With all the great stories, equipment, adventures and people out there I thought it would be great to get some pictures.  If you have any pictures from a hunt, your gear or best of all you geared up that would be great.  If you send in pictures I will post on our site as well as putting some of the best pictures on all our sites.  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.

An article yesterday in the Jackson Hole News and Guide quotes Bangs as now saying 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves will “never be threatened”. I guess Bangs doesn’t learn from his first mistake. In 1987, 30 pairs and 300 wolves would easily do the trick, why should anybody believe for one second that his statement today is any more honest than the ones he made 25 years ago?

It’s clear the feds set the rules, we play by their rules and when the rules don’t fit the game they are playing, they change the rules. Bangs admits that the first day on the job for wolf recovery he knew 30 pairs of wolves wouldn’t be enough and we should trust him now when he tells us 45 will never be threatened?

This kind of political manipulation has to end now.

By George Dovel

In 1995 when I asked one of the Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners why he supported wolf introduction he denied it. But when I then asked him why he allowed the IDFG Position Statement supporting wolf introduction to be published unchallenged before the wolves were released in Idaho, he said, “We were going to get wolves anyway and the 10J Nonessential Experimental introduction gave us more freedom to manage wolves that would impact our big game herds.”

The 10J Rule written in 1994 and in effect until amended slightly in 2003, provided that when a State or Tribe determined wolves were adversely impacting a game herd, all they had to do was ask the feds to capture and relocate those wolves. Yet neither Idaho nor Montana ever made such a request.

According to information published in the Federal Register by Ed Bangs in 2007 and 2008, Wyoming was the only one of the three states to make such a request. Bangs wrote: “The Service suggested that the State identify the sites in Wyoming where they would prefer the wolves to be moved, but no sites were ever identified and no wolves were ever moved.”

Cow/Calf Permits Contributed to Lolo Elk Decline

Meanwhile as wolves began to invade areas with high elk densities such as Clearwater Region Units 10 and 12 (later called the Lolo Zone), calf survival began to decline. Instead of mitigating the losses by removing some of the lions and bears – and then requesting FWS to relocate some of the wolves if it was still indicated, the Region issued several thousand antlerless elk permits.

Unit 10 elk census counts 1989 – 2010

Click for Larger Image

That, of course, only increased the calf decline which by 1998 in Unit 10 had dropped 89% in 10 years and had dropped 76% in four years (including the three years since wolves were introduced. Part of that short-term calf decline must be attributed to the 48% decline in the number of adult female elk from 1994-1998.

Although not quite as dramatic initially, the elk decline in Unit 12 followed the same pattern of over-harvesting cows and calves – even after wolves were introduced – to make the bull-to-cow ratio look better:

Unit 12 elk census counts 1985 – 2010

Click for Larger Image

In 1997 when Cal Groen became the new Regional Supervisor, the Clearwater Citizens Advisory Council (CCAC) expressed concern about extreme winter losses during the 1996-97 winter. It recommended eliminating antlerless elk permits and reducing the number of hunters in the Lolo Zone.

Instead, IDFG claimed the winter losses were normal and Groen increased the number of antlerless Lolo Zone elk permits from 1,900 to 1,950, and did nothing to decrease either the season lengths or the number of hunters. These and similar antlerless controlled hunt elk permits in other Clearwater units could not be justified biologically so all were listed as “Research Study” in the 1997 Big Game Regulations.

The new A-B Elk Tag system was adopted and in 1998 the CCAC demanded the F&G Commission cap the number of elk hunters in the Lolo Zone which is how that unwieldy system was designed to work. The Commission cut the number of “B” Tag hunters by two-thirds but Groen responded by giving an unlimited number of “A” Tag purchasers a 32-day either-sex archery elk season.

That season was set during the rut for the first time in decades and resulted in much higher hunter success than for the capped October rifle hunters with “B” Tags. To better understand the impact of Groen’s actions, the following chart portrays elk harvest data for Lolo Zone Units 10 and 12 from a spread sheet provided by IDFG’s Bruce Ackerman and Mike Elmer – but the 1995 harvest was actually much higher than they reported:

It actually totaled 1925 elk (nearly as high as the 1989 harvest of 1975 elk) and if the graph were corrected it would show a tremendous dive from ’95 to ’96 (one year before the bad winter). The classic predator pit that was forming even before the 1996-97 winter hit, plus Groen’s increasing rather than halting antlerless harvest in 1997 and still allowing archery antlerless harvest after that, drove the elk into a predator pit from which they could not recover.

Commission Enacts New Predator Control Policy

During the January 1999 Predator Symposium in Boise, attended by the F&G Commission, IDFG biologists and representatives of various interest groups, world-renowned wildlife authority Dr. Valerius Geist spent two hours patiently explaining why it is vital to control wolf populations to a strict minimum to keep them from destroying other wildlife populations.

In its August 1999 Commission meeting, after age-sex surveys revealed the number of elk calves per 100 cows in the Lolo Zone was less than 10, the Commission stopped listening to Groen’s claims that it was lack of habitat and unanimously passed the following resolution:

“That it be the policy of the IDFG to severely and demonstrably reduce the number of predators adversely affecting, or that may adversely affect, big game, upland game birds, fish and migratory waterfowl. And to that end, the Department will suggest an action plan that will accomplish this objective.”

Acting Director Mallet and Wildlife Bureau Chief Huffaker did their best to turn Commissioner Roy Moulton’s motion into another study but the Commission refused to accept more unsubstantiated claims that lack of forage was the problem. However calls went out to the Department’s predator preservationist allies and the next morning news headlines across the state described “The F&G Commission’s War on Predators.”

Although Groen took steps which increased the hunter harvest of bears and mountain lions resulting in more newborn elk calves and adult cows surviving, the increases were not enough to offset the added wolf predation. That was the extent of the “war on predators.”

Working behind the scenes without the constraints of law or ethics, the old guard of “wildlifers” that actually runs the agency destroyed Moulton’s ability to function as a Commissioner just as they had destroyed Steve Mealey’s ability to lead the agency a few months earlier. Commissioner Fred Wood quickly learned he had no support among the Commission for attempting to address the real problems with the declining Clearwater elk herd.

Twelve Years of Habitat Planning Result in No Change

Groen formed a Habitat Initiative with the FS and other agencies to allegedly address the changes in elk habitat and has spent the last 13 years blaming elk declines throughout the Clearwater Region on changes in forest canopy. In December 1998, hunters, loggers and other local area citizens formed the Clearwater Elk Recovery Team (CERT) which worked with state and federal agencies to implement changes in forest health practices.

