November 18, 2019

“Fishy” Wolves?

The TRAVEL section of today’s Sunday newspaper’s feature article is about a recent tourist’s visit to Chernobyl.  This site of the 1986 explosion of a Soviet nuclear reactor encompasses a 1,000 square mile “Exclusion” Zone around the ghost town of Pripyat, Ukraine.

Three items concerning Canids in the article caught my eye.

1.    A photograph looking down at an angle from 20 to 30’ away of a canid walking toward the photographer on a snowy woodland trail showed what I took to be a +/- 60 lb. wolf at first glance.  The sharp protruding muzzle, the brownish-gray to light gray pelage, the long legs and the very alert attention forward were all offset by a bushy tail curled around 360 degrees much like a chow or Norwegian elkhound.  The caption read, “One of the estimated 300 stray dogs in Chernobyl that are descendants of pets left behind by the evacuees.”

2.    Mid-article contained the following paragraph:

“As we passed through various checkpoints and entered the Exclusion Zone, some students were nervous. Then they met a pack of Chernobyl puppies, mainly descendants of dogs left behind by evacuees, and their anxiousness about radioactivity subsided.  Many of the estimated 300 stray dogs are tagged and tracked by scientists.  At night, outside our hotel, packs of dogs yelped and howled.”

3.    The paragraph mentioned under #2 concluded with:

“About 2/3’s of the Exclusion Zone is a wildlife reserve, populated by increasing numbers of wolves, foxes, lynx, wild pigs, deer and moose.”

The article offers no clue as to whether the “Chernobyl” stray dogs were fenced off with a wolf-crossing proof fence from the “wildlife reserve, populated by increasing numbers of wolves” or if the dogs and wolves are separated merely by the dogs occupying the ghost town ruins of abandoned Soviet living areas and the wolves frequenting the long-uninhabited areas where “wild pigs, deer and moose” are “increasing”.

This question comes to mind as one wonders about just what is a wolf or a dog, not only In Chernobyl but, in the US and Europe where “increasing” wolf populations are coexisting with dogs in settled landscapes.  The answer to that question is not only arguable, it is something that should have been clearly defined before the European Union and United States government ever began spreading and protecting wolves through very strict laws and enforcement. 

European wolves are not only hybridizing with and being hybridized by dogs and “stray” (wolf/dog?) “dogs”: they are hybridizing with and being hybridized by golden jackals.  All three – wolves, dogs and jackals – interbreed and can produce viable, i.e. fertile offspring.

In the USA, wolves are hybridizing with and being hybridized by not only dogs but with coyotes as well.  Like their European cousins, all three – wolves, dogs and coyotes – interbreed and can produce viable, i.e. fertile offspring.

At what point does a “wolf” become a hybrid or a dog or a coyote or a jackal?  Unless this is established in a clearly definable and understandable (to those that read and are expected to comply with laws and regulations) way; how does a shepherd protecting his flock, or a rifleman hunting unprotected vermin, or a policeman shooting a “dog” threatening children in a park, know if he has killed a protected wolf, an unprotected predator like a coyote or a rogue dog?

There is an even more earth-shattering implication at work here.  If, as appears likely, Chernobyl “stray dogs” have significant wolf DNA, and the Chernobyl “increasing wolves” have significant dog DNA: does anyone ask the question of just what are we “saving” or “doing” making all this government fuss over wolves? 

1.    We spend millions forcing wolves on rural people that do not want them.

2.    We ignore the losses to shepherds and livestock producers.

3.    We deny the negative impacts to big game populations.

4.    We hide human attacks by wolves as much as possible.

5.    We ignore the losses of domestic dogs to wolves.

6.    We tolerate a cottage industry of wolf-apologetics’ “science” financed by government.

7.    We deny and ignore over 2,000 years of reports and writings about the dangers and destruction of wolves in settled landscapes that have caused generation after generation of humans, where possible, to take every possible means to periodically reduce or exterminate wolves at great expense and bother.

WHY are we protecting and spreading wolves?  We are told new and Draconian laws are necessary to be enforced at great expense and harm to rural people because:

A.   Wolves are a “Native Species” and “belong on the land”.

If this is so, is a hybrid (wolf/dog/jackal) a “Native Species”?  Were hybrids present 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years ago?  Is a hybrid making a living killing Irish Moose 5,000 years ago appropriate “on the land” in 2019?  What does this sacred (the correct word) hybrid look like, big/small, loner/pack animal, strong/crafty/fast/sly/rodent-eater/migrant/sedentary: Why does any Canid (wolf, dog, jackal, coyote or dingo) “belong on the land” other than at the sufferance and magnanimity of those living with them?

B.   Wolves complete or “balance” something called a “Native Ecosystem”.

If “wolves belong” somewhere to perform some valuable service: does a hybrid behave the same or “serve” the “ecosystem” in the same way?  Those Chernobyl “dogs” certainly behave differently than the “wolves” and one does not need an advanced degree in Ecology to grasp the fact that a country or Nation full of “wolves” would be a very different place (human safety-wise, livestock-wise, and economically) than one awash in “stray dogs”.  The desire for and the perception of settled human landscapes as “Native Ecosystem” petri dishes for Native Species is an imaginary human construct held as some sort of a religious (the correct word) construct by a hodgepodge of urban voters, environmental organizations and bureaucrats with an assortment of hidden agendas from fund raising to career enhancement and political incumbency.  The only thing they have in common is the fact that they, unlike rural residents forced to live with wolves, are unaffected by their self-serving weapon of choice, i.e. the villain in all those cautionary tales from Norse Mythology and Aesop’s Fables to Grimm’s Fairy Tales and Peter and the Wolf.

C.   Wolves are “Endangered”.

Wolves have been, and continue to be, ubiquitous throughout the Northern Hemisphere (i.e. the land mass from the North Pole to the Equator) as far back and beyond as any written records of man have been found.  Anyone claiming they are in short supply, much less on the precipice of extinctions is either a liar or ignorant.  In the 1970’s when the US and the UN experienced a wave of hysterical claims about the end of the world being just around the corner for species after species much like climate change claims as I write, there was an explosion of laws, regulations, Treaties and bureaucracy addressing, among other things, Endangered Species.  We were told that while certain species were decreasing in numbers, numbers alone were not to be the sole criterion for experts telling us which were to benefit from the full force of all the new laws and bureaucracy being formed to “save” (fill-in-the-blank).  Certain populations and segments of some Species would have to be listed because their rarity might presage their extinction and then their DNA (which may hold the cure for cancer or some other secret of the Universe) might then be lost forever to humankind.  All of which takes us back to Chernobyl and the question, “what is a wolf?”  Does 60% wolf DNA constitute a wolf?  Does 35% jackal DNA and 25% Dog DNA constitute a wolf?  Why does any of this matter if wolves are everywhere they ever were?  Why are “we” (i.e. government, radical organizations and “experts”) causing this chaos in rural precincts?

You know and I know who is doing this and why.  It must be undone the same way it was done and that is politically.  Just as wildlife authority and jurisdiction was elevated from US States to Washington and the UN halls of their HQ in New York and similar authority and jurisdiction was elevated from European Countries to EU HQ in Brussels and the UN; so must it be returned to rural governments and rural people under the protection of their own country.

It seems we have only three options to regain robust and people-friendly settled landscapes:

1.    Repeal existing laws and Treaties that establish these elevated and remote points of wildlife authority so easily controlled and manipulated by politically powerful interests for their own hidden agendas.

