman purchases of guns, ammo and fishing tackle. According to Beers, when USFWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark was questioned about the unauthorized use of these monies, her comment was something to the effect of, “I was told the money was to be used where I felt it was needed.”

So, where did USFWS use “your” tax dollars...the money that was supposed to be for funding projects that insure the health of the wildlife and fish resources sportsmen have worked so hard to build? According to Jim Beers, one use was to fund the introduction of those Canadian wolves into the Northern Rockies. That’s right, they used “your” money to fund dumping wolves into one of the richest wildlife areas of North America - unleashing the wildlife equivalent of cancer to destroy the past hundred years of sound wildlife conservation efforts (at the cost of hundreds of millions of sportsman dollars). And those wolves are now at out-of-control numbers, and they are dealing a death blow to elk, moose, deer and other big game populations in many areas of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

Beers says another use of “your” excise tax dollars was to construct a new Regional USFWS Office in California.

Congress had already turned down funding for both these projects - so USFWS took it upon themselves to dip deeply into Pittman-Robertson funds to finance these projects...without any authorization whatsoever. And if these two misappropriations of funds is not enough of a slap in the face to the sportsmen who provided those monies, USFWS also used “your” money to establish a “slush fund” to provide bonuses for Director Clark, division chiefs, and managers at federal and regional levels. And they rewarded themselves well. Those who had excelled at their jobs generally received $25,000 to $30,000. But even those who only mustered a mediocre rating in how they performed their responsibilities usually received a bonus of around $5,000. What the heck, it was free money...so why not?

(I followed all of this back in the late 1990s, and I remember that some of the Pittman-Robertson monies that were wrongfully taken from hunters and fishermen were even used to reimburse USFWS employees for relocation expenses. T.B.)

So, what did Jim Beers receive for being so honest and forthright? How about a forced retirement, and once again the threat of losing benefits if he kept the spotlight on this issue. In fact, he was offered a payoff to keep quiet about it for three years. He took the money. Still, he kept researching elements of the Wolf Recovery Project that were handled improperly. Following are some issues which he says are in violation of the law:

*Unauthorized taking of Pittman-Robertson funds to finance projects (and bonuses) that did not qualify.

*That Wolf Recovery Project coordinator Ed Bangs failed to file an appropriate and accurate Environmental Impact Statement. Beers says Bangs purposely ignored all established wolf science and research, dismissing known wolf depredation impact to wildlife & livestock, and he ignored the dangers of the parasites and diseases carried which are a threat to other wildlife, livestock, pets and to humans (Beers claims that wolves carry 30 known parasites & diseases - most of which are a danger to humans). He says Ed Bangs ignored published historic record of wolf impact and health/safety issues.

*Ed Bangs failed to file Form 3-177, which is required for importation of any wildlife or fish species, including wolves. The form requires declaration of the number being brought into the country, and the species/subspecies being brought into the country. Beers says there is no record of the mandatory form ever being filed.

 

[eriknemily]

Here's a "new" article trying to calm people down about the wolves. They had the same article yesterday, but reposted it today...hmmm

<broken link removed>

Makes them sound like cuddly little stuffed animals that are misunderstood. The truth must be in between this kind of report and what is being told on the website linked in one of the previous posts.

What I don't understand is why this biologist, Morgan, doesn't see a problem with wolves that kill their prey but don't kill them for sustenance/food. If it can be proven that it was a wolf that killed an animal via multiple bites that caused the animal to bleed to death internally then isn't that cause for concern? That would appear to be pleasure killing rather than actually hunting. Am I wrong?

 

[CEF1959]

That would appear to be pleasure killing rather than actually hunting. Am I wrong?

You mean like trophy killing by humans? Or shooting sage rats? Or killing wolves?

Sorry, I might be presuming something that's not true: What's wolf meat taste like? Get you through the winter OK? Folks eating sage-rat pie for Christmas? I mean, NO HUMAN hunts for sport, right? No one. Absolutely no one. Of if they do, they're scum, right?

P.S. Unlike humans, wolves sometimes get chased off a kill, leaving a delicious meal sadly in the bush.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Wolves kill frequently when they are teaching their young to hunt. They can't always, or at least don't necessarily eat the kill when they are doing this.
Is it for "sport"? No, at least that is what biologists tell us.
There are other species in nature that kill for other reasons than food also. Chimps for instance have been known to kill for no apparent reason. Who knows, maybe the wolves are killing for sport and the biologists are full of it.

Maybe the wolf lovers among us should head out and confront a pack or two and demand an answer!

Me personally? I'd kill a wolf for reasons other than food. The pelt would be cool to have, and I'd be saving a number of wild ungulates and untold number of heads of livestock. Both of which I have been known to eat.

Sounds like a win-win to me!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

We have to remember that wolf introduction is a tool of the antis for ending hunting. As the herds decline, Game depts reduce hunter harvest.

Not just to end hunting, but to end ranching as well. They are just as much anti-meat eating as they are anti-hunting.

 

[theorren]

You mean like trophy killing by humans? Or shooting sage rats? Or killing wolves?

Sorry, I might be presuming something that's not true: What's wolf meat taste like? Get you through the winter OK? Folks eating sage-rat pie for Christmas? I mean, NO HUMAN hunts for sport, right? No one. Absolutely no one. Of if they do, they're scum, right?

P.S. Unlike humans, wolves sometimes get chased off a kill, leaving a delicious meal sadly in the bush.

Sorry CEF, that is an invalid argument and you know it. The difference is that humans can communicate and reason. You can't compare the 2, they are not even close.

Are wolves absolute vilians? No, they do what is in their nature to do, hunt, kill, eat, hump, rinse repeat and switch order. We both know that wolves do infact kill sometimes for what appears to be sport (examples in previous posts), as well as other predators.