By Dec. 2002, none of their suggestions had been adopted so they appealed to Sen, Crapo who expanded the participants to include outfitters, various environmental organizations and the Nez Perce Tribe. But in 2006 environmental members threatened to sue if either timber cutting or wolf control was implemented and the Feb. 2010 USFS joint meeting minutes agreed that not even one change had been adopted as a result of 12 years of citizen consensus and recommendations.

10J Rule Change Seen As Way To Save Declining Elk

When FWS rewrote the 10J Rule, published in the Jan. 6, 2005 Federal Register, it recognized that “wolf translocations would likely fail because no unoccupied suitable habitat remained in Idaho.” It simply required the States or Tribes with FWS approved wolf plans to make a determination that wolf predation was one of the primary causes of an unacceptable decline in a wild ungulate population or herd before they submitted a plan to kill most of the wolves for several years until the herds recovered.

Hunters and residents of more than two dozen deer and elk units that were being decimated by wolves saw this as the answer to their wolf problems, regardless of whether or not Idaho wolves were de-listed. FWS signed an agreement with MTFWP where that agency agreed to take over wolf management for the feds and on January 6, 2006, Idaho Gov. Kempthorne signed a similar Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Secretary of Interior agreeing to manage Idaho wolves for the feds.

10J Wolf Control Plan Sabotaged

One of Idaho’s duties listed in the MOA was “Implement lethal control or translocation of wolves to reduce impacts on wild ungulates in accordance with the process outlined in the amended 10(j) rule.” IDFG spent a year completing preparation (scoping, peer review, etc.) of the Clearwater 10J Wolf Control Plan and it was made public on Jan. 26, 2006 – but IDFG obviously had no intention of killing any wolves.

Instead of accurately and truthfully reporting that wolf predation was the primary cause of the decline in cow elk numbers from about 1998 to January of 2006, the proposal claimed forest maturation was the sole primary cause of the decline! Neither the authors nor their peer reviewers had evidence to support this false claim (e.g. excessive forage utilization, subnormal birth weights, subnormal weight gains in calves that survived, etc.) yet it was accepted as fact like any other lie that is repeated often enough.

The list of secondary causes included allowing hunters to kill cow elk in the mid 90s to allegedly increase calf elk survival, losses from the severe 1996-97 winter, calf predation by bears and adult predation by mountain lions and, finally, predation of cow elk by wolves. How could IDFG possibly claim wolves were killing too many cow elk when Groen continued to allow cows to be harvested by A-Tag archery hunters until he left in 2007?

IDFG Knowingly Sacrificed Elk and Deer Herds to Improve Its Chances for Managing Wolves Sooner

If you go back and look at the elk populations in both Unit 10 and Unit 12 during the counts in 2006, you will see there were still 3,254 cows, 865 calves, and 385 spike bulls – most of which would survive the remaining month of mild winter if IDFG began killing 43-50 wolves per year for five tears then. But even if IDFG refused to change its undocumented claim that lack of habitat was the primary reason for poor elk survival, it could still have saved this and other elk herds by controlling wolves once the “primary” requirement was removed from the 10J.

That change was published in July of 2007 and the Final Rule, which allowed Idaho and Montana to remove all but 20 breeding pairs (200 wolves), became effective on Feb. 28, 2008. IDFG had plenty of time to either resubmit its original plan to kill ~50 wolves in the Lolo Zone – or have a new plan ready to kill more wolves in a larger area.

But instead of being concerned about the tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue to Idaho from hunters, and the millions more this fiasco was costing rural Idahoans, IDFG chose to listen to Defenders of Wildlife Northern Rockies representative Suzanne Stone. Late in 2007, Steve Nadeau finished a shocking new Wolf Management Plan vowing to manage for 5-7 times as many wolves as had been agreed upon!

When Idahoans soundly rejected his effort during a Dec. 2007 Commission meeting, IDFG spent the winter convincing urban media readers to support the plan. Yet with elk numbers nose-diving, no one said where the extra animals to feed the extra wolves would come from.

According to Deputy Attorneys General and other advisors to IDFG, this massive step backwards was supposed to stop the inevitable lawsuit by DOW and its accomplices to halt a proposed 2008 hunt – but of course it didn’t work. They filed suit at the last minute and three months later the Judge canceled the 2008 wolf hunt on July 18th and returned the wolves to federal protection.

F&G Commission “Sort Of” Directs Use of 10J Tools –

That was a real slap in the face to the citizens who had been watching their game herds and livestock destroyed by wolves for more than a decade and the Idaho F&G Commissioners pretended they were going to do something about it. On Nov. 6, 2008, they passed several Wolf Management Directives for IDFG including: “4. To develop and aggressively utilize all tools and methods available under the new 10(j) Rule to control wolves in critical areas that are impacting ungulates starting with the Lolo zone and progressing to other critical areas, in the event de-listing does not occur.” (emphasis added).

Biologist George Pauley estimated there were 130 to 150 wolves in the Lolo Zone and helped prepare a plan to remove at least 105 wolves each year (about 80%), leaving 25 wolves. He and other biologists used their telemetry studies to prove that wolves continued to be the major cause of death among both cow elk and elk calves that survived to six months of age.

But Then Fails to Use 10J, Except as a Threat to Get Wolves Delisted – Despite 40% Loss in Elk Harvest

Except for a brief six-day period when the Bush administration was leaving office, NRM wolves were not de-listed until six months after the Commission passed its Wolf Management Directives. Yet the annual expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars for radio-collaring and monitoring antlerless elk and deer was wasted money and effort as the Commission still failed to use the 10J Plan.

On May 6, 2009, two days after wolves were finally delisted, IDFG Biologist Pete Zager told a Western States and Provinces Deer and Elk Workshop in Spokane that the number of elk harvested annually by hunters in Idaho had been declining, from around 25,000 in the mid-1990s, when wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rocky Mountains, to roughly 15,000 last year (2008). That represents a 40% decline from the average harvest and even more from the 1994 harvest of 28,000 just before the wolves were released into Idaho.”

If the Commission’s concern had been trying to maintain healthy wildlife populations as required by Idaho Law, it would have told Wildlife Services to begin killing at least the proposed 105 wolves in the Clearwater Basin during the 2008-09 winter when the job was easily done using aircraft. This would also have prevented several times that many wolf pups from being conceived and born and would have prevented the near total destruction of the elk and deer in the Lolo and Selway Zones before the September 1, 2009 sport wolf hunting season even began.

