Man-Eating Wolves by Dr. Charles Kay       



How America's wonderful 2nd Amendment right to carry and bear firearms has helped instill the fear of man in predators!

 

            In 2000, respected Canadian wolf biologist Dr. Lu Carbyn was asked what he expected to see in the next century.  Dr. Carbyn shocked the pro-wolf community by predicting that wolves would kill and eat people.  Well, as we all know that prediction has turned out to be true.  The first to die was Kenton Carnegie in Canada and more recently Candice Berner in Alaska.  What killed Kenton Carnegie and Ms. Berner?  Incompetent, lying wolf biologists and watermelons, who sold the public on the idea that wolves and other predators are harmless. 

            A handful of ecologists began promoting wolves back in the 1950’s and 1960’s, but they had a problem because records from Europe and Russia indicated that wolves commonly killed and ate people, sometimes in the thousands.  In North America, there were no such records.  In fact, it was claimed that a non-rabid wolf had never attacked a single person on this side of the Atlantic.  Instead of trying to determine why wolves in Europe and Russian routinely killed and ate humans, while wolves in North America apparently did not, early wolf advocates simply dismissed the data from across the ocean.  Pro-wolfers said man-eating was a lie invented to vilify wolves and to scare uneducated people.  That is to say, all the clergy and others, who had kept detailed records of wolves killing and eating people in Europe and Russia for hundreds of years were all liars, and demented ones at that.  Watermelons claimed the moral high ground by supposedly telling the truth about wolves, while everyone else lied. 

            Pro-wolf advocates contend that Little Red Riding Hood is a fairy tale and that wolves are harmless.  Recently, however, Will Graves published a book on Wolves in Russia in which he carefully examined the historical record and concluded that, in fact, wolves have killed and eaten large numbers of people in Russia.  Moreover, man-eating still occurs in Russia and eastern Europe.  According to Dr. Valerius Geist, a similar book on man-eating wolves in France is also available, but only in French, unfortunately.  In addition, there are recent, verified accounts of wolves killing and eating children in India, where it is called “child lifting”, of all things.  Little Red Riding Hood is NOT a fairy tale but a fable.  Fables, unlike fairy tales, carry a moral message and the moral message of Little Red Riding Hood is that wolves are dangerous.   

So why has man-eating by wolves been reported for hundreds of years in Europe, Russia, and India, but so rarely here in North America?  To answer that question, I conducted an extensive study of man-eating by large terrestrial carnivores, including wolves, tigers, African lions, grizzly bears, leopards, mountain lions, and jaguars.  In general, man-eating by large carnivores is relatively rare.  Humans are simply not on the menu, or in the carnivores’ diet breadths, but why?  EVOLUTION!  Even since our distant ancestors came down out of the trees five million, or so, years ago and began walking on two feet, they have been killing large carnivores.  Any carnivore that approached too closely was either repelled or killed.  For the first one or two million years, it may have been touch and go, but for the last three million years our ancestors had the upper hand.  God did put the fear of man into carnivores, OUR ANCESTORS DID!

            Although this explains why man-eating, in general, is so rare it does not explain why or where man-eating occurs.  In some books, it is claimed that lions, tigers, and leopards only turn to man-eating because the cats are too old to hunt their normal prey.  Similarly, it is claimed that cats, which have suffered a debilitating injury, also turn to man-eating.  However if this was true, then every old or injured lion, tiger, or leopard should turn to man-eating, but that is not the case.  Many of the famous man-eaters killed in India and Africa over the years have been preserved in museums, where their skeletons and detention can still be examined.  Recently the skeletons of known man-eaters were compared to a sample of skeletons from lions, tigers, and leopards, which never preyed upon humans.  According to that research, non-man-eaters had the same proportion of broken canines and bones as man-eaters.  So while some man-eaters were injured, others were not.  In addition, most injured cats never turn to man-eating.  If humans really were so easy to kill as certain people think, why don’t all large carnivores turn to man-eating, since predators are said to kill only the weak, the sick, or the infirm?  The answer is that humans are the most dangerous of prey.

            Humans, though, have to be armed to be dangerous for we have neither fangs nor claws.  This, it turns out, explains the pattern of man-eating around the world.  In general, man-eating occurs only where the people are poor and UNARMED.  While our ancestors instilled the fear of man in all large terrestrial predators, carnivores are very intelligent and highly adaptable.  In addition, due to natural variation, some members of any species are more aggressive than others, and are constantly testing new prey, like you or me.  Thus, it is necessary for humans to reinforce the fear of man in each and every generation of large cats, bears, and wolves and to kill any predator that appears the least bit aggressive, habituated, or even curious towards humans.  No one in his or her right mind grants large carnivores complete protection.  At least not anyone who actually lives with or near them. 