2.    Amend existing laws and Treaties that allow for vast bureaucracies to control, based on “science” they pay for, untethered government force over wildlife for their own agendas.

3.    Through Legislation or Referendum return the authority and jurisdiction over wildlife back to State (or Nation as in Europe) authorities who then make it optional for lesser State of National governments to delegate the optional authority and jurisdiction over wildlife into the hands of governmental sub-units (US Counties/European Nation States or such jurisdiction) to manage the fish and wildlife in their Local “ecosystem”.  A Locally-Elected official in each such sub-unit could submit an annual fish and wildlife management scheme to the Nation or State by a certain date based on the desires of the Local community to be enforced and managed by the State or Nation.  States or Nations simply maintain their law enforcers and specialists and the County or European State annual plan reflects the will of those residents living, voting and paying taxes in that locale.  If the residents simply want to leave it to the State or Nation, they simply do not submit their annual plan for that year on the required date at which time the state or Nation simply does what it thinks best.  The costs to the Local community should be nil as the concerned residents simply give the elected official what they want for next year.  Any uncooperative elected official simply faces the voter’s wrath in the next election.  It is not rocket science and it is certainly better than what we have today.

You then determine “what” a wolf is, how they will be managed and then you create the sort of ecosystem that you and your neighbors want to live in.  Not only is there nothing wrong with this, it is the system that all men deserve and strive for where they raise their families and live their lives!

Jim Beers

28 April 2019

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

When Too Much Management is a Problem

A talk by Jim Beers at the Big Game Management SYMPOSIUM

Cranbrook, British Columbia

13 April 2019

Comments and Observations Concerning Predators, Prey & Modernity A Solution

This is a talk I would like to give in the following locations.

–       Scotland (where a proposal to introduce wolves into a massive land enclosure is under consideration);

–       Finland (where Finns are forced to confront and control Russian wolves using EU rules and restrictions);

–       France, Germany, Spain and Italy (where growing wolf densities are causing increasing livestock losses, game and hunting declines, and human safety concerns, all ignored by EU rulers in Brussels);

–       Each of The Lower 48 States of the US (where wolves are or will eventually occur and those similarly enduring federal grizzly bears or excessive and unmanaged cougar populations and their effects):

–       The Provinces of Canada (where wolves, grizzly bears, black bears and/or cougars are always seen as “too few” by urban voters, and “too many” by rural residents living with these large predators and their effects)

There are also other places where I would like to share what I am about to say such as Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, India, and Africa where their problems with the death, carnage and economic losses wrought by uncontrolled large predator populations from Nile crocodiles to wolves in settled landscapes.  There are 2 reasons that explain why I refer to these locations as “other places”.

1.    The remedies I want to suggest are unrealistic where local rural people cannot be authorized year after year to control large predators and their impacts due to autocratic rulers, weapon restrictions, limited hunting and other animal control programs, United Nations’ rules concerning trophy shipping and restrictions on animal parts that make non-resident hunting problematic, and particularly governments that are vulnerable to anti-hunting and anti-wildlife management foreign political money-lobbying such as Kenya..

2.    Disarmed rural residents, although they have other means of control, cannot have serious annual, much less persistent, impacts on large predator densities nor can they long be exposed to these predators unarmed when attempting controls without incurring serious injuries and deaths.

The Problem

Large Predators chase, attack, wound, kill, and eat Big Game animals, cattle, sheep, dogs, humans and any other live meat they encounter and find to be vulnerable.  Most Large Predators range over wide areas.  They eat and probe dead, dying and often infected animals. They are exposed to and spread a litany of diseases and infections that kill and disable humans, Big Game animals, other wildlife, cattle, sheep, dogs, and other animals.

When large predators attack or kill humans, Local Communities (and not far-off politicians, bureaucrats or environmentalists) know what the problem is and take every allowable solution, and some that are not allowed, to solve “The Problem”.  In effect, far-away rulers are both physically and responsibility-wise, as well as unaccountable for the long list of abuses, dangers and costs of both equating and raising the political priority of such Large Predators above the status and needs of the rural people forced to live with and amongst increasingly dense and widespread Large Predators.

When Large Predators kill cows, calves, sheep, lambs, dogs, and other domestic animals; their rural owners are simply victims and depending on the location and mood of officials, there may or may not be an effective but temporary solution offered to the victimized owner.  Otherwise, those harmed are told to suck it up or go elsewhere (something hoped for by radical organizations and government agencies eager to purchase (at reduced prices), ease or otherwise control rural lands and people.

When Large Predators kill Big Game the situation changes dramatically.  First, there is no owner to note the kill, nor is there anyone to demand retribution, compensation or a solution to avoid this in the future. 

Second, there is no running documentation about how many or what kind (calf, pregnant cow, fawn, old male, young male, etc.) was killed: therefore there is no estimate of what percent of the herd or its reproductive capacity was killed last year, the year before or how reproduction is and has been affected. Pro-Predator experts and bureaucrats can blame climate change or claim that there is some sort of new disease (how does the layman dispute this?)  but you can bet it is almost certainly wolf or grizzly/black or cougar predation, or all four if their numbers have been increasing and you increasingly see them pursuing game animals into towns where Big Game seeks safety, or simply encounter them prowling about residences or towns in search of food, or hunters no longer reporting finding game animals.  Like other wildlife, the more often you see large predators as you drive about, the more abundant large predators are becoming and the more Big Game it takes to support the larger predator populations. Wolves are the most likely perpetrators of the majority of Big Game declines in North America and other places like Russia and Europe. Big Game reductions are invariably accompanied by domestic livestock depredation and dog deaths because wolves are usually the most broadly impactful and effective predators due to their pack behavior, large roaming habits, and adaptability that makes them constant evaders of controls and, collectively, they have a larger demand for meat than either cougars or grizzly or black bears due to their size, numbers and their opportunistic habit of killing more than they eat as they do with sheep and cattle when they are unprotected much like the behavior of domestic free-roaming dogs.

Third, there is nothing you can document or resolve about big game predation unlike human or domestic animal predation where you can take some intermittently effective precautions like keeping domestic prey of family members under increased protection and scaring off predators when seen.  Killing many of the large predators and reducing their densities locally to first recover the Big Game populations and then to maintain the animals on which they prey is the only answer to recovering declining or disappearing Big Game populations.  Dense or increasing wolf populations invariably mean more depredation and fewer of the prey animals.  Wolf impacts on Big Game are directly proportional to their numbers and the availability of Big Game animals where they cohabit.  When large predators reach certain densities, especially as in the settled landscapes they are now re-invading under government force and protection, anyone maintaining that Big Game animals are not the #1 source of protein for uncontrolled large predators, especially wolves, is simply lying to you.  Further, in settled landscapes, large predators will, when uncontrolled amongst abundant food sources, increase their densities until the total food supply dwindles as it did on Isle Royale island in Lake Superior where as I speak government bureaucrats are releasing wolves that all but became extinct after they caused the moose population (their only food source on the island) to crash.  The difference on the mainland (of North America and Europe et al) is that when the wolves kill nearly all the moose (or elk or caribou) hunting seasons are reduced and then closed down (forever?) as happened with moose in Minnesota.  This eliminates a major component of rural economies and rural lifestyles without any relief because when, for instance, the moose are made rare or exterminated the wolves and cougars and bears shift to deer, cows, elk, sheep, fawns, caribou, bucks, does, remaining moose, kids (human) and other fallback food sources like garbage cans and dogs (when not in heat) to both maintain and increase their numbers. They then maintain and increase their numbers and their ancillary effects on man, the economy and “the environment” proliferate accordingly.