But regardless of what IDFG may say now as more Idahoans are learning the extent of the extreme wolf damage to our deer and elk herds, Director Groen, Deputy Director Unsworth and virtually every other IDFG official have made it abundantly clear that their only goal concerning wolves has been to build a huntable population of wolves as a big game trophy species and ignore their impact on Idaho wildlife and rural Idaho citizens.

Printing Graphs Prompts Damage Control by Groen

When Mike Dubrasich provided graphs depicting the destruction of the largest elk herd in Idaho (see: westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2010/02/27/lolo-elk-decline/ ) on Feb. 27, 2010, they were quickly circulated around the U.S. Then in a damage control op-ed News Release on March 8, 2010, Director Groen wrote, “Idaho Fish and Game is committed to saving the Lolo herd and keeping Idaho’s other elk herds healthy.”

Then Groen described the so-called “aggressive steps” they took to prevent the elk from declining, but carefully omitted the fact that, as Clearwater Region Supervisor for nine years, he was responsible for that decline. When he took over in 1997, despite what he now describes as “the severe winter of 1996-97,” the number of cows in the Lolo Zone still exceeded the 6,100 minimum goal by an estimated 1,000 or more (see ‘97 & ‘98 counts).

But, as previously stated, instead of compensating for the starvation loss of several thousand cows and calves in the higher elevations in the 1996-97 winter by eliminating antleress hunts in 1997, Groen increased the Lolo Zone antlerless permits to 1,950! There is simply no rational excuse for that and what happened next.

Wolves Decimated Cow Elk in Lolo Zone

Although significant bear removal temporarily increased the ratio of surviving calves to cows, the number of cows counted in surveys that were five years apart had declined by nearly two-thirds! By 2002 and 2003 the total number of cows in Units 12 and 10 (the Lolo Zone) had declined from 1,000 more than the minimum goal of 6,100 to 3,000 less than that goal!

Five years of increasing predation by wolves on elk cows and older calves had systematically destroyed the herd’s ability to recover from the 96-97 winter. The sharp decline in total calf recruitment was so obvious that even a biologist with no math skills could not have missed it – but in case they did – graphs illustrating the radical elk decline and harvest trend were printed in color in the 1998-2003 Elk Management Plan for the Lolo Zone.

Groen Has Led Refusal to Utilize 10J Rules

In January of 2006 Groen approved submitting the plan to FWS for removing 43-50 wolves per year for five years knowing it could not be approved because it emphasized wolf predation was not a primary cause of elk not meeting management goals. Early winter calf-to-cow ratios in the Lolo Zone were 27-to-100 due to extra bear kill by hunters, yet the total of female calves that survived until spring were only one-third of the number needed to replace the cow elk being killed each year by wolves!

Groen’s refusal as Director to recommend Wildlife Services start killing at least the 105 wolves in the Clearwater in 2008-09, and again in 2009-10, guaranteed the Lolo Zone elk herd would be decimated. A long list of bona fide experts including Bergerud, Geist, Kay, Taylor and even Mech warned IDFG it would not be able to control wolves with sport hunting and trapping – yet Groen is still telling the public he will do the impossible.

At the beginning of the Commission review of public input discussed at length in the lead article in this issue, Groen admitted that the Forest Service gave him $100,000 to live trap and collar wolves in the wilderness. Yet he admitted the expert wolf trappers could not even catch one wolf in the wilderness during the entire summer.

The fact that Mr. Dubrasich created and published only two graphs illustrating the near demise of the Lolo Zone elk herd was because that was the only one of the 29 elk zones he received the information on. And because those graphs were published and widely circulated, Groen responded with his claim that IDFG would save the Lolo elk and keep Idaho’s other elk herds healthy.

But the Idaho elk harvest does not drop 40% by 2008 and even more in 2009 just because only one of 29 elk Zones is in trouble. Among those that are in serious trouble are 11 Units in the Selway. Sawtooth and Middle Fork Zones – with a dozen Units elsewhere not far behind.

The Demise of Idaho Public Lands Hunting for All

The actual number of wolves in Idaho right now, including several hundred new pups, is undoubtedly closer to 1,600 than to the 856 minimum estimate for Dec. 2009. But feeding even 1,000 wolves for one year will require 16,421.to 32,840 elk (White & Garrott WSC Vol 33 No 3). Either figure is more than hunters killed in 2008 or 2009

The propaganda statements by Groen are in direct contrast to claims from his wolf expert/Game Manager Jon Rachael in the Boise Weekly the following day. Rachael stated that any eventual balance between big game and wolves is not likely to be acceptable to those who for the last 100 years have looked at deer and elk as a food source.

(In 16 years I have never seen any evidence that IDFG officials had any intention of using 10J to control wolves. The evidence remains clear it has been a colossal deception to hide the real agenda which will ultimately end or sharply curtail the heritage of public land natural resource uses we have enjoyed since statehood. – ED)

Update: The below article references and makes quotes taken from the February, 2010 Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission meeting. The following is the audio recording of that meeting.

By George Dovel

Despite Existing Proof, F&G Continues to Hide: 1) Its Role in Wolf Introduction and 2) Its Failure to Legally Remove Wolves Decimating Elk and Deer Populations

During the Idaho Fish and Game Commission’s January 27, 2010 Public Hearing in Boise, Commissioners heard testimony from Idahoans who expressed concern and anger over the radical decline in big game populations and the spread of disease caused by uncontrolled wolf populations. Several of those testifying blamed the Idaho Fish and Game Department for introducing and protecting the wolves at the expense of Idaho game herds and rural Idaho residents.

Commissioner Budge Claims Charges Made by Citizens Who Testify at Commission Meetings are “Clearly Inaccurate”

Although Chairman Wright told those who testified, “All of the comments and your recommendations will be considered at beginning of the day tomorrow when we have our Commission meeting,” none of the testimony concerning impacts of wolves on specific big game herds, livestock, human health or local economies was discussed. Instead, Commissioner Randy Budge launched a discussion charging: “folks come and testify in a heated meeting on information that is clearly inaccurate.”

Sounding like a defense lawyer quoting other facts to obscure the guilt of his client, Budge, who is also an attorney, continued; “The Department and the Commission is accused of 1) introducing the wolf, and they seem to ignore the reality that we have a federal species introduced under federal law on federal land over the state’s objection and we couldn’t do anything about it and now we’re trying to manage that suitably, and make you wonder if we shouldn’t have some type of a policy statement – factual statement – from the Department or Commission and have available to disseminate to people that would have this false perception.”

