WOLF PROPAGANDA (BLATHER)

The following bit of WOLF PROPAGANDA is part of the faux hysteria about wolves being benign creatures about to be eradicated worldwide if they are managed anywhere in the US. As you read it, ask yourself the following questions:

Are there too few pronghorn antelope? Why does anyone that does not hunt pronghorns care if there are a few more or a few less? In truth the pronghorn antelope population in the West is doing and has done just fine with controlled hunting since their management for hunting utilizing hunting license funds and the excise taxes from guns and ammunition were made available 75 years ago.

While it is true that coyotes kill pronghorn fawns and does, why does the fact that wolves kill coyotes mean good news for pronghorns? Just because wolves in habitats full of bigger animals ignore pronghorn fawns? It is patently absurd to assume they will continue to do so as wolf densities and numbers increase and concomitantly food such as deer and elk and beaver decrease. This is just a purposeful misconception intended to keep opposition to total wolf protection off balance and disunited as time ticks by.

What is a “healthy” wolf pack? The more there are in a pack, the more destructive, the more dangerous and the more susceptible to disease they become. The more there are in a pack the more food needed, the more “fun killing” and the more dangerous they are to anyone they encounter from a kid at a bus stop to an old guy in his garden or some equestrian riding to and fro.

A wolf was just “vaccinated” with a bullet by a farmer in Massachusetts. The tinker belle biologist quoted in the report in the paper, just marveled at all “those roads” the wolf must have crossed in its imagined journey from Canada. Why are “Corridors” needed for wolves or pronghorns or any wildlife? Consider all the “science” about grizzlies and lynx and wolverines and how “Roads” are the culprits and must be eliminated to “save” critter X. Could there possibly be a hidden agenda here?

If our efforts to “manipulate” “ecosystems” (i.e. manage the plants and animals for human benefit) might have “unintended consequences” just what the “#@*%” would you call this wolf business, “INTENDED”? If so, why aren’t those responsible for introducing and protecting the wolves RESPONSIBLE for the harms and destruction they cause to ranchers, hunters, dog owners, and rural America in so many ways? What about the loss of big game herds – the danger to hunters and campers and gardeners and rural residents and children – the loss of pets and hunting dogs and working dogs – the loss of livestock and ranching economic viability – the “excuse” for more Roadless and Wilderness Proclamations with attendant loss of management on, access to and use of public lands – the growth of Federal power and the absorption of State Authority and the attendant subordination of State agencies and legislation to Federal demands (i.e. “strings” on growing Federal funds)- the growing “taking” of private property without compensation for non-public use by Federal “LIST-MAKERS”- and many other etceteras but space is limited?

Not since Prohibition has a government program been as disgraceful, corrupt, and harmful to society as the Endangered Species Act. Like Prohibition and all its “consequences” repeal and return to local controls are the only answer available to Americans.

THE ARTICLE -

“Science Daily (Mar. 4, 2008) — As western states debate removing the gray
wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, a new study by the
Wildlife Conservation Society cautions that doing so may result in an
unintended decline in another species: the pronghorn, a uniquely North
American animal that resembles an African antelope.’

’The study, appearing in the latest issue of the journal Ecology, says that
fewer wolves mean more coyotes, which can prey heavily on pronghorn fawns
if the delicate balance between predators and their prey is altered.
According to the study, healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers in check,
while rarely feeding on pronghorn fawns themselves. As a result, fawns have
higher survival rates when wolves are present in an ecosystem.’

’"People tend to think that more wolves always mean fewer prey," said WCS
researcher Dr. Kim Berger, lead author of the study. "But in this case,
wolves are so much bigger than coyotes that it doesn't make sense for them
to waste time searching for pronghorn fawns. It would be like trying to
feed an entire family on a single Big Mac."’

’Over a three-year period, researchers radio-collared more than 100 fawns in
wolf-free and wolf-abundant areas of Grand Teton National Park and
monitored their survival throughout the summer. The results showed that
only 10 percent of fawns survived in areas lacking wolves, but where coyote
densities were higher. In areas where wolves were abundant, 34 percent of
pronghorn fawns survived. Wolves reduce coyote numbers by killing them
outright or by causing them to shift to safer areas of the Park not
utilized by wolves.’

’While pronghorn are not endangered, the population that summers in Grand
Teton National Park, part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, had been
reduced to fewer than 200 animals in recent years. Since wolves were
reintroduced in 1995, the pronghorn population in Grand Teton has increased
by approximately 50 percent. These pronghorn have the longest migration --
more than 200 miles roundtrip -- of any land mammal in the lower 48 states.
The Wildlife Conservation Society has called for permanent protection of
their migration corridor, known as "Path of the Pronghorn," to prevent the
animals from going extinct in the Park. Representatives from the National
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service
recently pledged support for protecting the corridor.’

’If delisting occurs, Wyoming and Idaho have announced their intention to
reduce wolf number by 50percent and 80 percent, respectively. At present,
there are an estimated 300 wolves in Wyoming and 700 in Idaho.’

’"This study shows just how complex relationships between predators and
their prey can be," said Berger. "It's an important reminder that we often
don't understand ecosystems nearly as well as we think we do, and that our
efforts to manipulate them can have unexpected consequences."”

Adapted from materials provided by Wildlife Conservation Society, via
EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Wildlife Conservation Society (2008, March 4). Are Wolves The Pronghorn's
Best Friend?. Science Daily. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/03/080303145300.htm “

Jim Beers

5 March 2004

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at

http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:

jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.