You should beware of anyone concluding that any of this is the result of too little management of wildlife.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Worldwide, wildlife has been bombarded with “more” management with more hidden agendas and government abuse being steered by private and anonymous organizations and wealthy donors, than at any time in human history.

The last hundred years have seen wildlife management on a Power “Escalator” throughout the world. Beginning in the 1960’s, Local communities saw their ability to control  their “ecosystem” for their own benefit no longer protected by State, Provincial or national (in Europe) governments.  Increasingly central governments, government alliances and international authorities began to assume all authority and jurisdiction over all subsidiary jurisdictions and communities below them. State, Provincial, and other secondary (to national) government political authorities submitted to this takeover with a promise of central government funding and a “holistic” approach to a worldwide “ecosystem” in which all species were treated “equally” in a one-world governmental approach.  Not mentioned was the inarguable opposition these emerging superpowers had toward the use and management of renewable natural resources such as forestry, grazing and hunting that they were simultaneously assuming.  For instance, as forcibly-imposed Large Predators populations were being justified as “necessary” and “harmless”; the accumulation of fire-fuel for catastrophic forest fires and the closure of access to public lands to create a “native ecosystem” of “wilderness” was dismissed as  a “natural” “wilderness”-type habitat so imagined by urban voters, rich radical organizations, wealthy individuals, lobbyists and politicians influenced by votes and contributions.

In the 1960’s, in the US and elsewhere, national governments began seizing the authority and jurisdiction over wildlife held by State, Provincial and secondary national political entities.  They did this not only because they and their new laws said they could but, more importantly, they did this to curry favor with an emerging (in Western Nations) faction of radical organizations that wanted to “save” wildlife, forests and grasslands; to stop the “killing” (i.e. hunting and eating) of animals; to do away with guns and gun usage worldwide; to make rural precincts little more than central-government-controlled nature areas with minimal and strictly dictated human occupancy and activity.  The “mother’s milk” for all this was money-making environmental organizations contributing money and votes to agreeable politicians as the public began to be propagandized through the schools and the media. For instance, “studies” popped up everywhere that “proved” grazing should be eliminated, tree-cutting was immoral; livestock should be banned, meat eating “destroyed the environment”, animal ownership was akin to slavery, former concepts of property and freedom must be replaced; and – of interest to us – predators don’t limit other wildlife and animals, and no matter their offense or impacts predators should not be hurt because, like so many social theories extant today, the offending animal is the “real” victim and the human or property or community that suffered is the “real” perpetrator and must either change or be forced to change what he, she or it did (if still alive) to cause the incident.

By 1970, the radical agendas and (now) wealthy and influential organizations had enlisted many “scientists”, wealthy supporters, and an assortment of fellow travelers in the broad “environmental”/animal “rights” movement. Hidden agendas emerged in an explosion of new wildlife laws that were ultimately anti-gun, anti-tradition, and anti-Lower-Level-government movements identifying themselves with the wildlife concepts of “Native” Species and “Native” Ecosystems as morally imperative and the animals = human philosophy began ascending throughout Western civilization.  The combined monetary and political clout with the many hidden agendas outgrew the ability of national governments to speedily fulfill their dreams so they lobbied and even bribed many national representatives to the United Nations to offer Conventions and Treaties (not in the US sense of a Treaty being Ratified by the Senate and signed by the President but in the sense of a sort of “high-end” International Agreement between any signatory nation and anywhere from a few to over a hundred countries, some that no more intended to or were capable of enforcing them to others like the US that jails, fines, demeans and takes rights away for lifetimes to enforce them.  Some national governments like Kenya were bribed to be used as misleading propaganda of how untouched predator and prey populations would self-regulate satisfactorily in settled landscapes without human intervention. 

Thus was born, to the great enthusiasm of UN advocates, the road from the UN as arbiter of international disputes (to avoid wars), to the UN as the up and coming “World Government” so loved by the organizations and agendas calved by the successful wildlife power take-over.  Treaties and Conventions sprouted like poppies after a rain.  Suddenly the UN (and its biggest supporter, the US government) was protecting (i.e. “saving” as in no use) “Endangered Species”, Marine Mammals, High Seas Fisheries, Polar Bears, Birds “in Danger”, Whales, “Nature Protection, the “Human Environment”, and Heritage Areas et al.  Nations, like the US, followed the lead and passed laws setting aside land areas, proposing wildlife “corridors” (to be expanded later), claims to “all waters”, rules to block pipelines and destroy dams, claims to disgorge the National Treasury of billions to manage the fish and non-game resources in states and to employ scientists and bureaucrats to justify their new rules using draconian measures and punishments. 

This period (1970’s & 80’s) was to the environmental enthusiasts, their lawyers and cooperating bureaucrats and scientists like what the wolves must have felt like when released on Isle Royale island in Lake Superior amidst a dense moose herd that they must have thought (which they are incapable of but humor me) would last forever.  Somewhat, also, like the circumstances the first U-Boat commanders encountered in unprotected US coastal waters at the beginning of WWII that caused them to call them “The Happy Time”. All three such periods made their human perpetrators giddy with what they imagined would last forever.  It wasn’t the wolves’ new home, or the new laws protecting animals, or the shipping destruction of the U-Boats: it was unfettered POWER they expected to grow over more and more things.  One of those things was centralized regulatory Power over rural people and rural communities. There was no better social weapon up to that point to subdue rural people than protecting the predators and making wildlife and livestock and dogs merely governmental items allowed only if the government needed anything from rural people, otherwise the “protection of predators”, the existence of any use of any renewable natural resource, and the very fate of rural people and rural economies was to be a political fantasy plaything for urban voters.

All of which has brought us here, today in Cranbrook, British Columbia.  Like thousands of Europeans living with and struggling with wolves; millions of Americans perplexed about the wolf dilemma foisted on them; and Canadians asking, “why must we endure all these Large Predators”,  “what recourse have we?” and “how can we restore robust Big Game populations and Big Game Hunting?”: we are in search of a workable soulution.

The Problem common to all is too many conflicting agendas controlling too many government (UN, Brussels, Ottawa, Washington, Provincial, State, European capitals) powers, while employing manufactured science, half-truths and all too-willing politicians doing their bidding for money and votes.

The common justification for attaining or preserving a “balanced” or “natural” ecosystem is a chimera in this modern world of massive transportation; comprehensive development; and the worldwide spread of plants, animals and dangerous diseases and infections.  “Balance” lies in the eye of the beholder, and “natural” is a human construct be it uncontrolled wolves in Asia due to government neglect and citizen powerlessness or American, Canadian and European government faux “feelings” for predators and use of jail and fines to enforce intolerable conditions on Local communities with little political power in order to please urban supporters.  In fact “Too Much Management” leads to “No Management” because the underlying agenda(s) are not “scientific” but social constructs and impositions, all on different timetables as a result of diverse political powers.