Budge continued: “What you see in some meetings like last night and Post Falls and elsewhere, that the first person or two that gets up on that bandwagon – if it gets said enough times then the perception becomes that it is true. And that perception gets perpetuated. And I think that what we fail to respond, which we don’t in these types of – the failure to respond, object and refute, becomes in the mind of many the perception that that is in fact accurate.”

Budge Suggests Providing “Fact Sheet of Official Commission Position That We Don’t Necessarily Agree With George Dovel’s View on How the Wolf Came to Idaho – Documented by Facts”

He continued, “It troubles me a little in these public hearings that we repeatedly have folks that may want to lambaste us and the Department as if we either introduced the wolves ourselves or we signed a contract and perpetuated it – as opposed to we did get forced on it and we’re struggling to manage and we have very limited options to manage – and this is our policy secretive and we’ve allowed this whole thing to become a problem. And, I don’t know, it’s never going to go away.”

“It might be that we have a ‘Here’s the facts of the introduction,’ on this fact statement and it might be an appropriate time to read it at the hearing before it gets out of control – at least have available that we don’t necessarily agree with George Dovel’s view on how the wolf came to Idaho period. – what our official adopted position is that is documented by facts.”

Two Commissioners suggested that if the facts prove a prior Commission and prior Director had a direct hand in introducing the wolf, the Commission would have to live with it – but if not, the Commission should be in a position to present the facts in a one-page bulletin.

Wheeler Confirms Document Signed by Conley

At that point Commissioner Wheeler said, “I’d like to shed a little light on it. There was a document signed by Conley at that time and I’ve read it and I know a couple of Commissioners that were on the Commission at that time – they did not give him the authority to do that, but it was signed and I’ve seen it – several legislators got it. So that’s where this comes from.”

“You can like it or not like it, but that’s the truth. The feds had to have some agency that was willing to put their “John Henry” on it, that’s what he did. It’ll never die.”

In response to a comment, “We might as well have it up front – what he did and what he didn’t do and the rationale,” Wheeler said, “The rationale—it’s hard to say. But that’s a fact and that will always be out there. That’s why, one of the reasons, it’s so strong and that’s what — there’s lots and lots of animosity towards this department in the last 15 years.”

Commissioner Wheeler was asked, “Cameron, was the agreement that he signed they were going to introduce them whether we like it or not and so this was an agreement we will participate in management?” Wheeler responded: “No. The agreement that he signed was an agreement to cooperate in the introduction. Actually there’s enough there to keep this so-called myth alive.”

“Actually publishing the letter might be a great thing because the conspiracy side of it will grow—it’s had a lot of impact on this Department. It’s had a lot of impact on it. The Legislature, the Governor, the Commission itself was opposed to it. It’s a tough deal for this agency to swallow – they paid a pretty good price for it.”

Commissioner: “Defuse Wolf Issue with Handout”

Another Commissioner said: “This wolf issue occurs every five years. I fully agree with the fact sheet, and I can tell you that the resolution that this Commission signed back in August is a good place to start. That lays out the entire history of it and maybe an introductory paragraph leading into that fact sheet… But I tried to find that resolution on our website and it ought to be up there front and prominent so that anybody going to the website that wanted to look at wolves could read about the history of how this all happened. This wolf situation is gonna get worse before it gets better. I think that if we can somehow defuse this wolf issue with some kind of a handout at these public hearings…”

Still another Commissioner asked, “So you agree that perhaps more disclosure might be best – and state all the facts – put as much sunshine on it as we can – and present that and live with it as a principle rather than, as Randy said, try to not necessarily hide it but to disclose less than the whole story?”

IDFG Director Groen Claims Letter Signed by Conley States: “We Did Not Want To Get ‘Em”

At that point Director Groen intervened with the following comments:

“I think we can do it – full disclosure – and you know that resolution, Commissioner McDermott, we can make sure that gets on there. But you have a Commission meeting and we respond sometimes. There was so much emotion last night the response would not have helped. On the disease stuff, we had our papers out there – Ag and Fish and Game saying ‘here’s the facts’.”

“Last night you had a very orchestrated group – one group – and they contacted many of the Moscow people. That group – our staff has spent more time explaining the facts to ‘em – they don’t want to hear the facts period.

“And regarding that letter that came up at Post Falls – what that letter was, it states that we did not want to get ‘em (wolves) and we stood strong there for when they were ready to be put in no matter what. It was a letter that would keep our authority and the Director at that time signed that letter – I guess you’d call it, Jim, a ‘Transport Permit’ or whatever – and it was kinda just to try to keep our hands in it.

“Talking About It Just Gets Deeper and Deeper”

“That letter’s gonna cause us problems for a long time. It’s open – we have it – I asked the previous Director ‘Why did you do it?’ And uh he said ‘just to keep ourselves – it was going to happen – keep ourselves in the process.’ But how do you explain that? I always try to (put) this Commission forward – not backwards – and I think we’ve been pretty successful.

“That letter, if you start talking about it, just gets deeper and deeper – and the Wildlife Chief had signed the permit then, too. It was good faith at that time just so we could keep some stake. It was happening, we had no choice. Montana had no choice. Wyoming – half of their legislature even came on – that was the rational thing to do.

It’s difficult to discuss it – it’s there – I have it – I can give you the letters – I haven’t openly discussed it but uh that was the past. We can explain. Staff and I’ll talk about that.”

Who Was Telling the Truth?

If you have read this page carefully you noticed that Director Groen’s version of the content of the letter and the reason it was written is exactly the opposite of Commissioner Wheeler’s. To help you decide who was telling the truth and who was not telling the truth, the following pages contain photocopies of the controversial letter, the permit signed by then Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker, and portions of other documents presented as exhibits during a Congressional wolf hearing in 1995.

Wheeler said, “The decision (by the Department to help introduce wolves) really runs deep into the fiber of both the sportsmen and policy makers of this state.” He questioned use of a document (“fact sheet”) on sportsmen who come to Commission meetings and said, “I’m not real sure that we want to get in the way of the truth.”

But despite his opposition, and without a motion or vote, other Commissioners, including Budge and Chairman Wright said they wanted the document prepared for their information and said, “At the appropriate time we’ll use it with discretion.”

The following is a photocopy of Idaho Code Section 36-715(2) which was effective from enactment of the “Wolf EIS Participation Plan” in February, 1992 through June 30, 1996, with emphasis (underline) added:

The following copy of a letter from former IDFG Director Jerry Conley to USFWS Wolf EIS Team Project Leader Ed Bangs, signed by Conley and dated September 27, 1994, was obtained from Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee Co-Chairman George Bennett by author in Jan. of 1995:

Click for Larger Image

In 1988 the Idaho Legislature restricted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s involvement in wolf recovery activities unless expressly authorized by state statute (§36-715).

