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.

•    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.

R.J. Smith, Senior Fellow, The National Center for Public Policy Research

Washington, DC – For a quarter of a century the controversial program to repopulate the Southwest with Mexican Gray Wolves has created a constant political struggle in New Mexico and Arizona. There were very good reasons why the early settlers across the West and the local, state and federal governments cooperated in eliminating the wolves. The large numbers of wolves made cattle and sheep ranching nearly impossible with their constant depredations on the livestock and they also threatened family dogs and even children.

However, as radical Greens have gained influence with liberal politicians and the media, they have been able to gain support for their efforts to force family farmers, ranchers and landowners off the land and return it to dangerous predators. It is part and parcel of their ongoing program of “rural cleansing”: to remove people from the land and return it to near wilderness. It is part of a massive program called the Wildlands Project, which even enjoyed support within the Bush administration’s political appointees in the Department of Interior.

The USFWS has said that the federal efforts to reintroduce the wolves require the release of still more wolves in order to improve the chances for success. By success they must mean the total elimination of people and livestock in the Southwest. Apparently they have noticed that there are still some ranchers managing to survive who have not lost all their livestock. The chief Mexican Wolf official with the Southwest field office of the USFWS said that the current recovery plan’s target wolf population is not high enough.

There have been continuous conflicts in the relatively limited areas where the wolves have already been released over the last decade. Constant wolf attacks on livestock and farm dogs, wolves circling farmhouses at night and wolves gathering near rural school bus stops. There have already been calls for building wolf-proof bus stop shelters in order to protect children from possible attacks. It is widely know that federal officials seldom respond quickly enough following reports of livestock predation to document the event and attempt to capture the specific wolves involved. Although the feds have had to recapture some wolves which have repeatedly been involved in predation, their often slow response has led to examples of ranchers and farmers acting to protect their livestock and their families.

Yet the feds not only want to release still more wolves but they want to release them across a far wider area of the Southwest.

One wonders what oath of office the politicians took who acted to place the well being of wolves before that of American families and children.

Posted by Tom Remington

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are issuing this final rule to comply with three court orders which have the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountains. This rule corrects the gray wolf listing at 50 CFR 17.11 to reinstate the listing of wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North
Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, the northwestern portion of Ohio, the northern half of Montana, the northern panhandle of Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and in north-central Utah as endangered, and reinstate the listing of wolves in Minnesota as threatened. This rule also reinstates the former designated critical habitat in 50 CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) for the gray wolf in Minnesota, and special rules in 50 CFR 17.84 designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho and all of Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations. This action revises the CFR to comply with three court orders. In addition, this final rule takes additional
administrative action that removes archaic provisions from the gray wolf special regulation at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and makes corrections to the gray wolf special regulation at § 17.84(n) by removing language referring to a Western DPS.

How I understand this is that the Department of Interior (DOI) has cranked the clock back in time to 1978. My question now becomes, why stop there?

Quick history: In 1978 the United States declared the gray wolf “endangered” in all lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota. Wolves there were classified as “threatened”, essentially creating the first Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of gray wolves. Map 1 below shows areas shaded in gray as wolf protection areas. As you can see, Minnesota is listed as “threatened”. Map 1 also shows two areas of “nonessential experimental populations”(NEP) for gray wolves.

On November 22, 1994 (period of wolf reintroduction) the feds created the Yellowstone NEP, shown in the dark shaded area of the map. Again on January 12, 1998 a NEP was created in parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

On July 13, 2000, the USFWS proposed changes to the listing of the gray wolf that would have created 4 Distinct Population Segments. On April 1, 2003 what the USFWS ended up with was 3 DPS as can be seen in Map 3.

February 8, 2007, the USFWS published the final rule creating the Western Great Lakes DPS, in order to remove that segment of the wolf population from federal protection.

On February 27, 2008, the USFWS published the final rule designating the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS, in order to remove federal protection of the gray wolf in that area.

If you’re following along, you will now notice that within the lower 48 states there are no fewer than 5 DPS for gray wolves.

Lawsuits followed all of these actions. On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in a District of Columbia federal court, ordered the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS returned to federal protection. More on this in a moment.

On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy, in a federal court in Montana, ruled the basis for delisting the wolf incomplete (he demands “genetic connectivity”) and also declared Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan was inadequate to ensure the sustainability of the gray wolf in that state.

The third lawsuit dates back to 2005 when courts in Oregon and Vermont ruled that the Final Rule of April 1, 2003 (that created the three DPS shown on the maps above) violated the Endangered Species Act. Subsequently the ruling invalidated the three DPS created in that final rule. What isn’t clear is whether these two rulings apply to the two NEPs.

If we take a closer look at Judge Paul Friedman’s ruling, we see that he also believes that the feds’ creation of the Western Great Lakes DPS was an illegal act. Here is what I wrote back in September.