The question then becomes, “How do you get around or manage all these political constructs to achieve a tolerable Local ecosystem in its broadest sense?”  The immediate subject before us is: 1.) How can we reduce Large Predator densities to levels that allow Big Game numbers to recover to levels desired by those living with them; and 2.) How can we maintain levels of prey and predators into the future for the benefit of Local communities recognizing the innate and laudable human concern to maintain both human and wild communities.  At no time in the history of the world was the challenge greater or the ability of modern society to solve it more available.  It is ironic that simultaneously, world governments and an abundance of hidden agendas have never been more determined and powerful to make wildlife merely a pawn in their struggle to dominate and control all persons, everywhere.

It is with this in mind that I have formulated a rationale and solution for your consideration.

Three States

I would like to tell you about three States in the United States; two have no wolves and one is the only one of the Lower 48 States that had a persistent wolf population when, in the 1970’s, the US federal government declared The Lower 48 States as the object of restoring wolves by the federal government that would release and protect them at all costs.  Why they were so designated when they were and still are ubiquitous throughout the Northern Hemisphere, I leave to your imagination but it is a fair subject for another examination.

South Dakota (Cougars)

When I retired to Minnesota in 2008, there was a controversy in South Dakota about an exploding cougar population.  Between wandering cougars from Montana and Wyoming, plus four large Indian Reservations and a major National Park (where hunting and control were problematic at best), plus a high cougar birthrate in an environment without competition and lots of food; combined with a State Wildlife Agency (like nearly every modern such agency) manned by wildlife “savers” and protectors that despise predator control; the cattle ranchers, residents and hunters.  Ranchers “West of The (i.e. Missouri) River” were being opposed at every turn by the wildlife agency opposed to “control” and “reduction” of the expanding cougar population that was creating a growing depredation problem.

The modern bureaucrats objected because cougars were, they said, only “returning Native species” and they were “Keystone” species that were “necessary” for a “balanced” ecosystem.  In short the ranchers were told to go away and leave it to the “professionals”.

I was invited to speak about this at a Conference sponsored by the ranchers in Rapid City. I told them it wasn’t a biology problem; it was a political problem.  Either they must control their bureaucrats and government or somebody else would and at that point the state bureaucrats were agents of radical agendas disguised as “science” and the good of the current precious species du jour.

The ranchers eventually exercised raw power in the South Dakota legislature and with the Governor who directed a reluctant agency to issue X number of permits annually to take cougars “West of the River”.  A couple of years went by and when it was clear that they were not reducing the cougar population to THE LEVELS AND IMPACTS DEEMED TOLERABLE TO THE “LOCAL” (I.E. WEST OF THE RIVER) COMMUNITIES, they requested an increase in permits and were rebuffed again so they went back to the legislature and both increased the number of permits available and established a system wherein ranchers can request so many permits for their ranch and then cat hunters pay the state for the permit and get it from the ranch they hunt.  The increase was necessary because overcoming the refuge-like-status on Indian Reservations and two Large National Parks, that were reservoirs and breeding locations for the cats, called for innovations, increased take authority and raw political power.

*Today the cougars and the ranchers are maintaining themselves harmoniously, so far as I know.

Minnesota (Wolves)

I am no fan of modern Minnesota wildlife management.  About 6 or 7 years ago on a farm in SW Minnesota in winter when there is nothing but a few farmsteads and a town or two for miles and miles in an endless ocean of fall-plowed (i.e. barren) soil; one of those (young male) South Dakota cougars ran into a culvert on the road into a Minnesota farmer’s home.  He saw it and in addition to his several children, he had some horses and probably the last time anyone had seen a cougar in that part of Minnesota was when William Howard Taft (1909 -1913) was in the White House.  So, not taking any chances with his horses or his kids he shot the cougar and called the State wildlife agency.

He was treated like John Dillinger.  The urban majority screamed and the papers dutifully called for the maximum penalty.  Professors warbled for weeks about the importance of “Native Species” and urban walkers in the Twin Cities began relating their joy at sightings of cougars in urban River Bottoms crisscrossed with asphalt walkways.  It was a disgraceful circus and somehow the farmer got off with a stiff fine, suspended jail time and a warning that if he ever violated these new laws protecting everything again he would be locked up and the key thrown away.

Today, Minnesota’s once-excellent walleye fishing is declining mainly due to uncontrolled Indian netting in all of the top walleye lakes.  The walleyes are sold to dealers in a quasi-legal “traditional” native take/commercial manner after a court refused to prosecute involved natives and then was forced to drop their case against non-native co-perpetrators.

When a young Minnesota camper was sleeping just outside his tent in a federal campground one summer night a wolf grabbed him by the head and then was scared off.  Our erstwhile state wildlife bureaucrats claimed to have then killed that particular wolf and that an autopsy revealed that – are you ready for this – the wolf only attacked him because it had a “deformed brain”.  No other controls or precautions were taken.  Similar nonsense was used when two elderly ladies disappeared in an Idaho National Park and their bodies found far apart and reportedly chewed up by wolves.  On the Upper Peninsula of Michigan an elderly Wisconsin lady disappeared about 5 years ago behind her cabin one night and was found the next morning in pieces: no investigation was conducted, the bodies removed, autopsies were made remotely, results were sealed, and no one involved ever offered any explanation.  Quicker than you can say “Jack Robin”, everyone forgot.

About 4 years ago when a radio-collared wolf was shot on a Minnesota Indian Reservation, the federal and state officers descended to “recover the collar” and find the “killer”.  It turned out the killer was an Indian teenager, HHMMM!  The young man was not prosecuted.  If you or I had “vaccinated” that wolf we would have lost a lot of money and probably be hoping right now to see our family on Visiting Day next month.

That is Minnesota today; but it is revealing to wonder why Minnesota was the only one of The Lower 48 States to have an established resident wolf population when the federal government declared wolves “Endangered” in The Lower 48 States almost 50 years ago.  It is a story worth knowing when an urban relative or some young person home from college begins hyperventilating about how any wolf controls or any discussion of tolerable wolf population levels are as unacceptable as killing wolves “for sport” or with traps or from airplanes, etc. etc.

When Minnesota was first seen by European settlers bent on farming, logging, exploring and mining; wolves occurred statewide but sparsely in the Southern hills with wooded wetlands and stream edges or on the prairies in the western edges of the State.  The majority of wolves were in the Northern 1/3 of the state where thick woods, lakes and abundant Big Game animals supported a robust wolf population.  This area was and remains contiguous with the extensive woodlands bogs, muskeg and lakes of even more sparsely settled Eastern Ontario.  In fact they remain one big wolf habitat up to the waters of Hudson Bay.

By the early 1900’s Big Game (moose, caribou and deer) were getting harder to find in Minnesota.  One must assume that wolves (that were pretty much shot on sight or for their fur in those days of no regulation) were also not finding as much unprotected food or Big Game anymore and were similarly in decline.  State Game Laws were enacted through the early years of the 20th century to protect animals that were hunted or trapped in order to ensure their survival in perpetuity. Minnesota wolves were gradually protected and for many decades there was a season that was longer than Big Game Seasons but always overlapped Big Game hunting so that Big Game hunters killed wolves when they saw them in that thick Northern forest.  Additionally, wolves were known to cause problems like livestock depredation, reduce moose and other Big Game, and hang around homes and towns in the winter where human safety and dog safety were problems. Thus killing a wolf in a pasture or attacking your dog outside the “season” was either ignored or legitimized by broadly-written regulations and understanding Local law enforcement officers.  Up until the 1970’s and going back thousands of years, rural people understood that the more wolves in any neighborhood, meant more killed and eaten (by wolves) game animals, cows, calves, sheep, and lambs.  This, in turn meant less meat available for human consumption.  So the Minnesota wolf take seemed to be OK locally since they could kill dangerous or offending animals annually and when hunting.  What local communities in wolf country wanted and what “their” State provided in those days was a tolerable wolf presence and available moose hunting (that was closed recently due to too few moose coincidental with total wolf protection). Today the State ignores the local communities needs, caters to the federal government who caters to and supports UN meddling in wildlife, guns and other things while promising, dishonestly, what was already here in Minnesota.  The result roday is too many wolves, no more moose hunting, dead dogs, large cattle and sheep depredations, increased rural stress and rural economic stagnation.