In 1992 in order to comply with the FWS requirement for a State to have an approved recovery plan before the wolf status could be reclassified from endangered to threatened – Legislators amended §36-715 as follows:

1. Created a Wolf Oversight Committee (WOC) to prepare the plan;

2. Authorized one IDFG employee to: (a) provide data to the FWS EIS Team to accurately project the impact of a recovered wolf population; and (b) coordinate between FWS and the WOC.

The underlined portion of Subparagraph (2) of 36-715 on this page clearly stated that IDFG was not authorized to enter into any cooperative agreement with any federal entity concerning wolves unless expressly authorized by state statute.

Yet while the final FWS Wolf Hearing in Boise, Idaho was being held by Ed Bangs on September 27, 1994, without any authorization from the Legislature, former FG Director Conley signed the letter agreement shown on this page and provided it to Bangs.

The document verified IDFG’s unconditional support of the FWS 10J Rule published on Aug. 16, 1994 (which imposed an extreme fine or prison sentence for a landowner even throwing a rock at a wolf chasing livestock on his own property) and stated its support for introducing a nonessential experimental population of wolves into Idaho.

Further, it agreed that IDFG would work with the FWS to the extent allowed by Idaho law, to transplant the Canadian wolves, and invited FWS to contact Conley or “one of his staff working on the wolf recovery program.”

Note that contrary to Groen’s claim to the Commission on January 28, 2010, the letter/agreement says nothing. about either the State or IDFG not wanting wolves. And it was not an agreement to participate in managing wolves as one Commissioner suggested.

This copy of the IDFG Special Permit, with the original signed by Wildlife Bureau Chief Tom Reinecker on that same day and given to Bangs, was also provided to me in January of 1995 by Wolf Oversight Committee Co-Chairman George Bennett.

Click on Image to Enlarge

Like most Idahoans and their elected officials who were involved in the FWS effort to recover wolves, I was not aware of either Conley’s letter agreeing to the 10J Nonessential Experimental option and introduction of Canadian wolves, or this permit authorizing FWS to release 15 wolves per year for up to five years, until more than two months after they were signed and delivered to Ed Bangs.

As Chairman of the Boise County Commission Wildlife and Endangered Species Committee, I was aware that the ESA and 50 CFR 17 requires FWS to work closely with state governments in the development of plans to manage wolves, and that FWS needed permission from Idaho before it brought wolves into the state.

Paragraph 5. of the Special Permit signed by Reinecker stipulates that releases are to occur in accordance with the Idaho wolf management plan but Idaho did not approve such a plan for another seven years after the first wolves were introduced.

In mid-October 1994 I learned that several members of the WOC refused to support the new FWS 10J Rule. On about the end of November 1994, I pulled up the IDFG Bulletin Board on my computer and copied the next to last item at “WOLF.TXT LEGAL 6.5K 12/94 Position:” – and saved it (see “Idaho Department of Fish and Game Position Statement on Gray Wolves” here)

Then I met with former Montana Wolf Biologist Jon Rachael who served as advisor to both the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee and to Ed Bangs on the FWS Environmental Impact Statement Team. In response to my questions, Rachael said the Department had approved the FWS 10J Rule and issued FWS the permit to bring wolves into Idaho two months earlier.

The position statement also included an admission that wolves already existed “in the Boise and Clearwater National Forests on opposite ends of the central Idaho wilderness areas.” This position statement and information on existing wolves was repeated in the January/February issue of the Department publication, “The Wildlife Scene,” by Jon Rachael.

The following is page 1 of a four page letter sent to FWS on Oct. 17, 1994 by four members of the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee, and given to me in January of 1995 by Co-Chairman George Bennett who was one of the signers. Unlike Conley’s September 27, 2004 letter, it disagrees with numerous provisions in the 10J Rule written by Bangs and published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1994.

Click on Image to Enlarge

The last paragraph (below) from page 4 of the letter, also signed by Ted Hoffman, Stan Boyd and Lois Van Hoover, is self-explanatory.

Why 36-715 Prohibited IDFG From Participation in Wolf Recovery

During the late 1960s, IDFG biologists refused to control predators impacting declining game species. Idaho deer and elk populations and harvests reached record lows by 1975.

In the 1972 Legislative session, the F&G Commission and new Director Joe Greenley avoided implementation of a statewide coyote bounty by promising the Legislature to control coyotes in places like Dworshak Reservoir. But after the legislative session ended, Greenley reneged on the promise, using the excuse that “wildlifers” (biologists) did not believe in controlling predators to benefit other wildlife species.

Even with a law requiring the F&G Commission to designate where and how the money in its Animal Damage Control account must be spent to benefit specific wildlife populations, the Commission continued to ignore the intent of the law – unless some biologist wanted to use the money for limited predator control as part of a study.

By the 1992 legislative session, two decades after cougars were given big game status, F&G even refused to control lions that were decimating the endangered Selkirk caribou herd. Lion numbers had reached record highs and legislators made sure IDFG would not have the opportunity to do the same thing with wolves.

In January of 1995 when Idaho’s newly elected Governor Phil Batt delivered his “State of the State” address to the Legislature, he vowed to “straighten out a Fish and Game agency that is out of control,” and received a standing ovation. But when Batt asked the Commissioners for their written resignations, they refused to comply.

Instead, with help from Conley and the major media, they organized a protest demonstration on the Statehouse steps and Batt caved in and withdrew his request. When Steve Mealey was hired to replace Conley, he announced that Idaho would not have wolves if Conley had not allowed it.

Another important provision in §36-715 that was not properly addressed by IDFG and the majority of voting members of the Wolf Oversight Committee was included in subparagraph (4)(b) “Any plan so developed by the department and wolf oversight committee shall take into consideration the local economies, custom, culture, and private property rights” (emphasis added).

Letters from county officials ranging from the largest county (Owyhee) to the most heavily populated (Ada) were sent to Bangs objecting to the failure of FWS to address the impact of wolves on their respective counties. But Conley’s Sept. 27, 1994 letter provided unconditional support from the State of Idaho for the FWS 10J Plan’s failure to address local government concerns.

FWS did not respond to the October 17, 1994 letter from the four Wolf Oversight Committee members, which listed examples of FWS failure to address local concerns. With the exception of an amendment submitted by Boise County offering the same limited protection for domestic animals and pets as for livestock, the draft state wolf plan written by Rachael and submitted to the legislature was virtually a copy of the FWS plan.