            So why the difference in wolf behavior and man-eating in Europe, Russia, and India compared to North America?  Simple, did the Czars want the peasants armed?  Did the Communists want the peasants armed?  Does the present Russian oligarchy want the peasants armed?  Do the rulers in India want the peasants armed?  Did the French kings want the peasants armed?  Not on your life!  Conversely, here in North America early Europeans and Americans were armed to the teeth!  Not because our forefathers feared grizzlies, wolves, or mountain lions, but because early settlers were stealing the continent from its original owners, Native Americans.  According to one historian, from the time the Pilgrims landed until Wounded Knee, America fought two hundred and fifty some odd wars against Native peoples. 

Here in the West, once Native Americans were forced on to reservations, cattlemen fought sheepmen and they both fought rustlers, sod busters, and outlaws.  Furthermore, Americans are still armed to the teeth because we, unlike the rest of the world, have a second amendment.  The largest standing army in the world is American big game hunters.  So historically, any wolf, grizzly, or mountain lion that did not instantaneously flee from humans in North America died.  It must also be remembered that Native people too were heavily armed and had been killing wolves, bears, and mountain lions for at least 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. 

            The same of course is true in Africa.  In general, African lions only kill and eat people where the populace is unarmed.  European invaders even confiscated bows, arrows, and spears leaving many people totally unprotected.  The Maasai, though, never gave up their spears and Maasai still kill lions with spears!  Elephants too!  Man-eating is virtually non-existent among the Maasai.  Other people, however, are not so fortunate.

            On one of my hunting trips to South Africa, the safari company I was with had a new tracker, who had recently fled Zimbabwe.  He had been a teacher in a rural village, spoke perfect English, but had never been around Americans before.  I indicated that I would be happy to answer any questions he might have about the United States.  And do you know what his first question was?  It was not, are our streets paved with gold?  No, instead he asked if black men could own GUNS in America!  I assured him that as long as a person was not a convicted felon, or wife beater,  any individual here in America, black, white, or brown, could own as many firearms and ammunition as he or she wished.  He was also amazed to learn about our second amendment, since no African country has one.

          Historically, two other factors contributed to outbreaks of man-eating, wars and epidemics.  Wars drew conscripts from rural villages, leaving women and children unprotected, while both wars and epidemics left unburied dead for wolves and other carnivores to feed upon.  This was especially true during winter in Russia.  With the ground frozen, those who died were simply set outside to be buried when the soil thawed. 

            Returning to the question of what killed Kenton Carnegie, again the primary factor was lying wolf biologists and watermelons, who sold the public on the idea that wolves are harmless and NEVER attack humans.  Then too, the provincial government had appeased wolf advocates by BANNING WOLF HUNTING, and finally Canada does not have a second amendment.  If Kenton had a Smith and Wesson or a Glock chances are that he would still be alive today, but the general public is prohibited from carrying or even owning handguns in Canada.  Then too, it took the government two years to rig the inquest into Kenton’s death.  First the government limited the inquiry to who or what killed Mr. Carnegie, and did not allow any larger policy questions to be addressed or even asked.  Second, Kenton’s parents were allowed to present only a single, expert witness, though many others were prepared to testify on their behalf. 

            Moreover, in a move that can only be characterized as bizarre, but which demonstrates the extent to which watermelons will go to protect wolves, a Canadian wolf biologist from the University of Calgary, Dr. Paul Paquet, testified that wolves did not kill Kenton Carnegie.  Instead, according to Dr. Paquet, Kenton was killed by a black bear.  It should be noted that Dr. Paquet was not present when Kenton’s body was recovered, but only reviewed crime scene photographs.  There was snow on the ground at the time, so there were lots of tracks, but apparently this “wolf expert” can not tell a wolf track from a bear track, because all the people, who were at the scene, testified that only wolf tracks were present.  Besides, it was at a time of the year, when bears are normally in their winter dens!  What was most disturbing to Kenton’s parents, however, was the fact that the main-stream media, including the National Wildlife Federation and National Geographic, ran with Dr. Paquet’s a-bear-did-it-story.  The inquest, though, ruled otherwise.  Killed by wolves.