Between Ontario wolves historically expanding into Minnesota and thick, wet forests that made Minnesota wolves less vulnerable to mounted hunters and technology like scopes, more accurate ammunition, and binoculars that enabled residents of other Lower 48 wolf states to exterminate wolves over the past century; wolves and men co-existed.  For over half a century a hit-or-miss control of Minnesota wolf harvests and depredation minimization kept wolves at levels tolerable to Local people and maintained a modest wolf population, something all the government programs claim to want but never seem to define oraccomplish.  It is a paradox of modern society that all these “save” this and that critter, when successful, transform the object of government might (like resident Canada geese and “Free-Roaming” buffalo) from “icons” into dangerous and infectious pests wherever they live.  Today wolves are very numerous pests that have eliminated moose hunting, kill high numbers of livestock, hybridize dogs and are hybridized by dogs, and make hunting with a dog (grouse, ducks) a dangerous affair for dogs and hunter.

Yet, the lesson from the first 2/3 of the last century wherein Local and loosely controlled harvests maintained a wolf population tolerable to Locals and a source of pride and awe to urban dwellers; is forgotten, ignored and dismissed as “cruel” and not “scientific”.

* In truth it (pre-ESA wolf management in Minnesota) was good for the Local communities, good for Big Game and Big Game hunting, good for livestock, and good for the rural Minnesota economy.

Virginia (Deer)

I was a Virginian for over 30 years of my long life.  When I first went deer hunting there I was stunned and perplexed by the apparent blizzard of deer hunting regulations.  The last thing I wanted as a wildlife worker was to get caught shooting or transporting an illegal deer.

I have copies of the current regulations here for anyone wanting to see them after the talk.  The length of seasons, the numbers and kinds of deer allowed, the guns allowed or prohibited, the use of dogs, the ammunition allowed were apparently set by the Counties and enforced by the State.  Once I caught on, I was amazed at how efficiently for both hunters and deer, the system worked.

Western Virginia (mostly wooded hills, valleys and less dense deer populations had more similar seasons, harvest periods, rifle areas, bag limits, and no deer hunting with dogs.  N to S Central Virginia had more differences between Counties in guns (rifles, black powder, balls, shot, slugs; seasons, bag limits on certain days, and make-up of the bag (young bucks, does, and on certain days) and hunting with dogs was more common..  Eastern Virginia with its thick forests, wetlands and farms had the most variety and changed the most regarding dogs, guns, ammunition, season lengths, and bag limits. Regulations could be adjusted annually as  more homes were built or crop damage increased or the majority of hunters in the County wanted to shift from all the venison they could get to bigger bucks or shorter seasons or only certain days of the week. NOTE to readers – it worked.  Deer numbers persisted, farm damage was minimized, Local deer herds were managed for big bucks or lots of deer or were reduced or grown in ac cord with the wishes of the Local Counties (i.e. communities).  Counties where wealthy government retirees were building retirement homes shifted to buckshot or eliminated dog packs for hunting. Other Counties that were growing more soybeans were pressured (by residents) to reduce the deer herd.  

One morning at O400 I stopped at a Burger King on the Eastern Shore of Virginia with two friends for breakfast.  We were hunting snow geese and ducks in picked cornfields and had to set out several hundred decoys by a half hour before sunrise. Three pickups with North Carolina plates pulled in with six guys in camouflage and dog kennels in the back of their trucks.  When I asked them what they were doing, they smiled and said a Local farmer was paying them to run their dogs in his woodlands and reduce the number of deer there to reduce the damage to his crops from too many deer that even the Local hunters were unable to reduce.  The farmer had gotten a handful of permits for them to cover just about any deer they could kill.  This was truly wildlife management by Local residents for the good of both wildlife and people. Had this option not been available, how soon would it be before Local residents would have taken action to kill all the deer; or have stopped agriculture and agriculture business had disappeared?  How soon before another section of the US would have been a dark shadow on a nighttime satellite photo like Venezuela or North Korea?

*The last I heard the rural folks of Virginia and their deer were doing just fine!

The Solution

If these three examples tell us anything; it is that wildlife management has become a human political constructregulating wildlife primarily on behalf of political and conflicting agendas.  This is done by governments that “manage” wildlife 1) on behalf of Local communities (i.e. Virginia & deer); 2) in response to political pressure (i.e. South Dakota and Cougars); or 3) whichever way the political winds are blowing (i.e. Minnesota’ successful historic approach to wolves before the federal seizure of States Rights over wolves and then its Quisling-like cooperation with federal overseers excusing the wolf debacle that has evolved from that fateful moment.  Conclusion; he that controls the government authority over wildlife, controls rural people.

I suggest an approach that leads to returning control of certain resident wildlife (not migratory birds covered by Treaties or fish or marine mammals covered by international agreements et al) to Local governments under the umbrella of Provincial, State or National governments. “Control” and management, meaning the setting of hunting and trapping seasons; the setting of annual bag or season limits; the methods of taking wildlife; and the conditions under which depredations and human safety are to be avoided and how handled when they occur.  For instance, reducing the numbers and densities of certain Large Predators for a certain period to encourage population increases in prey species like ungulates that provide meat and sport plus sightings for tourist appeal; and then maintaining sustainable populations of both for the foreseeable future by providing regulations that maintain a reasonable balance between predators and prey AS DESIRED AND DETERMINED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS.

This means that States, Provinces and National governments make available the authority over harvest and control of certain wildlife to Local jurisdictions that choose to exercise it.  This would be the Counties (in the US and certain Canadian Provinces) and Districts, Counties, or Regional governments in parts of Canada and the National Sub-units like “States” within the Nations of the European Union. The degree to which First People or Native Americans and their land in North America might be included or otherwise treated in such an approach would vary by area and by Treaty provisions.  Other anomalies such as “Endangered” Declarations and UN “Mandates” would involve Local governments, hopefully, as full partners in deliberations with the State, Provincial and National governments as Local governments request to be heard.  In other words, State, Provincial and National governments in Europe would allow and implement the will of Local communities to live with, enjoy and utilize wildlife in harmony with all members and activities of those communities.  There is no better guarantor of the value and sustainability of wildlife than that those living with it value and enjoy it.  Wildlife is neither a religious requirement nor a toy to be tinkered with from afar by people and entities that neither respect nor show concern for the rural people their mandates affect.

When State, Provincial, Federal or International experts like bureaucrats, “scientists” and environmental ideologues protest that the Local people, i.e. you that are “uneducated” in the subtle nuances of “ecosystems” remember the words of one of my favorite philosophers G. K. Chesterton.  He once wrote in the New Witness, “Without education, we are in grave danger of taking the educated seriously.”  Taking too much nonsense seriously has helped get us into this mess we are in today.