During the Joint Legislative Resource Committee Hearings, the WOC members who refused to endorse the plan testified that it was basically an invitation to the feds to turn wolves loose in Idaho without adequate protection for game herds, livestock or private property rights.

Concerning Conley’s letter agreement, Groen’s Jan. 28th claim to the Commission, “It was a letter that would keep our authority,” ignored the reality that IDFG had no authority concerning wolves and everyone in the agency at that time, including Groen, knew it. In an Oct. 12, 1993 3-page letter to Ed Bangs, Conley wrote: “However, for the Department to fully participate in wolf recovery and management, an existing Idaho statute will have to be amended or repealed by the Idaho Legislature.”

Ever since IDFG co-sponsored the FWS Central Idaho Wolf Study by Montana biologists Kaminski and Hansen, dated 1984 but using some early 1985 figures, it was common knowledge that IDFG wanted wolves – and rural Idahoans and their elected officials did not. The public perception was that IDFG invited FWS to dump the wolves in Idaho believing the Legislature would then be forced to let IDFG manage them.

But that did not happen. The Legislature rejected the flawed 1994 draft state wolf plan and left the law prohibiting IDFG participation in wolf management unchanged for another seven years.

IDFG Grossly Exaggerated Ungulate Populations

Part of the Legislative anger at IDFG described by Commissioner Wheeler resulted from misinformation provided by IDFG Biologists Rachael and Jerome Hansen in regard to the impact bringing in wolves would have on Idaho big game, livestock and local economies. The projected income from tourism generated by the existence of wolves was grossly exaggerated as were the claimed ungulate populations that would provide the prey base in the Primary Analysis Area to feed the wolves.

In both the 1993 Draft EIS and the 1994 Final EIS, the claimed post-hunting season population of ungulates in the 36 Big Game Management Units that comprise that 20,700 square mile PAA area were:

Elk 76,300

Deer 159,600

Moose 1,700

Bighorn sheep 1,800

Mountain Goat 2,000

Total 241,400 (11.7 per sq. mile)

This reflected an average population of 11.7 ungulates in every square mile of that area, including human settlements, lakes and rivers, and mountain peaks. This was after the estimated annual death loss of 153,539 animals from all causes – including hunting.

The claimed post-hunting season deer population of 159,600 reflects an average of 7.7 deer per square mile in the entire 20,700 square miles. Yet IDFG records reveal that only the deer in six of the best deer Units were counted and, even after adding highly exaggerated “sightability” computer estimates to the actual counts, biologists still fell just short of counting even five deer per square mile in the best unit (see Unit 39 below):

IDFG Published Deer Counts for 36 Wolf Units

Unit Area
Nbr(s) (Sq. Miles) 1992-93 1993-94

21 477 1357 1017

30, 30A 696 663 600*

36B 637 1809 1805

33 (+34, 35) 1648 1033 480

39 2615 13008 3843**

Totals 6073 17870 7745

Average deer per sq. mi. 2.9 1.3

* Estimate – not counted

** Actual count. A count was also made of 21 comparable subunits in Unit 39 but neither count is published now.

Ideally these deer and elk counts are conducted at the beginning of winter just after an extended snowstorm when the animals have been “brushed up” and are all out in the open feeding. The buck deer, and of course bull elk, have not yet shed their antlers and are easily identified as are the adult females and juveniles.

Counts Reveal Only One-Sixth of Deer Claimed

But even before the extreme 92-93 winter hit, the deer density in these “cherry-picked “ Units averaged only one-third of the 7.7 deer per square mile claimed for all of the 36 Units. And one year later, after the most extreme winter in 40 years had taken its toll, the remaining deer density in those high-density Units averaged only one-sixth of the claimed 7.7 deer per square mile average!

If the average claimed deer density of 7.71 per square mile were true, the total deer counted in Units 33, 34 & 35 should have been 12,706 (1,648 Sq. miles X 7.71 deer = 12,706) yet IDFG Statistician Lou Nelson reported only 3,000 deer counted in the 1992-93 count. But under questioning from the Boise County Prosecutor and the three Commissioners, he admitted there were only 1,033 live deer counted under ideal count conditions – only eight percent of the average deer density claimed.

1994 Count in Payette River Deer Units Shows Less Than 4% of Claimed Average Deer Density

When only 480 live deer were counted early in 2004 (less than four percent of the average deer density claimed for the 20,700 square miles) our Committee was scheduled to testify before a joint hearing of the Resource Committees. Wolf Oversight Committee member Don Clower requested a meeting with us before the hearing and said nothing would be accomplished by “airing the Department’s dirty linen,” and promised IDFG would address our concerns.

He said the Wolf Oversight Committee knew the deer and elk populations in the Wolf EIS were highly exaggerated and expressed his opinion that there was nothing wrong with lying to accomplish a goal. His comment and a March 9, 1994 letter from WOC Co-Chair Jack Lavin to Ed Bangs stating “we would prefer wolf introduction with experimental status to no wolf introduction…” raised red flags concerning the agenda of at least some members of the Wolf Oversight Committee.

The hearing room was packed with angry citizens. Some of them, including State Senator Mary Lloyd, brought petitions with thousands of signatures demanding that Conley be fired for allowing more than half of the State’s mule deer and thousands of elk to starve.

Despite the largest recorded winterkill of deer and elk during the 1992-93 winter since records were first kept, IDFG and the F&G Commission extended several deer and elk hunting seasons in 1993 and added 2,150 bonus deer permits and 3,955 bonus elk permits (a 20% increase for both species)! But in spite of the extra hunting opportunity hunters killed 15,600 fewer deer and 5,800 fewer elk!

When angry hunters told the Commission about the shortage of elk, and especially deer, in December 1993 Commissioner Meiers responded “Instead of criticizing us for fewer deer you should be thanking us for giving you more opportunity to hunt them.” At that meeting former Director Joe Greenley said, “Lonn (State Big Game Manager Lonn Kuck), you’ve destroyed our deer – what are you going to do about it?”

F&G Denies Evidence of Abnormal Elk Losses

On November 29, 1993, Attorney Sam Routson and I met with Kuck in Boise F&G Headquarters to discuss the radical decline in deer and elk populations. Kuck admitted abnormal deer losses but claimed he had no evidence of abnormal elk losses.

I deposited 160 elk ivories on his desk and advised they were removed from 80 dead elk by one resident in the Garden Valley area and he admitted that was evidence. But then he indicated we were fighting a losing battle and predicted that public hunting as we had known it would be gone in another decade.