 

[Jamie6.5]

You mean like trophy killing by humans? Or shooting sage rats? Or killing wolves?

P.S. Unlike humans, wolves sometimes get chased off a kill, leaving a delicious meal sadly in the bush.

When a farmer comes out in the morning and sees a dozen or more adult and juvenile sheep killed, and none dragged off or partially eaten, it's fairly apparent that the wolves weren't "driven off" in the midst of their meal.

We know you're anti hunting/hunter CEF,...
So why are you here?
Just pricking old wounds?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Take a look here:

<broken link removed>

 

[MA Duce]

Wow.... I guess if you are a left-leaning environazi you can just ignore reality and make up stuff as you go along. Ok .....I choose to believe that there are no wolves in Oregon......just some really big coyotes.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

PORT HEIDEN, Alaska &#8212;
A day after Port Heiden residents were able to kill one more aggressive wolf, bringing their tally to seven, the state was able to kill 12 from the air Thursday, and killed two more Friday, hoping to alleviate the town's problems with the aggressive animals.

Port Heiden residents woke up Thursday to wolf tracks in backyards, while a plane from the state flew overhead to spot them. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is working with troopers to kill aggressive wolves that have killed several pets in the area.

The state flew over the village looking for any signs of wolf packs, but residents say they aren't waiting around for outside help.

The town is quiet &#8211; too quiet. Dogs are locked inside and children stay behind windows. The only thing that brought people outside was the roar of a snowmachine after a successful hunt.

"On the way home we happened to get it," said James Chrestensen.

His hunting partner shot the wolf Wednesday evening.

"The kids shot at it over there and missed it so we took the snowmachines and chased it, tracked it down and got it over here a little ways," Chrestensen said.

Village residents call it retribution. "At least we're getting less of them," Chrestensen said.

Wolves have killed six dogs &#8211; a daschund puppy on a walk with its owners and a pregnant female drug off the porch and killed by a pack of six in front of its owners among them.

"Scared all the time, scared that it's going to be a kid or it's going to be an adult that gets attacked next," Bob Chrestensen said.

Residents patrol the streets day and night, hoping to hear a howl, spot a track, or catch a flash of green eyes.

Many days go without gun shots, but the guns are there, ready to protect the town.

The State plans to use fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to shoot the wolves from the air.

 

[wwkii]

good luck on odfw doing anything if you read the directors statement on the first page of 2010 hunting regs he talks about climate change as the reason for low game animal numbers and the need for lead ammo bans as far as im concered roy elDicker is just a big a## enviromentalist, oregon will not address any probems without raising licence and tag fees so far out of a regular working mans price range . that all they can do is start poching.

 

[daiello91]

good luck on odfw doing anything if you read the directors statement on the first page of 2010 hunting regs he talks about climate change as the reason for low game animal numbers and the need for lead ammo bans as far as im concered roy elDicker is just a big a## enviromentalist, oregon will not address any probems without raising licence and tag fees so far out of a regular working mans price range . that all they can do is start poching.

Poachers are scum plain and simple. If people really need meat to feed families there are plenty of unregulated animals available that are good eating. Rabbits are everywhere and tasty, coyote sausage I hear is good, and those are everywhere.

 

[Woodswalker]

We already have apex predator numbers out of control due to cougar hunting restrictions, followed closely by bear hunting restrictions.
By the time they get a handle on the wolf issue in OR, we will be lucky if there is any big game left at all.
Now, that may not bother non-hunters, but non-hunters aren't paying for game "management."
Hunters are, and are getting screwed out of their dollars by this asinine mindset.

Yeah, we do tend to get pissed off when the dollars we spend for game management get squandered at something that is in direct opposition to our wishes.

and

Originally Posted by afp

We have to remember that wolf introduction is a tool of the antis for ending hunting. As the herds decline, Game depts reduce hunter harvest.

Not just to end hunting, but to end ranching as well. They are just as much anti-meat eating as they are anti-hunting.

There is one more link that you seem to have missed so far, that is with no hunting, there is no NEED for GUNS.

My rambling mind also says...that if you are going to do things that tend to piss off the more independent minded among us...its better if you disarm them FIRST. But then I dont really trust those who are oh so sure that they can run my life better than I can.

 

[wwkii]

Poachers are scum plain and simple. If people really need meat to feed families there are plenty of unregulated animals available that are good eating. Rabbits are everywhere and tasty, coyote sausage I hear is good, and those are everywhere.

oh get real and off your high horse i dont poach but il tell you what if a person needs the meat to feed there family and not wasting or shooting just to kill or for antlers . id rather have them doing that than getting on wefair or food stamps

 

[daiello91]

oh get real and off your high horse i dont poach but il tell you what if a person needs the meat to feed there family and not wasting or shooting just to kill or for antlers . id rather have them doing that than getting on wefair or food stamps

If they can afford the gas & ammo to get up into the woods they can afford food for the family. No excuse for poaching.

 

[wwkii]

some people already live there city boy

 

[Woodswalker]

If they can afford the gas & ammo to get up into the woods they can afford food for the family. No excuse for poaching.

Some of the worst off already live remotely...and a bow is quieter than a rifle and usually the arrow is re-usable.

Growing up, I knew a few folks who couldn't afford to feed families...they took what was needed to survive. Grew BIG gardens too.

 

[Gunner3456]

If they can afford the gas & ammo to get up into the woods they can afford food for the family. No excuse for poaching.

I agree with you about no poaching, but don't forget that many of us live where we can shoot a deer or wild turkeys or ducks and geese right out of our windows. I sure could. I had a big flock of wild turkeys in my yard this morning as I do most days. Deer are very common in our yard.

$02

 

[daiello91]

some people already live there city boy

Sounds like you must be a poacher the way you're defending them.