            There are two lessons in all this.  Giving wolves, grizzlies, and mountain lions complete protection under the Endangered Species Act or state laws is pure insanity and will only lead to more people being killed, eaten, or injured.  National parks and other places where hunting is prohibited are among the best places TO BE KILLED OR MAIMED!  Finally, the second amendment as are individual RIGHT must be preserved at all costs.  It is not only a matter of having a gun when you need one but the fact that being armed, in and of itself, lowers your risk of attack.

            Animals can sense fear or weakness and this is especially true of large mammalian carnivores like wolves, bears, lions, and tigers.  As an email acquaintance, who keeps African lions and tigers as pets has told me, the trick is to NEVER show fear, because if you do, you are dead. In addition, never turn your back on them and never, ever trip or stumble, as that is taken as a sign of weakness and will trigger an attack. The same applies to wild animals, never show fear and people show the least fear when they are armed.  A .357 is better than throwing rocks, but a 44 mag is better still, as is a 12 gauge with slugs or double 00 buck.  Better yet is a .338 or .375, if you can handle the recoil, while a semi-automatic rifle with a large clip, will put a steel rod up your backbone if you are confronted by a pack of wolves.  Then remember the old adage, better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.  Large predators ARE dangerous.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar, a fool, or a government chippy. In Yellowstone alone since grizzlies have been under complete ESA protection, they have killed 11 people and mauled many more.

            One final thought.  Say you or a loved one is killed or injured by a grizzly, a mountain lion, or a pack of wolves.  Neither the federal or state governments are liable and they seldom can be successfully sued for damages, even if you can prove gross negligence on the part of officials.  The federal government claims it owns all grizzlies and many of the wolves in the West, while various state governments claim they own every mountain lion and black bear, but neither the feds or the states generally allow themselves to be sued if you or yours are injured or killed by one of the governments’ predators.  In simple terms, your government does not care if you are attacked by a predator.  Perhaps if the laws were changed to hold government employees liable, bureaucrats might be more accountable.  It would certainly force governmental officials to stop lying about the inherent danger posed by wolves, bears, mountain lions, and other predators.

 

 

Editor’s note: For a detailed analysis of the Kenton Carnegie tragedy see Dr. Valerius Geist’s article in the winter 2008 issue of Fair Chase, the official publication of the Boone and Crockett Club. If you do not know what a watermelon is there are at least two books on the subject that you can consult. Hint--- what color is a watermelon on the outside? --- Green. What color is a watermelon on the inside? --- Red. What happened to European Communists when the Berlin Wall fell? They simply moved "into the green party".
In early 2020, Harold Johnson, the attorney who represented Kenton's parents at the 2007 inquest into their son's death published a book titled, Cry Wolf  in which he completely debunked  "the bear did it "claim , calling Paquet  a liar.

 

 Idaho Wildlife Federation, Idaho's trickiest Green Decoy group!​

                              
         

                                   

 
   

What is a Green decoy group? 

Simply put, a green decoy group is an environmental group that camouflages itself as a legitimate sportsmen's group thus "Decoying" in the unsuspecting sportsmen.

Environmentalist activism is the name of the game for green decoys. According to influencewatch.org, which monitors non profits, the National Wildlife Federation along with it's state affiliates like IWF have transitioned from being conservation organizations into left-leaning pressure groups focused on environmental advocacy.  Environmental and wealthy left wing foundations such as Brainerd, Wyss, Tides, Sonoran, and Wilburforce have poured millions into decoy “sportsmen,” “hunting,” and “angling” groups, using them as cover to push their conservation agendas. In fact, the Montana daily gazette is warning Montanans that some of these green decoy groups serve as dark money-launderers for liberal Democratic candidates and serve to misinform voters. Some of these groups have successfully scammed Montana’s voters in past election years, portraying themselves as grassroots lobbyists for sportsmen
. Most of these green decoy groups also partner with large conservation groups such as Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and National Wildlife Federation.​  These green decoy groups are often "front groups" for larger conservation groups, meaning the large conservation group deliberately created, and support them to promote their conservation agendas. The following articles are also worth reading to better explain the threat of green decoys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEKMu7ooJFs&feature=youtu.be

https://wordpress-338070-1141649.cloudwaysapps.com/     
                                                                                                   

https://www.safariclub.org/blog/green-decoys-exposed


https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/


Background in Idaho:



Since Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) is primarily bought and paid for by radical leftists, they must do their bidding which is shutting down public grazing, logging, mining, drilling, dredging ​and to close countless gates blocking public access to roads.  IWF is truly an anti-private property, anti-rancher, professional agitator group desiring to cause chaos and drive a wedge between sportsmen and land owners. They have pushed for more wilderness, national monuments and to remove grazing allotments. In more recent years IWF has learned the art of green decoy tactics as they learned the effectiveness of creating new "sportsmen's" groups to help with their agenda. For example when they fought for the 763,000 acre ​ Boulder White Clouds Wilderness which blocked gates and public access, they created a new group called "Sportsmen for the Boulder White Clouds" to provide them with cover that traditional sportsmen were helping with their environmental land grabs. IWF also sponsored the 2020 Camo day and they brought in other "conservation" groups they have helped organize like the Henry's Fork Wildlife Alliance who is helping them with the radical Y2Y projects in Island park. Following are a few of IWF's objectives:

-Professional agitators whose goal is to drive a wedge between sportsmen and land owners (Gate closures)
-Decades of blocking gates and closing public roads
-Supported reintroduction of wolves
-Currently working with the Y2Y Initiative which is against killing predators to expedite the expansion of grizzlies into Central  Idaho.
-Works with radical environmentalists using the same law firms to sue
-Dam breaching to save Orcas, climate change and tribal gill netting
-Anti mining
-Anti Logging
-Anti public grazing

"I am quite familiar with the IWF agenda  now and historically - clear back to the 1960’s when the enviros took it over and changed it to an environmental advocate while masquerading as a hunting / sportsman's organization. Fundamentally IWF’s environmental stand has frequently been at odds with private property rights through the years and in that arena it has shared the stage with John Marvel..".......John Runft, Runft & Steele law offices

On January 31, 2020, Karen Schumacher wrote  a comprehensive article entitled "Who is the Idaho Wildlife Federation"? This article was published in multiple conservative media sites.

Wolves

IWF and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) were big players in re-introducing wolves into Idaho. In fact the federal government wanted to classify wolves as "Threatened" only and remove all protection under the ESA. The NWF opposed this, demanding the full protection of the ESA.  Because of NWF action it took over 15 years to finally get wolves delisted and this required congressional action to get wolf management out of the hands of radical activist judges who abused the stringent ESA protection policies. In a response to lawsuits filed by the Farm Bureau, James R. and Cat D. Urbigkit and other parties, on December 12, 1997, US District Court Judge William Downes ordered removal of introduced Canadian wolves in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park.  IWF, NWF,  Defenders of Wildlife, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, and other environmental groups appealed this and wolves were here to stay! 

Grizzlies and the Y2Y Initiative
After IWF was successful in helping with the destruction of Idaho's once famous back country elk herds through wolf re-introduction, they went to work on restoring grizzlies back into Idaho's Selway and Middle fork wilderness regions. IWF is being funded well by left wing 
foundations to work on Y2Y projects. Since the Idaho conservative legislature and IDFG commission said no to physically releasing grizzlies in our wilderness areas, the next best avenue to restore grizzlies is through the Y2Y initiative.  Just so sportsmen understand, the Y2Y corridor is twice the size of Texas with the same protections as Yellowstone National Park. That translates into no hunting or trapping of carnivores. Dr. Valerius Geist said the following about the Y2Y Initiative, "You want to have a wildlife desert (predator pit)? Easy, support the Yellowstone to Yukon "wildlife corridor". ​

Anti grazing 

IWF has historically partnered with the worse radical enviro groups like Western Watersheds project in lawsuits to remove grazing allotments. IWF works close with the National Wildlife Federation's "Adopt a Wildlife Acre Program" which is designed to rid the landscape of cattle grazing by purchasing up livestock grazing allotments. Recently the NWF praised the IWF for their help in "retiring" an 86,000 acre grazing permit.  


Anti Logging
If anyone believes for a minute that the Idaho Wildlife Federation's goals are to open more public roads for access, you better get to know google a bit better. The IWF has been the environmental leader in Idaho for closing roads to block hunting access, logging, mining and all multiple use.
 

Locking up Gates
IWF's Access obstruction reward program is nothing but another private property agitation tool and threatens our Fifth amendment Constitutional right to protect our private property. If the Federation really cared about all trespassing rules or laws they'd put up a $500.00 reward to stop destruction and trespassing on private property or fight the Feds when they lock up a road. This sign out of Montana captions what the state Federations are really best at. The Federation doesn't care about all the roads being shut down by the Forest service nor the roads they've helped close by pushing for more wilderness or national monuments. The Federation's tactics are very similar to the radical leftist funded group "Black lives matter",  who doesn't care about black on black homicides but they do care about turning folks against police and promoting civil unrest that can lead to destruction. 