The claimed ungulate populations in the Wolf EIS were not based on counts, but solely on computer projections from models developed beginning back in 1985 when deer and elk herds were increasing rapidly. Early in 2004, Conley was forced to admit the 2003 mule deer decline in a House Resources Committee hearing, but claimed the deer would “bounce back in two years.”

That was 16 years ago yet mule deer populations have never recovered. Actual 2009 deer and elk harvests reported by hunters are the lowest in 27 years.

In the Wolf EIS, IDFG predicted that each wolf would kill 11.22 deer per year and only 5.28 elk per year. This represented 68% deer and only 32% elk for 15 total animals plus 10% excessive kill. Maintaining the highly inflated deer figures in the EIS was necessary in order to justify the projected minor impacts on elk harvests by hunters from either 100 or 150 wolves.

Of the elk units that were counted in 1994, most showed significant declines. Based on actual ungulates counted, the total of all ungulates comprised only one-sixth of the total claimed in the EIS.

When Steve Mealey was hired to replace Conley as Director he invited everyone – not just wolf advocates who had received favored treatment – to participate in decision making. Two months before he was fired in March 1999 by a 4-3 vote of the Commission, he facilitated a Predator Symposium in Boise with Dr. Charles Kay as part of the panel and Dr. Valerius Geist as the featured speaker.

Mealey had made considerable progress in restoring confidence in Fish and Game and his firing was soundly condemned by a majority of legislators. In the next session they passed Senate Bill 1490 creating the Office of Species Conservation (OSC) and giving it sole authority to negotiate with the federal government on endangered species and to set up a process for delisting upon recovery of the wolf.

Its purpose was also to receive citizen concerns and problems with endangered species issues and get a solution for those grievances. Senate Resource Committee Chairman Laird Noh, who also served on the WOC and supported the introduction of Canadian wolves, introduced Senate Bill 1491 to allow IDFG limited participation in discussions with other agencies about their plans but it was not even supported by members of his committee.

(NOTE: In my opinion the time has come for our state wildlife agency to stop trying to hide the truth about how we got where we are. Admit it – put it behind you – and get on with the business of restoring our billion dollar wildlife resource. Or is that wishful thinking? – ED)

(Columbus) – Today, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) officially unveiled a dynamic new initiative aimed at building an army of sportsmen from coast to coast to protect America’s outdoor heritage for future generations.

The USSA’s Sentry Program is free to join and represents the most intense effort ever focused on attracting sportsmen to become active players in the fight to preserve hunting, fishing and trapping rights whenever they are threatened.

By becoming a Sentry, sportsmen gain access to instant email communications about local and national threats to their outdoor rights as they happen. They will also be given specific instructions on which public officials to contact and when as these threats emerge. This communication network will enable sportsmen to mobilize quicker and more effectively than ever before.

In addition to getting sportsmen engaged in advocacy, the Sentry Program offers additional benefits, giving sportsmen a “one stop” web site for key information including state hunting regulations, information on where one can find a shooting range and other hunting and fishing tips from recognized leaders in the outdoor community.

“There are many anti-hunting organizations seeking to do away with what we love,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. “By coming together under the Sentry Program, sportsmen will enhance our ranks and collectively stand tall against those groups.”

There is no cost to join the Sentry Program and requires only a minimal amount of information from those interested. For more information, please contact 614-888-4868, visit the USSA’s website at www.ussportsmen.org/BeASentry, or e-mail info@ussportsmen.org.

You can also view a video describing the program by clicking here

Editor’s Note: The following file was written and assembled by Lynn M Stuter, March 24, 2010. The photographs contained in this file are used by permission and the publication of this file on this web site was granted by the author. I have made only a portion of the entire file available here. The entire piece is contained in a pdf including the photographs. I encourage all readers to read the facts and view the photographs.

The pictures you will see in this notebook have been taken in the Lolo Zone in Idaho, Units 10 and 12, except for the first section of pictures of the 6 x 8 bull elk, which were taken 30 miles outside Libby, Montana in the Winter of 2008. None of the pictures are easy to look at; they are actually quite gruesome, quite horrible, but tell a tale of what deer and elk have endured at the hand of wolves in Idaho and Montana.

The people who took the pictures you are about to see of the slaughter in the Lolo Zone of Idaho, showed them to Idaho Fish and Game officials who refused to listen, refused to acknowledge what was obviously rapidly becoming a crisis situation with regard to the health of the Lolo Zone elk herds.

Had Idaho Fish and Game officials been traveling the Lolo Zone as these sportsman were; had they been checking on the health of the herds, as they should have been; they could not have helped but see what these sportsmen saw, they could not have helped but be as alarmed as the sportsmen were and are.

Following are the approximate number of elk in Lolo Zone, Units 10 and 12 —1994 versus 2010. These numbers tell a tale of an already declining herd on which wolves were set and allowed to prey, uncontrolled.

As you look at the following pictures, it is obvious that these elk were not hard to find, that there were many more, just like them, scattered throughout the Lolo Zone, Units 10 and 12; that these are but a representative sampling of the damage that has been done by wolves to the elk herds in this zone.

It is inconceivable, looking at these pictures, that anyone could believe that wolves only prey on the sick, the old, the injured. It is inconceivable that a political agenda could so blind people to the reality of what wolves, in uncontrolled numbers, do to ungulate herds, that they could stand by and watch this happen with no compunction to stop it.

Following are the words of Steve Nadeau, Idaho Fish and Game large predator manager. On May 22, 2008, Nadeau was given the employee of the year award for outstanding management/leadership and coordination by IDFG director Cal Groen.

To finish reading this information and to view the photographs, click this link to view a pdf.

Tanner Colten Moad, 5 years old, is one of the coolest kids I know. The youngest of 4 children of mine, Tanner never stops moving.
Before gun season in central eastern Oklahoma, the traditional bow season usually takes priority. I had taken the first week of bow season off from work in an attempt to tag out early at the request of my wife Lori. In her mind, if I was to tag out early, my deer season would then be “dear” season, with lots of additional chores getting done that get overlooked during each year’s deer season.

As a bow hunter, I was able to harvest a doe pretty quick, and two days later, stuck a nice 8 point that only took two steps before falling over. I had watched that buck spare with a 9-point two days earlier, and was in hopes I could manage to get the edge on one of them as both were very big bodied deer. Well, upon getting the close up view of the 8-point I had just harvested, I realized that half way up one side of his G-2, his antlers were completely broken off. A few of his other tines were damaged as well, which led me to believe that the 9-point he had previously been sparing with, probably wasn’t sparing anymore.

