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

Judge Friedman’s ruling states that the reason he remanded the case was because the USFWS failed to provide a reason, supported by the ESA, to justify removing the gray wolves in the Great Lakes region only. In remanding the case the judge is sending the issue back to the USFWS for an explanation. Judge Friedman said the ESA’s definition of a “Distinct Population Segment” is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue”.

The judge did not have to put the wolf back on the endangered list but it appears that he did just because he could. More on that later.

What Judge Friedman is saying in his ruling is that the USFWS has no authority under the ESA to selectively delist only the population of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region. In his opening opinion he says this:

In 1978, the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was listed as threatened in Minnesota and endangered throughout the rest of the conterminous United States. On February 8, 2007, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”), an agency within the Department of the Interior, promulgated a final rule revising the wolf’s listing status. See 72 Fed. Reg. 6052 (Feb. 8, 2007) (the “Final Rule”). The Final Rule did not affect the listing status of the gray wolf everywhere. Rather, it designated a cluster of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes region as a “distinct population segment,” or DPS. It then removed the wolves within the western Great Lakes DPS from the endangered species list. The Final Rule did not change the listing status of gray wolves outside the boundaries of the western Great Lakes DPS.

In short, Judge Friedman seems to be saying that because in 1978 the federal government opted to list the wolf as either “threatened” or “endangered” everywhere south of the Canadian border, they cannot now chop up wolf population segments in order to remove them from the ESA protection status. He supports this by saying the ESA is ambiguous and finds no previous court rulings otherwise, therefore it doesn’t give the USFWS authority to delist only the Great Lakes population segment of wolves.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 says in reference to a “Distinct Population Segment”:

(16) The term ‘‘species’’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

According to Judge Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS argued that this was the intent of Congress when it developed the ESA. Friedman didn’t buy it.

On the other hand, “deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not appropriate when the agency wrongly believes that [its] interpretation is compelled by Congress.” PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d at 798. As discussed above, it seems clear that FWS erroneously concluded that its interpretation of the ESA was compelled by Congress.

Friedman also tries to explain why the USFWS interpretation is ambiguous.

Because the ESA is ambiguous with respect to the issue at hand, the Court is required to defer to any permissible agency construction under Chevron step two. See Defs.’ Mot. at 13; Defs.’ Opp. at 4. In this case, however, there is no permissible construction to which the Court can defer. The Final Rule and FWS’ papers rely exclusively on a “plain meaning” reading of the ESA which the Court already has rejected. And even assuming that the Court could look elsewhere for an interpretation to which it could defer, there is none in sight. The DPS Policy does not qualify as a construction to which this Court can defer because the DPS Policy does not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court. The purpose of the DPS Policy is to clarify the meaning of the term “distinct population segment” and to set forth criteria for deciding whether a sub-population should be designated as a DPS. It does not address the propriety of simultaneously designating and delisting a DPS within a broader listing, and the Court finds both parties’ arguments to the contrary strained and unpersuasive. Nor may the Court look to the ESA’s implementing regulations for a Chevron-worthy interpretation. Those regulations largely track the statutory provisions discussed in part III.B and, like those statutory provisions, do not directly address the interpretive issue before the Court.

So Judge Friedman remanded the case back to the USFWS for them to provide a definition of “distinct population segment” the court will accept, that then allows the feds to break out segments of wolves or any other species and remove from federal protection.

The second issue with the case was whether or not the wolf in the Western Great Lakes region should be placed back on the ESA. Friedman explains it this way:

The Court agrees with FWS and defendant-intervenors that it is within the Court’s discretion to remand without vacating the Final Rule, but in the context of this case it declines to do so………..Second, while it is true that vacatur will have a palpable regulatory effect – specifically, management responsibility for the western Great Lakes DPS will be reposed in the federal government rather than in the states – the Court concludes that “disruption” is not a substantial concern in this case. Little confusion or inefficiency will result from reinstating a regulatory regime that was in place from 1978 to 2007, particularly given the fact that state and federal wolf management authorities have been working in tandem for years.

Judge Friedman concludes his reasons for placing the wolf back under federal protection by saying he agreed with the plaintiffs that he thinks the ESA prefers to protect the animals. Is it fair then to add to that he, like most others, believe it is better to protect the animals than the rights of the people?