How It Would Work

In the US, Counties are the Local governments that oversee all of the land and represents the Local communities within the State. There are only a few exceptions like a handful of federal enclaves such as defense installations and one or two National Parks that were set aside before statehood and therefore are outside State and County government wildlife authority.  All the rest of the land area’s resident wildlife that are hunted, trapped or that cause certain kinds of depredations and trouble for humans comes under State wildlife management authority.  County or District management of certain wildlife programs in their County, like deer in Virginia works like certain necessary weed control under County authority, works.  County or Local governments can and should notify landowners when weeds must be controlled and if they refuse to act, the County simply hires a contractor to control the weeds and then bills the landowner and if they do not pay the County, a lien is placed on the property and the owner goes into court to pay the bill, plus court costs and a fine.  Similarly Counties could direct predator control on private properties where owners intend to make predator “refuges” while respecting Native Treaty Land and central government enclaves like South Dakota ranchers and hunters did.  Local insights and the protection of their desires by the State or Provincial governments can and has preserved Predators (like the wolves of Minnesota pre-Endangered Species Act) and Prey (like Minnesota moose hunting, until protected and more numerous wolves decimated the moose herd while the State and federal government wildlife agencies looked away, “scientists” and radicals told Mother Goose stories about what was happening, and the anti-hunting crowd cheered).

Rural people of any State could band together politically and enlist suburban and urban support where possible to pass State legislation that regarding all resident and non-resident hunting and trapping seasons, limits, annual limits, methods of take, justified circumstances for preventing depredations, protecting property or avoiding human danger within the Local jurisdiction shall be established by the lead elected official in each County wishing to exercise that option.  This is done by having the top elected official submit to the Wildlife Agency Director, the new regulations by a certain date like 3 months before state regulations are published and distributed in writing for the upcoming year.  If the proposed wildlife management regime is not received by the State Wildlife Director by say, March 1, it shall be established that the State agency will set and promulgate the wildlife management regime for that County for the upcoming year. The State government shall enforce and promulgate the wildlife regime of each County equally.

Bargaining this approach into reality might only call for Counties to have such power over say; wolves, cougars, coyotes, moose, elk, caribou and deer.  Leaving the birds like grouse, the management-sensitive trophy animals like mountain sheep, and the rabbits to State authority.

It might involve explaining to urban cousins how now they can finally establish their own wildlife ecosystem where bears, wolves and cougars can live with and “control” the moose, elk and deer in their urban or suburban areas as one big ecosystem.

A Referendum may be a more appropriate path to establishing such a system.  Simply demonstrating how an overwhelming majority of committed rural voting precincts vote for it may itself be worth trying and as on official display of the confidence and satisfaction among rural people with the status quo.  Lobbying suburban, urban and certain distinct groups could make a victory surprisingly likely.

State or Provincial wildlife agencies would remain at current levels but would recognize their new responsibility and role to nurture, protect and cooperate with their new partners (rural jurisdictions) within their purview by enforcing, attaining and protecting the wildlife presence and mix desired by the Local communities.

Local governments should not see an increased workload or the need for money.  If the way things are going is satisfactory to any rural County (or other appropriate Sun-Unit) simply let the State or Province continue to do as they are doing.  Whether you call it a “delegation” of authority or a “transfer” of certain powers or some other term appropriate to your situation, the result should be the same. If Local constituents are clamoring for change as to predators or prey presence, or the level of livestock and dog losses to predators, or there has been an attack or fear of an attack in the community and therefore wishes to reduce certain population levels of certain species:

1.    Let the concerned citizens meet and recommend what they want the wildlife regulations to look like.

2.    Listen to and encourage innovation (thinking “outside the box” about remedies) that might even spur business, the economy of the County, or even concoct methods of management heretofore untried or unknown.

3.    If there are concerns in your County, you will not have any trouble finding volunteers eager to write up suggestions, draft regulations and submissions or serve as contacts with State or Provincial wildlife employees.

4.    It is important that the lead County official is an Elected official, because if he won’t stand up when needed, you can replace him at the next election, as opposed some appointed and therefore unelected bureaucrat answerable to others but not some wildlife “expert” that believes he knows what’s best for the voters in the subject Local jurisdiction,

5.    If Districts (or Counties) are small, consider an informal arrangement with or amongst them where concerned rural residents agree on a common regulatory approach to shared issues that is simply copied and signed and submitted by the elected official in each unit of the compact.

6.    Considering the “buggered up” current state of wildlife “management”, recognizing things to be avoided and things that will likely work have been amply demonstrated.  Bold strokes like reducing predator densities for a period of years to encourage an ungulate increase and then maintaining the desired balance between the two in accord with Local wishes is possible.  The days of far-off “experts” and urban organizations telling you what you cannot do or what you must do would be minimized.  Only you know what wildlife costs and benefits fit your communities.

Wildlife management for desired human ends is not rocket science, especially after watching and comparing the swirl of agendas and catastrophes of the past century.  Unless you can regain authority over these matters you will continue to see rural precincts continue to decline in many ways as far-off politicians, bureaucrats, faux “scientists” and wealthy radical organizations impose all manner of agendas and requirements on you from afar through their hold on the oversight and management of the wild animals in YOUR midst.

Substitute “Province” for “State” (in Canada); and “National Government” for “State” in Europe.  Where Counties do not exist; substitute “District” or “Regional” or newly contrived units where appropriate or needed.  Where neither appropriate County, District, or Regional elected entities exist; consider establishing several to a dozen wildlife and habitat sections of the total area and having an appropriate elected Local official in one fulfill a collateral duty as the person named in the authorizing or establishing legislation devolving all or certain wildlife management to the lowest level where the decisions and the impacts serve the desires and need of those directly affected.

It should be clear to everyone by now that wildlife management and sustainable use is basically people management.  If rural people desire to take back control of the wildlife they live with, they must first retrieve the authority over setting the parameters governing the interface between the rural people and wildlife.  What I am suggesting is the only way I can see a possibility of doing that.

Thank you for listening and giving me the opportunity to make a suggestion that took me over twenty years to understand.  I am available for any questions either here or online.  I invite you to see the regulations for Virginia deer management I have with me and I have left a copy of this talk for copies and I have business cards with my email address for those that might like to receive a copy of this talk.

Jim Beers

Given @ the Cranbrook, British Columbia Big Game Symposium

13 April 2019

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Night, Night Hunters

I have just read an article on one of my favorite outdoor sites, Sporting Classics Daily.  The article was titled, “Conservation Funding and Firearms” by Craig Springer, External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region.

I first read this article when I was in high school (over 60 years ago) when I was memorizing articles by Robert Ruark, and every item and its cost in the Herter’s Catalog.  Today, it has been perverted into propaganda meant to seduce any awareness in hunters, state wildlife agencies and hunter’s organizations about what is happening to hunting and this once-proud program, the Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax on Arms and Ammunition.  Whether you think this article to be a simple oversight, ignorance, a bid for a bonus or a bona fide deception: I leave to you.