Dam Breaching

IWF has been suing to breach our dams for decades.  Following is just a portion of the litigation IWF has been involved in to remove our dams:

1999  Case:  http://www.buchal.com/…/Salmon%20Legal%20Mater…/cwamemo1.htm
2004  Case:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1302237.html
2007: Case: https://www.courtlistener.com/…/national-wildlife-federati…/
2016  Case  http://www.wildsalmon.org/…/for-immediate-release-u-s-distr…
2016: Case: https://www.narf.org/…/natn_wildlife_v_natn_marine_fisherie…

Sadly in the latest lawsuit in hopes to breach the dams, the judge in 2016 ruled to stop the government from 11 projects including actions designed to extend the life of the dams, such as replacing decades-old hydroelectric turbines. These much needed dam improvement projects not only jeopardize the integrity of the damns but cost us over $110 million in economic opportunity. 

During the Idaho Governors race of 2017, IWF's executive director Brian Brooks held a forum for the candidates running for Governor. Brooks was critical of Congressman Raul Labrador for declining to attend and participate in the forum.

Labrador and many others knew that IWF had been aggressively trying to breach dams for decades and knew of their green decoy tactics. Unfortunately, most sportsmen don't know the Federation's past on dam breaching and we called out Brooks on social media about being dam breachers and below was his deceptive green decoy response.  Brooks is also on the board of directors of the radical dam breaching group,  Wildsalmon.org. who's mission is to breach the lower snake river to fight climate change, protect the orca's by restoring salmon and to modernize the Columbia river treaty.  



               
Dam breaching and comparing fish returns on rivers with and without dams

The Federation and other enviros didn't want the dams in the first place and have been battling to breach them ever since. Yet on rivers like the Fraser, Yakima, Elwha and other rivers without dams, the fish are experiencing similar survival rates. 

The damless Fraser river in BC expected 5 million Salmon to return in 2019 but only 600,000 came back. Since they don't have dams to blame they can only blame climate change, “There is no question that climate change is having a significant impact on our salmon,”

When the Elwha dam, was breached in 2011 it was the largest dam removal operation in U.S. History. The enviros praised this success claiming the salmon runs have improved significantly when in reality there has been no benefit to the salmon.

 Damless rivers are also declining at similar rates and are being closed due to poor returns. Kintama Research Services is the world leader in the design, deployment and operation of large-scale and cost-effective underwater acoustic telemetry arrays​ and their analysis of Salmon survival with and without dams is a must read!

As an example, In 2009, West Cost rivers experienced terrible returns and enviro scientists began blaming dams, global warming, pollution and the same excuses the Federation are using today. Yet the very next year in 2010, the Columbia, and its tributaries had record Salmon runs and so did rivers like the Fraser with no dams. On social media,  sportsmen are also loudly complaining about poor fish returns on rivers with no dams. They are blaming excess tribal gillnetting, excess sea lions, ocean factors and every other possible reason. So If we breach the 4 lower snake river dams and the fish don't return, will we see the same excuses for poor returns? 

It's interesting and highly suspect that the Idaho Wildlife Federation isn't showing the same level of concern for the affected economies and communities above damless rivers versus those on dammed rivers! 

Don't fall for The Idaho Wildlife Federation green decoy tactics. Don't be a tool of the radical environmentalists!

           

 

 


              ISCAC's history as Idaho Fish and Games NGO "Front group" and Idaho's 1st Camo Day at the State Capital



On February 21, 2004, former democratic senator David Langhorst, who started the Wolf Education and Research Center, and who was pushing hard to bring wolves into Idaho founded the Idaho Sportsmen's Caucus (ISCAC). ISCAC would become the most prominent "Front Group" NGO for Idaho Fish and game to carry out their agenda. For example ISCAC would lobby for IDFG issues such as fighting against emergency winter feeding, fighting against domestic elk ranches, fighting against aggressive predator control and pushing for IDFG fee increases. ISCAC and Langhorst also fought  against the Right To Hunt legislation in Idaho, and finally after the failure of several bills in 2007, Langhorst went to work for the State Tax commission. The goal of ISCAC was to represent all of Idaho's sportsmen's groups under their umbrella thus giving them much more power and influence when they can claim to represent tens of thousands of Idaho Sportsmen. Since green decoy funding primarily consists of outside dark green leftist funding, conservative Republican Legislators and their polices are always going to be under attack.