We can argue until we are blue in the face over whether this judge or Judge Donald Molloy, who ruled over the recent return of the gray wolf in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to the ESA, but the problem clearly lies with a faulty Endangered Species Act. Without changes our wildlife is in danger. Why do those so eager to protect the wolf not see that further lack of management of wolves threatens sustainability of other species, species we have spent millions of dollars to protect?

If this ruling remains and USFWS refuses or cannot reverse this decision, much of the U.S is in serious trouble with wildlife management. People have very little faith that the USFWS is looking out for their interest, after all it is another government agency. Many believe they are too scared, too broke and too interested in the efforts of environmentalists to much care about the rights of others. The USFWS has shown us of late their unwillingness to fight to keep the wolf listed in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana by simply walking away and asking the judge to withdraw their request. Why should we think the USFWS is interested in reversing this latest ruling.

The seriousness of this ruling is widespread. We must think beyond wolves. It affects every living species within the borders of our country. If Friedman’s ruling stands, this means that because the federal government declared the gray wolf either threatened or endangered in every state south of Canada, the only way the wolf can ever be removed from ESA listing is when it can do so throughout all of the lower 48 states. We know that can never happen.

Now the danger comes because there is a lessening of the desire to list species that might need so out of fear of the consequences that might follow. This will have an affect on whether the feds desire to protect a species. In short, this is abuse of the ESA, a poor interpretation and the end result is going to be the loss of some wildlife to protect another. It’s ridiculous.

The USFWS needs now to rethink any actions pertaining to other species. It needs to clearly define any and all historic species habitat out of fear it will wrongfully place a region under the restrictive rules of the ESA.

The USFWS will now be given the task of managing the gray wolf in the entire lower 48 states, a task they are not able to do. They don’t have the resources to undertake such an event. What will that mean to our other wildlife populations and the property rights of all Americans?

Much of this is unknown but an investigation into what is happening in certain areas is certainly revealing enough that it should cause concern. The facts are that in certain areas where wolves are growing unchecked and unmanaged, elk and deer populations are disappearing at historic rates. Is this really what we want? Is this really what the ESA was created for?

Livestock depredation is on the rise in specific areas along with wolf and human encounters. These surely will continue to increase. Again I ask was this the intention of the ESA in 1973 when it was written?

Environmentalists have managed to make a sham out of the ESA through their lawsuits and as much as I hate to support judges, some of their rulings are in line with the text of the ESA. Animal activism, all in the name of saving one animal, is now putting others at risk. We can’t let this happen. Friedman’s ruling is detrimental to the health and sustainability of all of our wildlife nationwide.

As I see it, should this ruling force the USFWS to opt against a listing of a species because the interpretation of the ESA is so flawed, then the environmentalists will just be forced to change their lawsuit tactics and begin suing to force the USFWS to list even when they don’t want to. We already know that the enviros believe the ESA was written to “require” the feds to list and protect every species in existence in this country.

If we don’t act immediately to rewrite the Endangered Species Act, the years of hard work and billions of dollars expended will soon be flushed down the drain.

Tom Remington

Back last February, a Moffat County rancher named Rodney Culverwell, started killing elk that he says were destroying his property. He was charged with 16 counts and found guilty on 4 felony counts of illegally killing elk, etc.. He could face jail time and hefty fines of up to $400,000.

Elk trampling crops, knocking down fences and being costly to ranchers in Northwestern Colorado isn’t really new news. Taking the actions Culverwell did is.

Some of what Culverwell claimed in court and even prior to his shooting the elk is that the Colorado Division of Wildlife didn’t do enough to help him protect his property and better manage the herds of elk. Perhaps he is right to some degree but what did Culverwell himself do to help himself other than shoot the elk that were mangling his fence?

Northwest Colorado is promoted as prime elk hunting. Some ads say it is the best in the world. Therefore, landowners can demand pretty inflated prices for a hunting lease. According to testimony at Culverwell’s trial, last year he charged $80,000 for a hunting lease on his own ranch. One would have to begin recalculating the business decision to take the $80,000 considering what happened.