While the article was true those many years ago and properly whetted a young man’s imagination and energy toward hunting, shooting and possibly a job one day: today the article is a stale clip of a bygone era and a glimpse of how it is being used by that herd called “The Swamp” with their Hidden Agendas running amok.  It details all the money collected and disbursed to State wildlife programs (the only beneficiaries, supposedly, of the funds) by law.  It chirps about putting “gas in a biologist’s truck” and “bobwhite quail traps in Oklahoma” giving the impression that the increased funding does as much or more than it did for Dad or Grandpa – nothing could be farther from the truth.  The funding source itself, the use of the funds and the goals of the modern wildlife bureaucrats, both state and federal, being paid by the Excise Tax dollars are such today that a good case could be made that hunters and Rural America would be better off without the program entirely.  Other than serving as one more good reason (of many) why the 2ndAmendment must be protected and preserved; the wildlife benefits to hunters and Rural America are, to quote Ross Perot describing the loss of jobs to NAFTA, “a giant sucking sound” off in the distance.

Let me describe some of the ways this once great program has been savaged and distorted:

1.    In the early 1990’s, Congress refused a Request from US Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize and fund the capture of Canadian wolves to release in the Rocky Mountains.  When Congress refused, USFWS clandestinely “took” (stole is a better word) $45 to 60 Million from the funds and released wolves into Yellowstone National Park (from which they spread in every direction).  Leftover funds were used to open a USFWS Office in California that Congress had also refused to fund; and to give bonuses to USFWS managers involved in the illicit funding uses.  When a GAO Audit revealed the misuse of the funds to a US House of Representatives Committee, after a flurry of activity ala Lois Lerner et al, the responsible USFWS managers went on to be Directors and high-paid Executives of environmental lobby groups.  The state wildlife agency Directors that along with you, me and the state wildlife programs never asked for the money to be replaced.  I suggest that not only was this a visible flame 20 years ago of the advanced degree of corruption corroding the state/federal/radical groups “Complex” to use Ike’s term: it was a clear signal to others like ATF in Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner in IRS, and the FBI/Federal Intelligence network in the past three years to, “do what you want, nobody gets in trouble anymore”.

2.    The program has been diverted into a quasi-preservation effort of government force on behalf of animal communities that while not in any trouble should get as much attention as game animals according to New Age wildlife “professionals”.  Think of it as a sort of socialism for critters wherein Excise tax (and license revenue) is forcibly taken from the management of those animals that “have” and given to those animals that “have not”, somewhat like a progressive tax scheme that will ostensibly make everyone “equal”.  To say that game animals and hunting have not suffered greatly in this “Robin Hood-like redirection of the Excise taxes generated by Arms and Ammunition Sales” is simply an ideological rejection of truth and facts. This was made possible by some federal/state wordsmithing of regulations almost 30 years ago that no one, not even the NRA saw fit to oppose.  Words like “game” were simply transformed to “wildlife” which in a legal sense covers a multitude of sins.  When I read Mr. Springer’s piece I looked to see how he would handle or avoid this fact.  At the end of his long list (first written 60 years ago) about mule deer, bobwhite, et al; the last phrase was, and “habitats restored benefiting multitudes of organisms”.  Yo, anyone awake out there?

3.    The Excise Tax funding and the License Revenue have been increasingly diverted in almost half the states and growing in recent years into Lawsuits, depredation Complaints, propagandizing incidences, denying the reason moose and elk (and their hunting) are disappearing, teaching kids prevarications about predators and generally concocting nonsense for public consumption like, “the wolf that attacked the young man had a ‘deformed brain’” and “the moose season is closed forever because of climate change” (as though moose failed to adapt to eating coconuts and mangoes) because of forcibly imposed federal wolves laughingly called “Endangered” or “Threatened”.  This all costs millions of Excise Tax and License Revenue dollars that are purposely under-reported by unaudited state and federal agencies.  My estimate of the under-reporting (as a former National Wildlife Refuge Operations Chief, Program Coordinator, Program Analysts and wildlife biologist) is that the state and federal agencies only report 25-30% of the costs and thereby minimize any signs of hunters and Rural Americans waking up to what is going on like Rip Van Winkle.

4.    The current scam to further drain Excise Tax funding and dwindling hunting License Revenue is for the federal government to “Return Wolf Management” to the States.  This is a comedy skit in more ways than one.  Forcing wolves back into states where they were purposely and at great expense exterminated over a century ago and calling it “Returning Management” is reminiscent of the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.  In other words it takes a certain amount of chutzpah.  States will now be expected to “Maintain Wolves”; answer depredation calls; pay (?) compensation; explain why game is disappearing without using the words “predator” or “wolf”; tell dog owners to keep their dogs in or on a leash or expect a wolf to kill or (in certain cases) to mate with them; fight lawsuits; and pay for pre-determined research to explain why neither they nor the wolves are responsible for the ensuing chaos and safety concerns of Rural Americans from hunters to hikers, campers, birdwatchers, kids at school bus stops and older ladies walking to rural mailboxes or outbuildings.  This means MORE Excise Tax Revenue and MORE of the dwindling (for reasons of human safety and disappearing game) Hunting License Revenue diverted not only away from game but to expand an agenda meant to do away with game, guns, hunting, ranching and a vibrant Rural America.

5.    How many of these USFWS do-gooders are explaining that more gun controls and ammunition quotas will seriously defund state wildlife programs?  Where are the state wildlife agencies and their political overlords spreading the same truths?  Where have you seen any explanation of what all this diversion of funds is doing?  Or what wolf management or non-game handouts are taking from hunting and game?  What is the alternative after most game hunting Revenue is gone?  When gun and ammunition purchase, importation and use is all but obliterated.  Will we just close down the state agencies and simply have a federal wildlife authority funded from General revenue?  For what purpose?  Will states just start paying for the “biologist” and His/Her “truck and gas”?  Why would anyone spend anything on deer or ducks or grouse? Why would anyone spend money on frogs or snakes?  Where would any money come from year after year after year?  When the wolf kills the dog or the grizzly bear kills the camper who does what in an unarmed Rural America?  How?  Who is responsible?  Who has the answer?

This could be longer but my fingers are getting tired.  I just opened my window onto a fine spring day to hear the reporters working on the Excise Tax/Hunting License Revenue issue; the future of state and federal wildlife programs; and the role of predators in our brave new world. I listened for the Hunting, Dog and Livestock organizations fighting gun and ammunition controls, wolves and federal grizzlies.  I cupped my hands over my ears to hear the bureaucrats speaking out for the 2nd Amendment and what needs to be done about dwindling game animal populations.  I leaned out to hear the state and federal politicians fighting for hunters, ranchers, dog owners and Rural America (what’s that, they sound like their cheering for the environmental extremists and animal rights radicals?)  I tried to hear the honest scientists advocating sensible predator management, game animal use and management, and the establishment of compatible wildlife communities that enhance human rural communities rather than discouraging and diminishing them.

But, all I heard were crickets and besides, I am tired of reading 60 year-old articles about how good things are going out there so I might as well take a nap too.

Jim Beers

26 March 2019

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Prescribing an Opioid for a Fatal National Law

By James Beers:

My Inbox overflows with every variety of the following notice from those Congressmen and Senators that have been hiding under their desks (or having dinners with their favorite lobbyist) for the past several decades.  One even seemed to be an invitation.

RSVP –

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your Western Caucus Applauds Recovery of the Gray Wolf and Proposed Rule to Delist the Species notice.

If this were a movie, it would be appropriate at this point for the orchestra to burst forth with the 1812 Overture conclusion complete with the horns, drums, cymbals and cannons celebrating Napoleon’s defeat in Russia.