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.

What the Department of Interior has been forced to do is comply with the rulings of the three lawsuits. As a result the USFWS describes what is left for protection of the wolf.

As of the filing of the respective court orders, any and all wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, except in Minnesota, are listed as an endangered species under
the ESA. Any and all wolves in Minnesota are listed as a threatened species under the ESA. The reinstated regulations found at 50 CFR 17.95 designate critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan, and the reinstated special regulations in 50 CFR 17.40(d) govern the regulation of gray
wolves in Minnesota. The provisions of these regulations are the same as those in the prior regulations that were removed per our February 8, 2007, final delisting rule (72 FR 6052).
The reinstated special rules found at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) designate part of the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains as nonessential experimental populations. The provisions of the special rules are the same as those in the prior special rules that were removed per our February 27, 2008, final
delisting rule (73 FR 10514).
This means that wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Washington, Oregon, Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana are hereby listed as endangered (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in Minnesota are listed as threatened (50 CFR 17.11(h)). Wolves in southern Montana, Idaho south of Interstate 90, and all of Wyoming are hereby listed as
nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA (50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n)). The maps in the rule portion of this document illustrate the boundaries of the nonessential experimental population areas.

*Note* The Final Rule contains maps that show NEPs as described above.

What is becoming distinctly clear in all of these cases combined is that the DOI and USFWS have no legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment for any species.

In the Vermont court case, part of the two lawsuits that essentially rendered the three DPS of wolves in the lower 48 states illegal and a violation of the Act, Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s ruling stated the following:

The definition of “species” includes “any distinct population segment of any species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). The ESA does not define “distinct population segment” (“DPS”), nor is it a term used in scientific literature.

Judge Murtha recognizes that the “DPS Policy” “allows” for the USFWS to protect species based on the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population. This policy takes into consideration the “discreetness”, “significance” and “conservation status” of species. But Murtha obviously doesn’t think creating a DPS for management purposes and in this case, delisting purposes, is legal.

Judge Paul Friedman, who ruled that the WGL DPS was illegal, also stated that there is no definition of a Distinct Population Segment.

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.

Judge Friedman tells us that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, is ambiguous when it comes to defining 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.

Friedman claims that the USFWS has the authority to declare any area a Distinct Population Segment based on the above as described in the ESA. But most telling is that he says the USFWS cannot create another DPS within the broader DPS. Which of course makes no sense at all as would pertain to proper and quality wildlife management. (Note that most states through “best available science” practices, have learned that in order to properly manage wildlife, they must create wildlife management districts.)

As a result of the three court cases discussed above, I have to ask why the Department of Interior stopped their clock rewinding at 1978? Why not go back to pre-ESA. As we have seen by court rulings of Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne and the twelve parties that sued Kempthorne to put the wolf back under federal protection in the NRM DPS, tells us that creating DPSs is an illegal act. Any reasonable person would now question whether the federal government had the authority to create the first Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves in 1978 when it classified wolves in all the lower 48 states.

The confusing mess this has created now extends beyond just the gray wolf. It involves every species in existence in the United States. This is a clear example of the courts having inadequate knowledge of the issues making rulings that have now put the very species we may be wanting to protect in danger as well as stripping management powers from the USFWS.

I wrote recently of the efforts taking place as we speak to list the Atlantic salmon in Maine as endangered or threatened under the ESA. From this information we now ask, can the USFWS and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA) create a Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon? The feds are attempting to expand the listing and define critical habitat. This, according to the court’s interpretation, is creating a new DPS within a DPS.

Surely the Department of the Interior, in issuing this final ruling to return the gray wolf protection to 1978 levels, is telling us their hands are tied. They should have taken it one step further and rescinded the original declaration of a wolf DPS within the U.S. from the beginning. (Perhaps they knew that would actually get someone’s attention.)

This also raises some very serious issues with regard to the “Nonessential Experimental Population” of gray wolves in the Yellowstone National Park area and Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Was it a legal act to create these NEPs? The broader question becomes whether the federal government had legal authority to reintroduce wolves into these regions? Surely if they can’t create segmented DPS of a species for management purposes, they have no legal right to dump species into these illegally crafted NEPs.

Obviously the power and authority of the Department of Interior, which includes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to manage wildlife has evaporated. Any so-called environmental or preservationist organization, with money behind it, can control the courts and get what they want. The Endangered Species Act is only as good as the lawsuits permit it to be. Perhaps it is time for the states to reclaim their sovereignty.

It appears the DOI has lobbed the ball back into the courts, figuratively and literally.