When you sell the lease, as a landowner you may not have the control you would like to get the number of elk off your land. If you were to leave your land open to public hunting, even though sometimes the negatives that come with that angers the landowner, the obvious question then becomes which is the better business choice?

The trend that is sweeping the nation is for hunting leases. I’m not fond of them but understand the why’s and wherefore’s. From a landowner’s perspective, I want to have full control over access to my land. As a hunter, I want affordable access to land so I can hunt. Both the landowner and the hunter, along with the fish and game departments need to manage these game populations which requires a three-way cooperative effort, one that doesn’t always happen.

So, maybe the idea of a hunting lease on private land is now starting to come back and bite the landowner because wildlife managers aren’t able to control populations through the issuing of tags. With exploding populations of game that can be destructive, the landowner is now having to swallow added expenses from the damage caused by the animals.

Some, especially in Colorado, think the answer is to import wolves to control the elk populations. There’s a lot of problems if this should happen and one that I certainly do not support. It’s really a matter of exchanging one set of problems for another. If the elk numbers were reduced, unmanaged populations of wolves would turn around a destroy the ranchers livestock, etc.

Part of the problem landowners face now from wolves is that advocates for sprinkling wolves around the world, continue their lies and deceptive practices. Many people were reluctantly convinced that wolves should be brought into the Yellowstone area. They were told that once populations reached a certain level, state management would take over so that there would be minimal property damage and human conflicts. Once that goal was reached and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to turn control of the wolf over to the states, wolf advocate groups sued to stop that action.

Now areas in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have some serious wolf issues and with things tied up in the courts for what could be decades, why would anybody in their right mind willingly bring wolves into the state of Colorado? And why should anyone believe what these groups say now that want wolves brought into the state?

To make wildlife management programs work, requires cooperation from everyone – landowners, hunters and state game departments. Mess up any one of those influences and problems begin to surface.

Tom Remington

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Outdoor television star Michael Waddell has been selected as honorary chairman for this year’s National Hunting and Fishing Day, set for Sept. 27.

In the volunteer role, Waddell becomes the official spokesman for the annual commemoration’s key message: Conservation succeeds only because of America’s 34 million hunters and anglers. In fact, through license fees and excise taxes, hunters and anglers generate $100,000 every 30 minutes for fish, wildlife and habitat programs.

“I’m so humbled to be named honorary chair. National Hunting and Fishing Day has such a great tradition. And it’s awesome to be able to make a difference in the lives of people who love to hunt and fish just like I do,” said Waddell.

“Michael’s surging popularity with youths, women, men — hunters and non-hunters alike — make him an ideal person to carry the torch for National Hunting and Fishing Day,” said Denise Wagner, coordinator for Wonders of Wildlife museum.

The museum is the official home of National Hunting and Fishing Day, with sponsorship from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Bass Pro Shops, The Sportsman Channel, National Wild Turkey Federation, Realtree, Cabela’s, Woolrich, GunBroker.com and Safari Club International.

Wonders of Wildlife is the only hunting- and fishing-focused museum affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution and accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.

Waddell, of Woodbury (better known as Booger Bottom), Ga., hosts two outdoor TV shows including “Realtree Road Trips,” a perennial fan favorite. Waddell’s hunting knowledge, fresh perspective and sense of humor keep this reality-style show fast-paced, energetic, edgy and funny. Upward ratings show more and more viewers who never before considered collecting their own venison are being drawn alongside veteran hunters toward the magnetic host.

Waddell shares his love of the outdoors with wife Ashley and their four children, Mason, Meyer, Woods Macoy and Audrey Mackay.

At the urging of NSSF, Congress formalized National Hunting and Fishing Day in 1971 as a way to recognize hunters, anglers and conservation. Every U.S. President from Richard M. Nixon through George W. Bush, as well as Congressmen, governors and mayors across the country, has proclaimed their support. It’s one of the most effective grassroots campaigns ever undertaken to promote traditional outdoor sports.

Previous honorary chairs include Jeff Foxworthy, Tracy Byrd, Wade Boggs, Ward Burton, Hank Williams Jr., Terry Bradshaw and many others.