With bow season quickly becoming gun season, my son Tanner, was getting pretty excited about going hunting with dad this year. I had to work the first day of the season, but promised to take him on Sunday. Sunday afternoon, around 3:00pm, I was off to the deer woods and had my little man right there with me on the 4-wheeler. We drove to a spot where not much hunting activity was going on, and climbed into the buddy stand that was located there. The buddy stand had the camouflage netting around its fall protective bars and I knew that if a deer did come in, that the anticipated movements of my son would go undetected.

To my surprise, Tanner, sat quietly in the stand with me, pulled out his binoculars, and commenced to scanning the woods all around. When a squirrel would drop an acorn from a tree, it would hit the leaves, and Tanner would turn quickly to identify what made the noise. He would whisper to me that he thought he heard something over there, or over there, and over there. I know this sounds crazy, but I loved every minute of watching him pay attention to what was going on in the woods around him. Now he was hungry, 15 minutes after we were in the stand. He pulled out a package of crackers and quietly munched on them while looking around. We switched positions about 10 times, so he could see everything. He would ask me questions about all kinds of woods activities and now sat in my lap to get a better view. About 1 and ½ hours in the stand now, Tanner started doing the chicken head. You know, when someone is trying desperately not to fall asleep, but their eyes roll back, and their heads starts popping up. Well, it wasn’t long before “Mr. Energy” was resting against my arm, quietly sleeping.

Soon as Tanner decided to snooze, I elected to stay in the stand since there was only about 30 minutes left of daylight. So I positioned Tanner so he could lay down across the buddy stand seat that was covered with a camouflage blanket, and I would stand up. After positioning Tanner towards comfort, I stood up in the stand, now facing the rear, and spotted a nice buck standing there watching me. I touched Tanner on the face and arm attempting to wake him from his afternoon nap. I whispered to him “Tanner, there is a deer, wake up”. No response. So I looked back up the deer was gone. I positioned my rifle across the stand bars and waited for the deer to exit the brush. Just as I thought, he walked right through the opening in the brush headed for the deep woods. I announced I was there with a mouthed made “grunt”. He stopped and “bang”. As soon as the shot rang out, “Tanner, jumped up, wide eyed and said “Did I GET HIM?. Excited now, he really wanted to know if he got a deer. I smiled at him and excitedly said yes son, you got a big old buck. He jumped up and down in the stand and hugged me, and said “Well, where is he? Let’s go get him.” His little voice was squeaking high and low with excitement. This was his first experience in the deer woods hunting, and man he sure loved it, as did I. We climbed down the stand together, and went to where the buck was standing. I showed him the blood on the ground and explained to him that he should walk beside the blood, not in it, when he was tracking a deer. He started to walk beside the trail when he squeaked again. “I found him, he is right there” pointing. All of these events happening so fast, I wanted them to slow down some so I could savor the enjoyment of watching him. I showed him the caution of approaching a wounded or dead animal, helped him count the points on the antlers, and hugs and pride just rushed through me. After all, this hunt was supposed to be all about him.

He helped me load the deer on the 4-wheeler, and away we went to show the family. Close to the house now, I walked beside the 4-wheeler and allowed Tanner to drive up to the house. Picture this, A five year old boy, dressed in a camouflage shirt and orange hat with vest, driving a ranch 4-wheeler with a rifle in the rack on the front, and a 140 pound 8-point deer strapped to the utility rack in the back, coming out of the deer woods and driving up to the house with his mother waiting for him with a camera. Wouldn’t you be proud? I know I was. Tanner will never forget his first deer hunt, but neither will I. I think Lori, my wife and his mother, took a million pictures that evening.
Not only that, but he beat me this year with his deer. Mine during bow season was 150 pounds, but his rack was bigger. It is good to start them off young.

Hearing will be Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at the Boise State Capitol Building, Room EW40 {East Wing 40} at 8:30 AM.

Please attend and give your testimony to support the Legislature in defining the current population and status of wolves in Idaho, a condition of emergency.

If passed, this Bill will equip the Governor with Legislative support to stand with the people of the State of Idaho to preserve our big game, secure our livestock producers and protect our people.

Thanks and we hope to see you there.

Sincerely,
Tony Mayer
Rick Mayer

*Info* For more information and to read the text of the bill HRC043, visit this link.

Rex Rammell, candidate for Idaho Governor, in an email exchange about this bill, told me, “I would love to have this resolution in hand as Idaho’s governor. I would declare an emergency and order wolves killed!”

Plan to attend this meeting. It sounds like it could be very interesting, in addition that it is an extremely important bill that relates to many, many Idaho citizens.

URGENT: Two-Thirds of Idaho Wolf Carcasses Examined Have Thousands of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms. Despite warnings from experts, FWS and IDFG ignored diseases, parasites spread by wolves. These disease can spread to humans! — Wolves are infecting livestock pastures and moose habitat with Neospora Caninum, the parasite that causes abortions in cattle and moose and other members of the deer family (The Outdoorsman Dec 2009).

PLEASE FORWARD TO ANYONE WHO NEEDS TO HEAR THIS INFORMATION. THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!

Guest Speakers:

Ron Gillett – Chairman of the Anti-Wolf Coalition

Wayne Krasselt – Cattle Rancher (will be speaking on the likely Neospora Caninum outbreak in cattle spread from wolves that causes spontaneous abortion in cattle) He will be speaking from his own experience. Wayne lost 100% of his cattle production from suspected infected range pasture in 2009. Wayne is awaiting test results to confirm.

Dr. Rex Rammell – Veterinarian and 2010 Idaho Republican Gubernatorial candidate (The only candidate with the knowledge, will and determination to eradicate this problem in Idaho). Rex will also speaking on other hotbed issues such as NAIS/Premise Identification, states’ rights, nullification of unconstitutional federal mandates, his “Billion Dollar Pledge” to Idaho, and the fight to return control of Idaho’s public lands back to Idaho.

Read more about diseases carried by wolves:
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/01/06/two-thirds-of-idaho-wolf-carcasses-examined-have-thousands-of-hydatid-disease-tapeworms/

NOTICE: Although this dinner is free, space is limited to 400 so you must pre-register by phone or email. If you register early enough we will mail your tickets to you, otherwise they will be held at the door for you. If you are not pre-registered you will not be admitted unless there are un-issued tickets remaining at the door.

To request tickets by email: rexrammell4governor@gmail.com (Include names, contact info for those attending)

To request tickets by phone: 208-301-2412