Tom Remington

2005,2006,2007 Florida State Turkey Calling Champion

2004, 2007 Florida State Gobbling Champion

Quaker Boy Game Calls Pro Staff

One of the most asked questions about hunting the wild turkey is “when do I call and how often?” I feel that there is an art to calling turkeys. It’s all based on feeling him out and knowing what he wants to hear. How do you know this? Well I think it will come to you the more you work gobblers in different scenarios. Right off the roost, mid morning with hens, with out hens, public land bird, private land bird. In my opinion, whether calling a hot to trot two year old or a four year old hard hunted public bird, it’s a matter of getting his attention and keeping his interest just enough to get him to investigate. If you over call him, he will stand his ground and wait for this hot hen to meet him for their rendezvous. If you under call him, he will move off to the next hot item.

Take into consideration what part of the season it is and the possibility the bird your working has been called to before. Early season, less pressured birds are generally going to be more workable than birds later in the season that have heard every call in the book. I feel the toms come to the realization that every hen sound they hear is not an actual hen, making them much more difficult to call. That’s not to say that a late season gobbler can’t be called, especially when all of his harem has been bred and is nesting, leaving him all alone most of the day.

My first advice in the process of learning when to call and how often is to practice, practice, practice and become proficient in more than one type of call – box, pot style and air(mouth and tube calls). Learn every vocalization a turkey makes and be able to reproduce these calls. The more calls you have in your repertoire the better chance you’ll have to coax him in. Obtain recordings of wild birds and listen to rhythm and not necessarily tone.(for sounds of the wild turkey go to NWTF.ORG) Remember every wild turkey has a different voice. Record your calling, outside preferably. Gain confidence in your calling, know that you can purr when needed, cut when needed, yelp when needed etc. Nothing is worse than a hunter that is afraid to talk with a gobbler because his calling lacks confidence.

Now for the two types of birds I’ll be discussing. One is your basic call-shy gobbler and two is the workable bird that will come in with just the right amount of coaxing. I don’t mean the two year old that will fall over himself getting to you at the first sound that resembles a hen. I mean a workable gobbler.

When first engaging this tom, just feel him out and see how responsive he is. Start him with a little yelping and back off. If he starts in, then stop!! Over calling is probably the number one reason hunters don’t bag toms. Let me state that again. Over calling is probably the number one reason hunters don’t bag toms!!!

Give him enough to get his attention and start him coming. As your bird is closing I would recommend , what I call, checking him. Just a soft yelp or cluck to find his position and verify he’s still closing the distance. If his gobbles are farther away then its time to get more aggressive with him. Regain his attention with some cutting and excited yelping.

If this works and he starts moving toward you again, then let him work, let him come. I personally like to throw a series of purrs and clucks at him just to seal the deal. A good rule of thumb, less is almost always better, but like I stated previously, don’t loose his attention. Just don’t call every breath to hear him gobble. I love to hear a tom gobble as much as the next guy but don’t get caught up in the moment.

As for Mr. Call Shy, this is the gobbler that will really put your skills and patience to the test. This is the bird that will make you the proudest if you outsmart and bag him or humble you just the same if he evades you. This bird is going to be influenced by very soft subtle hen talk – purring and really soft clucking along with soft short yelps, very similar to tree yelps. Also, throw in a little whine or two. Use a series of the calls mentioned every 15 or 20 minutes.

Make your set up as realistic as possible. Not just with audible turkey talk, but with turkey noises, such as the age old trick of scratching in the leaves while simulating the above mentioned calls.

While hunting the third weekend of the central Florida season, I bagged a great bird on public land using those very tactics. He had gobbled on his own one time and I never answered him directly. I did exactly what I mentioned above, purring and clucking, whining and soft yelping on my Quaker Boy World Champ mouth call and about 40 minutes later the bird slipped in ever so cautiously, never strutting, never gobbling. He weighed 17 pounds, had an 11” beard and 1 1/2” spurs.

When working a bird off the roost, you may want to try a fly down with just wing beats, not the cackle. Use a hat beating on your leg or use a wing off a turkey to simulate a hen flying down. Also knowing where this bird is going after fly down can be valuable to your success.

Setting up where he’s going along with this light calling can prove to be successful. More times than not this bird is going to come in quiet and will not alert you of his presence. If you know this bird is using the area and know he isn’t vocal, just set up, soft call and wait. You are basically fooling this tom into believing you’re a lonely hen feeding. Keep in mind this type of scenario is really not engaging the bird in conversation as mentioned with the first type of gobbler.

Just remember when you’re working a vocal gobbler, call him just enough to keep him coming. Keep his interest piqued enough to make him look for you but no more! As he works his way in, check him a time or two to make sure he’s still closing the distance then shut down your calling and be looking for that neon red, white and blue head. If you’re working a non vocal, call shy bird or just hunting a tom you know is in the area but isn’t giving away his location, simulate a call shy hen – one that is looking for company but isn’t going to gather attention while trying to gain companionship. Soft hen talk mixed with feeding noises is a safe bet.