-30-

TO: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

March 31, 2008

For more information contact: Denise Wagner
(203) 241-4468
nhfday@wondersofwildlife.org

There is brand new documentary film about the plight of Americans beset by government-dumped wolves, Undue Burden. It tells the story of regular, law-abiding citizens powerless to halt government-protected wolves from killing their livestock and pets, stalking their children, and destroying the livability of their communities and private properties.

Undue Burden is a shocking, gritty, graphic, and real. Not a Hollywood production, Undue Burden is short on glitter, long on honesty. The folks interviewed are just like you and me, shy in front of the camera, but they convey a story of oppression and hurt that is medieval and absolutely unconscionable in our modern society.

Read more here(make sure to read the comments following the article) and learn how you can order your DVD today.

Tom Remington

HB1096, a bill that many said was poorly worded and very vague, was suspended indefinitely in the Colorado committee and many hope it is never revived in any way but you can be assured Coloradoans have not heard the last from at least the Humane Society of the United States whose aim is to stop all hunting.

While many Colorado residents, hunters, ranchers and supporters of property rights can breathe a brief sigh of relief, they surely cannot let their guard down. HSUS and all anti-hunting and animal rights advocate groups look for any opportunity they can to suck the life out of Americans by stealing away their rights and heritage.

This is one more bill we are happy to see die!

Tom Remington

“Don’t you?” said I. “Well; suppose you’ve been climbing a mountain late in the afternoon when the sun is on the other side of it. It is a mountain of big boulders, loose little stones, thorny bushes. The slightest misstep would send pebbles rattling, brush rustling; but you have gone all the way without making that misstep. This is quite a feat. It means that you’ve known all about every footstep you’ve taken. That would be business enough for most people, wouldn’t it? But in addition you’ve managed to see everything on that side of the mountain – especially patches of brown. You’ve seen lots of patches of brown, and you’ve examined each one of them. Besides that, you’ve heard lots of little rustlings, and you’ve identified each one of them. To do all these things well keys your nerves to a high tension, doesn’t it? And then near the top you look up from your last noiseless step to see in the brush a very dim patch of brown. If you hadn’t been looking so hard, you surely wouldn’t have made it out. Perhaps, if you’re not humble-minded, you may reflect that most people wouldn’t have seen it at all. You whistle once sharply. The patch of brown defines itself. Your heart gives one big jump. You know that you have but the briefest moment, the tiniest fraction of time, to hold the white bead of your rifle motionless and to press the trigger. It has to be done very steadily, at that distance, – and you’re out of breath, with your nerves keyed high in the tension of such caution.”

But most wonderful of all was a great buck, of I should be afraid to say how many points, that stood silhouetted on the extreme end of a ridge high above our camp. The time was just after twilight, and as we watched, the sky lightened behind him in prophecy of the moon.

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

Ramblings and thoughts of a modern-day hunter? Surely I think not but it could be although a rare find.

My good friend and chief photographer for Skinny Moose Media, Milt Inman, discovered a book in a pile of what looked more like trash than treasure while browsing a yard sale not that long ago and came upon a book looking old, faded and frail. The book had a friend and found a new home.

“The Mountains” by Stewart Edward White just might be a modern-day treasure looking for a reading deer hunter to inspire. White is the author of other books; “The Blazed Trail”, “Silent Places”, “The Forest” and others. “The Mountains” is illustrated by Fernand Lungren and was published by McClure, Phillips & Company of New York in 1904.

Over one hundred years have passed since White moved about the trail looking for deer. What has changed? That really depends upon who might be reading the book. For me, it could have very well be written today, with the exception of the use of certain words and terminology of its day. For others the tactics described would be ancient history, something that happened in an era long ago passed by.

I think not! You see, I’ve never been one to hide out in a ground blind or sit uneasily in a tree stand. For those who do, the accounts described above could just as easily been written in ancient Greek. It would have as much meaning.

All too often in the so-called modern era of deer hunting, nearly every article written or hunting tip given focuses on blinds, tree stands, scents, lures, calls and about every assorted gimmick and gadget ever invented and those yet to come. The art of tracking doesn’t seem to be practiced as readily as it did once but I can attest that it’s not dead.