 

 

The Humane Society of Idaho joins ISCAC for the first Camo day on JAN 16 2007

 By 2006, wolves had destroyed much of Idaho's back country regions and sportsmen were fed up. Sportsmen organized an anti wolf rally at the capital for January 11th 2006. This is where Gov. Otter claimed he wanted to buy the first wolf tag and to reduce wolf numbers significantly. The enviros went berserk over Otter's position on wolves and so did the green decoy groups. When this anti wolf rally was scheduled, ISCAC   decided to also schedule a rally at the capital a few days later to focus on IDFG agenda's such as banning elk farming in Idaho. Radical environmentalist and activist Ralph Maughan applauded Camo day claiming "The more progressive sportsmen have their day at the Idaho Capital."  ISCAC claimed to represent 31 sportsmen's groups at the event claiming that approximately 200 sportsmen attended but one attendee counted 92 participants. Even Field & Stream wrote an article stating HSUS was behind Idaho's Camo day.  

 

 

ISCAC exposed and rebrands
 
Finally Idaho conservative lawmakers and sportsmen figured out that ISCAC was just another green decoy and IDFG front group so they rebranded as the Idaho Sportsmens Alliance (ISA). Their website is still under construction but they have a Facebook page with very limited activity. Their green decoy sister group in Montana is very active on radical environmental causes. With ISCAC's demise, the Idaho Wildlife Federation has taken over as Idaho's premier green decoy group and former ISCAC members and leaders seem to be very content with the Federation's environmental agenda and tricky tactics.

    

         At every boat dock at Bonneville dam

 



Dam breaching and comparing fish returns on rivers with and without dams by Steve Alder

The Columbia hydrosystem dams clearly had large impacts on the mortality of migrating salmon smolts in the 1960s and 1970s. However, subsequent modifications to the dams have improved survival substantially. Recent results suggest that survival through the hydropower system - at least for the size range of smolts  has now increased to levels similar to those experienced in both the undammed lower Columbia River and in the Fraser River in BC.. This is an important finding that was not technically possible before the development of large scale application of acoustic telemetry.​


The damless Fraser river in BC expected 5 million Salmon to return in 2019 but only 600,000 came back. Since they don't have dams to blame they can only blame climate change, “There is no question that climate change is having a significant impact on our salmon,”

The Federation and other enviros didn't want the dams in the first place and have been battling to breach them ever since. Yet on rivers without dams, the fish are experiencing similar survival rates.  When the Elwha dam, was breached in 2011 it was the largest dam removal operation in U.S. History. The enviros praised this success claiming the salmon runs have improved significantly when in reality there has been no benefit to the salmon.

 Damless rivers are also declining at similar rates and are being closed due to poor returns. Kintama Research Services is the world leader in the design, deployment and operation of large-scale and cost-effective underwater acoustic telemetry arrays​ and their analysis of Salmon survival with and without dams is a must read!

As an example, In 2009, West Cost rivers experienced terrible returns and enviro scientists began blaming dams, global warming, pollution and the same excuses the Federation are using today. Yet the very next year in 2010, the Columbia, and its tributaries had record Salmon runs and so did rivers like the Fraser with no dams. On social media,  sportsmen are also loudly complaining about poor fish returns on rivers with no dams. They are blaming excess tribal gillnetting, excess sea lions, ocean factors and every other possible reason. So If we breach the 4 lower snake river dams and the fish don't return, will we see the same excuses for poor returns? 
 


Dam Breaching

The Idaho Wildlife Federation (IWF) along with it's radical enviro partners have been suing to breach our dams for decades.  Following is just a portion of the litigation IWF has been involved in to remove our dams:

1999  Case:  http://www.buchal.com/…/Salmon%20Legal%20Mater…/cwamemo1.htm
2004  Case:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1302237.html
2007: Case: https://www.courtlistener.com/…/national-wildlife-federati…/
2016  Case  http://www.wildsalmon.org/…/for-immediate-release-u-s-distr…
2016: Case: https://www.narf.org/…/natn_wildlife_v_natn_marine_fisherie…

Sadly in the latest lawsuit in hopes to breach the dams, the judge in 2016 ruled to stop the government from 11 projects including actions designed to extend the life of the dams, such as replacing decades-old hydroelectric turbines. These much needed dam improvement projects not only jeopardize the integrity of the damns but cost us over $110 million in economic opportunity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. David Welch letter to 4 governors