In addition, if you know anyone that has been successful hunting and taking turkeys, pick their brain for knowledge. Take to the field with them and see what makes them successful. You can learn more from one hunting trip with a good turkey hunter than
many seasons afield by yourself.

Scott Ellis

Let’s get this right. The Mexican government wants most of their people to go to the U.S. and make American dollars and ship them back to Mexico and we should listen to their recommendations? These illegals are currently destroying the ecological systems that support all of these animals they say need protecting, yet they have no interest in addressing that problem.

And we must remember that when illegals come into this country, they consider areas that are “less attractive” to cross the border. Please!

Tom Remington

G&F hopes the auction will generate $250,000 each year. The money will be used to match federal grants for habitat improvement and conservation.

Tom Remington

the Department of Game and Fish will make 405 late-season archery elk licenses and 349 deer permits available online and over-the-counter at department offices in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Raton, Roswell and Las Cruces.

Licenses for November and December archery elk hunts in Big Game Management Units 12, 34, 37, 43 and 50; and January archery deer permits for Units 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 40 will be available on a first-come, first-served basis beginning at 8 a.m. Oct. 17. The department is encouraging hunters to save time, gas and to avoid long lines by using the online application system at www.wildlife.state.nm.us. The online system should be faster, improving hunters’ chances of securing preferred permits. Applications are limited to one person per form. To keep lines moving, each walk-in applicant will be allowed to submit no more than two individual applications at once. Walk-in applicants will use Form 2006.

And here is a listing of wildlife management units, dates and number of permits to be issued.

Unit 12: Nov. 25-29, 25 licenses.

Unit 34: Dec. 9-13, 300 licenses.

Unit 37: Dec. 9-13, 40 licenses.

Unit 43: Nov. 11-15, 10 licenses.

Unit 50: Nov. 11-15, 30 licenses.

Deer: Unit 29: Jan. 1-15, 137 permits.

Unit 30: Jan. 1-15, 56 permits.

Unit 31: Jan. 1-15, 16 permits.

Unit 32: Jan. 1-15, 38 permits.

Unit 33: Jan. 1-15, 85 permits.

Unit 40: Jan. 1-15, 17 permits.

For more information, visit the department Web site at www.wildlife.state.nm.us or call (505) 476-8000.

Tom Remington

When some organization like the CBD issues statements saying:

“The only living things the walls won’t stop are people,”

we can only wonder what is really behind their public opposition to the wall. They then go on to tell us what dangers and damages will result if this wall is constructed.

Proposed border construction projects will severely harm some of the Southwest’s most significant lands and wildlife habitat, including wildlife refuges, national parks, forests and wilderness areas. More border walls further damage already-stressed wildlife and places, such as the Cactus Pygmy Owl and Sonoran Pronghorn in Arizona; Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard and Peninsular Ranges Bighorn Sheep in California; Jaguar and Mexican Gray Wolves in New Mexico; and the Rio Grande River, Ocelot, and Big Bend National Park in Texas. Walls harm wildlife by blocking critical migration corridors and destroying valuable habitat.

Nowhere in their statement do they discuss or tell of the serious damage being done to our environment and the habitat of these creatures they mention plus many more they haven’t, from the illegals taking up temporary residence in the open spaces and deserts all along the U.S. and Mexican border.

If you really want to know and if the Center for Biological Diversity wanted to know, they could reference articles such as this one, that tells of the immense destruction of natural habitat being caused by the illegals.

And then there’s this story that tells more about what really goes on in the deserts when illegals enter this country. Or this one, detailing efforts being undertaken by local hunting groups and concerned citizens venturing into the desert and picking up tons and tons of trash, filth and human excrement left behind by the illegals.

This activity by itself is destroying valuable habitat that migrating animals such as the CBD is talking about, won’t have to sustain during their natural migrations. I think history has shown that when loss of habitat occurs, animals change their normal routine to compensate for it.

So on the one hand you have a group, the CBD, condemning the construction of a wall, yet says nothing about what is and has been going on for years now to our desert lands in the southwest. It can only lead me to believe that the agenda of the CBD is either politically motivated or too narrowly focused that they can’t, won’t or refuse to see the big picture.

The second issue that isn’t being discussed by conservation and animal rights groups is, when does national security take precedence over protecting wild animals? As much as all of us don’t want to see lizards, owls and sheep die, I think the possibility of terrorists coming across our borders with the goal of killing infidels, may be more urgent than saving these animals.

The CBD offers some suggestions to make the wall more “animal” friendly. Whether this is even feasible we don’t know. If the CBD really cares that much about the impact this wall will have on the animals, why aren’t they showing the same concern over what has already happened that is destroying native wildlife in the desert southwest.

Maybe they should go talk to the residents down there and find out what is happening to their land and the wildlife that used to live there.

Tom Remington