I discussed this book some with Milt before I confiscated it and he brought to my attention that much of what White writes about in this book is similar to what a family of big buck deer hunters from Vermont talks about and spends time each year trying to teach to other hunters.

The Benoits all grew up in Vermont. There’s Larry the father and sons Lanny, Lane and Shane. They love to deer hunt and their passion is tracking down big bucks. As they say, the proof is in the pudding and if you look at the success these guys have had, you cannot deny that they must know more about the art of tracking than the average deer hunter.

A couple years ago, Milt and I traveled to the far reaches of Northern Maine to a small town called Allagash to attend a Benoit Brothers’ Big Buck Tracking School. I wanted to cover the event as a writer and I took Milt along to take pictures and to use his perspective on issues.

There were two things the Benoits emphasized all during their instruction – shooting and tracking. Shooting is obvious. As Lanny pointed out and as White points out in his book over a hundred years ago, you have a very brief moment to “hold the white bead on your target” and shoot. But, Lanny further points out that if you have been successful enough to “eliminate the obvious”, as White describes it, you’ll have perhaps as much as a split second to react and shoot. If you can’t shoot, the hard work leading up to the shot is all for not.

The second aspect is the one White writes about in knowing the obvious and removing it from what the mind takes in and sees. If you can accomplish such, you will see deer. The Benoits often talk about learning what a big buck will do. This begins with an understanding of where to find the big deer, taking into consideration all factors. You pick up a track and follow it. You have to learn and know your area, the terrain, escape routes, etc. and you have to recognize from the track what the deer is thinking, know his habits and use this to eliminate the obvious.

There will be mistakes. That’s how we learn, that is if we are willing to learn from our mistakes and apply them to the next outing. The more seasoned we become the more we will be able to remove from our visual all the obvious things – the rock, the tree, the flowering shrub, etc.. Then, once our minds are trained to know what to look for and how to apply all the information being processed, our success rate will go up. We will turn seeing no deer into seeing deer and in turn taking deer.

I agree with Milt, now that I’ve read that section of the book. Almost every aspect of what Stewart Edward White wrote about over one hundred years ago still applies today and accurately describes the Benoits methods they employ in tracking down monster bucks.

Tom Remington

In the latest issue of the Outdoorsman, Dovel presents to his readers some background history on how our media, often times influenced by fish and game personnel and wildlife biologists, react to and present written information about human and wolf encounters. As part of Dovel’s presentation, he includes a great deal of information that he received from one of our very renowned wolf experts.

Dr. Valerius Geist, a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary, has years of studies in wildlife, including wolves and personal encounters with them. He is recognized by many as one of the leading authorities on wolves and wolf habits.

If you will recall back in November, I reported that a coroner’s inquest had made a determination that Kenton Carnegie, a 22-year old college student had been attacked and killed by wolves in a remote area of Northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Dr. Geist and retired Alaska wolf expert Mark McNay, were asked to represent the family of Kenton Carnegie during the inquest.

Dr. Geist points out that there is an obvious reason why wolf attacks on humans go unreported or are declared to be inconclusive as to the cause of death. Those attacks that result in death occur almost entirely when a person is alone, no one to assist in fighting off the wolves and nobody to witness what happens.

Even in Carnegie’s situation, investigators readily agreed that there were wolf tracks all around what was left of the body. I even think I recall reading that witnesses who found Carnegie, reported seeing wolves or a wolf at or near the body. The disagreements come from whether or not Carnegie was dead before the wolves appeared on the scene.

This is the biggest reason why it goes on being reported that wolf kills on humans “never” happen in North America yet most people know this is simply not true.

Dr. Geist sent to George Dovel of the Outdoorsman, part of the 61-page recording of testimony at the inquest of Kenton Carnegie in hopes that people will read expert testimony and heed the information that comes from the best in the business rather than from the media which is nothing more than an echo chamber of environmentalists who would dare never to badmouth a wolf.

Below comes from The Outdoorsman article and is part of the information provided by Dr. Valerius Geist. It is the seven stages that lead to a wolf attack on people. There is more information that goes with these seven steps. I highly recommend contacting The Outdoorsman so you can get your copy sent to you.

These Are The Seven Stages Leading To An Attack On People By Wolves

1) Within the pack’s territory prey is becoming scarce not only due to increased predation on native prey animals, but also by the prey evacuating home ranges en mass, leading to a virtual absence of prey. Or wolves increasingly visit garbage dumps at night. We observed the former on Vancouver Island in summer and fall 1999.

Deer left the meadow systems occupied by wolves and entered boldly into suburbs and farms, causing – for the first time – much damage to gardens. At night they slept close to barns and houses, which they had not done in the previous four years.

The wintering grounds of trumpeter swans, Canada geese and flocks of several species of ducks were vacated. The virtual absence of wildlife in the landscape was striking.

2) Wolves in search of food began to approach human habitations – at night! Their presence was announced by frequent and loud barking of farm dogs. A pack of sheep-guarding dogs raced out each evening to confront the wolf pack, resulting in extended barking duels at night, and the wolves were heard howling even during the day.

3) The wolves appear in daylight and observe people doing their daily chores at some distance. Wolves excel at learning by close, steady observation [1]. They approach buildings during daylight.

4) Small bodied livestock and pets are attacked close to buildings even during the day. The wolves act distinctly bolder in the actions.

They preferentially pick on dogs and follow them right up to the verandas. People out with dogs find themselves defending their dogs against a wolf or several wolves. Such attacks are still hesitant and people save some dogs.

At this stage wolves do not focus on humans, but attack pets and some livestock with determination. However, they may threaten humans with teeth exposed and growling when the humans are defending dogs, or show up close to a female dog in heat, or close to a kill or carrion defended by wolves. The wolves are still establishing territory.

5) The wolves explore large livestock, leading to docked tails, slit ears and hocks. Livestock may bolt through fences running for the safety of barns. When the first seriously wounded cattle are found they tend to have severe injuries to the udders, groin and sexual organs and need to be put down. The actions of wolves become more brazen and cattle or horses may be killed close to houses and barns where the cattle or horses were trying to find refuge. Wolves may follow riders and surround them. They may mount verandas and look into windows.

6) Wolves turn their attention to people and approach them closely, initially merely examining them closely for several minutes on end. This is a switch from establishing territory to targeting people as prey. The wolves may make hesitant, almost playful attacks biting and tearing clothing, nipping at limbs and torso. They withdraw when confronted. They defend kills by moving toward people and growling and barking at them from 10 – 20 paces away.

7) Wolves attack people. These initial attacks are clumsy, as the wolves have not yet learned how to take down the new prey efficiently. Persons attacked can often escape because of the clumsiness of the attacks.

A mature courageous man may beat off or strangulate an attacking wolf. However, against a wolf pack there is no defense and even two able and armed men may be killed. Wolves as pack hunters are so capable a predator that they may take down black bears, even grizzly bears [2]. Wolves may defend kills.

The attack may not be motivated by predation, but be a matter of more detailed exploration unmotivated by hunger. This explains why wolves on occasion carry away living, resisting children, why they do not invariably feed on the humans they killed, but may abandon such just as they may kill foxes and just leave them, and why injuries to an attacked person may at times be surprisingly light, granted the strength of a wolf’s jaw and its potential shearing power [3].

[1] – It is important to recognize here that wolves learn in a manner different from dogs, and that they excel at learning by closely observing what is going on. They are insight learners, and they solve problems, such as unlatching gates, for instance, almost at once!

Some dogs may solve this, but over a very long time, and usually not at all. Captive wolves or coyotes not only learn to open their cage, but quickly open all the others as well! And they achieve this by sitting and just watching attentively – an activity wild wolves indulge in continually.

From an elevated position they rest or sit and watch, watch, watch. Many times wolves followed me and on some occasions sat beside my cabin at night, orientated towards the cabin, apparently watching what was going on.

Wolves have large heads relative to the body and at comparable skull sizes have about ten percent more brain mass than dogs. See Ray and Lorna Coppinger 2001 Dogs, pp. 42-47, 54-55.

[2] – Personal communication by Dr. Paul Paquet from research on coastal wolves in British Columbia. Wolf scat contained fur and claws of both black bears and grizzly bears.

[3] – I am grateful to Prof. Harry Frank drawing my attention to multiple motivations of wolves attacking people.

Tom Remington