Substitute, in place of “Western Caucus” above, your favorite “conservation” organization; or your natural resource-dependent business lobbyist; or the names of your neighbors or relatives that have been harmed by wolves (dogs killed, cattle/sheep killed, hunting ruined, etc.); or “your” state wildlife agency that has been “helpless” before federal bureaucrats; or all those folks that think this is making “America Great Again” – but do not substitute my name.

Every one of the similar “news releases” are stuffed with every Tom, Dick and Harriet that was (and remains) AWOL in the tragedy of the federal government’s forcible imposition and ruthless protection of wolves (and grizzly bears for that matter) in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States.  These enthusiasts go on and on and on about how, “I look forward to the implementation of this rule so that the states can properly manage their own gray wolf population and alleviate the impacts this species has on our local farmers, their livestock, numerous family pets, and big game herds” and about how they and their colleagues tried and tried but their “proposals were challenged with frivolous lawsuits from extremist organizations who don’t rely on science or facts and seek to fundraise by keeping species on the Endangered Species Act in perpetuity”.  Like the bachelor relative that spent the War in Fort Dix, their tales of battles fought are but sad imaginings. If they were actually aware of and concerned about “the impacts this species (i.e. wolves) has on our local farmers, their livestock, numerous family pets, and big game herds” why did they not do anything about it for years?

The wolf is no more “delisted”, “recovered” or its “management returned to the state” than Eastern European countries were “liberated” after WWII when Russia renamed them “Democratic People’s Republic of (fill-in-the-blank).  I say this is because:

1.    The Endangered Species Act with all its unconstitutional bureaucratic powers remains intact.  This means that when the current occupant of the White House leaves, the reassertion of the “need” to declare the (fill-in-the-blank) wolves of SE Colorado or the “remnant” blue/gray wolves of the Distinct Population Segment Pack in Northern Kentucky East of Hwy 65 will once more be on the table.  The new areas filling with wolves will “need” federal protection to guarantee “diversity” and “Alpha males”. The areas first forced to accept wolves and where states are now or soon will be “managing” “their” wolves will, according to some federal “expert”, be “overharvesting”, or failing to prevent hybridization with coyotes and dogs, or anyone of dozens of concocted and imaginary reasons be in “need” of federal authority.

2.    Wolves (and grizzly bears) are the federal and radical’s weapons of choice to disable Rural American economies and communities in order to control and vacate them.  If the last 40 years have taught Rural Americans anything; it is that politicians have profited mightily from passing laws that enable radical environmental organizations to utilize self-serving bureaucrats in order to destroy ranching, hunting, trapping, animal ownership and use, dams, forest management, range management, rural economies and rural “domestic Tranquility”.  This while the politicians are AWOL and blameless once again as they struggle to no avail to enact “proposals challenged with frivolous lawsuits from extremist organizations who don’t rely on science or facts and seek to fundraise by keeping species on the Endangered Species Act in perpetuity”.  Poor babies!

3.    If the current President is unable to replace and reduce the army of bureaucrat ideologues (the odds of that sadly being longer than Old Nellie winning the Kentucky Derby), the bureaucrats that established these unethical government activities and wrote the regulations underpinning them, plus the environmental/animal rights/anti-American extremist organizations they work for intermittently, remain ready to make the wolf and associated issues like Wilderness and grizzly bears once more front and center.

4.    In the meantime, state Treasuries and State Wildlife Agencies will pick up all the costs of maintaining what the federal government created and imposed and the future costs of all the places wolves spread to from livestock and dog compensation to resolution of human safety and wildlife disease problems.  Increased lawsuits by radicals based on spurious precedents of the past 30 years will be coupled with abundant “research papers” pointing out “new data” about wolves and their travails from unproven and undisputable claims about numbers, reproduction and presence to submergence in domestic dog and coyote DNA.  Add in the lawsuits about “inhumane” violations of wolf management (snares, dogs, poisons, lengthy seasons, etc.) and the amount of authority and money leftover in any state to “manage” other wildlife will be severely depleted.

Consider the sordid record of the ESA to date:

–       Wolves were “listed” despite numbers in the millions worldwide.

–       Wolves have thousands of years of written and reported history of killing humans, devastating rural peoples’ families, economies and their communities. Like so many disagreeable historical facts of late, these facts are denied and ignored.

–       Wolves were exterminated at great time and expense throughout the settled landscapes of Europe and the Lower 48 States in the past 200 years when time, manpower and technology made it possible.  This is treated today as a genocide of greater concern to urban society than abortion or “mercy” killing.

–       When US Fish & Wildlife Service requested money and authority to re-introduce wolves into the West in the late 1980’s, Congress refused to grant either. Despite Congressional refusal, in the mid 1990’s, USFWS secretly took $45 to 60 Million out of state wildlife agency funding from Excise Taxes and trapped wolves somewhere in Canada, imported them clandestinely, and released them in Yellowstone Park – a federal enclave with “Exclusive Jurisdiction” meaning a place where NO State Jurisdiction or Authority exists.  Once released, the wolves spread to surrounding states and then to the states that surrounded them and as they continue to do. 

–       When, four years later Congress was made aware of the theft of the State Funds by Government Accounting Office Auditors to conduct an unauthorized act, no one was even admonished much less punished and those mainly responsible were promoted and went on to very high-paying jobs with the extremist organizations they enabled as bureaucrats.

–       No Governors were ever asked if they would allow, much less wanted federal wolves, nor told who would pay for the wolves’ maintenance and damage.  Therefore no Local communities or Counties had any say in their role of hosting any and all wolves.

–       State wildlife agencies’ corruption and collusion in the entire affair from start to finish was exposed since they never even requested that Congress replace the stolen state wildlife program funds.

–       Unbeknownst to those passing Acts like the ESA and Wilderness Act, the concept of “Native Species” and “Native Ecosystem” have become recurring words in the federal regulatory lexicon.  That is a smokescreen for all manner of mischief and it will be all over bureaucrat and court demands of “State” wolf management.  Why do wolves or grizzly bears or bison “belong somewhere they were centuries ago?  Think about that.  Do bison “belong” once again in the fall-plowed fields of western Minnesota?  Do grizzly bears “belong” in Spokane suburbs?  Do wolves “belong” in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States, or on Isle Royale National Park for that matter?  What is a “Wilderness” or a Marine “Sanctuary” other than an expanding acreage of unused and unmanaged land that is not even a model of what it can increase dramatically like fires or a control-site for applied research to resolve management and use of similar natural resources?  That these terms and concepts have seeped into federal environmental operations is worrisome.  The terms and concepts should be eliminated from the governmental while being put back into applied biology and history books for serious references as to where we have been and where we are headed.

–       Because traditional funding sources from hunting licenses and permits have declined due to wolf predation on game species; and because wolf issues diverted more and more funding to lawsuits, surveys, political justification research, public media campaigns and indoctrination of children – state wildlife agency employment became more precarious and dependent on blind instructions and obfuscated explanations of the effect of wolves. Agency goals shifted 180 degrees from the management and use of renewable natural resources for human benefit to the suppression and elimination of human welfare for imaginary benefit of an imaginary environment and animals given the status of human citizens that had become a blight on the land.

Would you trust these bureaucrats to babysit your kids with a record like this?

Some facts about the “Recovery of the Gray Wolf and Proposed Rule to Delist the Species” in the three states indicate what lies ahead.  It took about 5 years for all three states to wade through radical lawsuits and recalcitrant federal bureaucrats to obtain what federal lawmakers in Congress “gave” them – not because of any “Recovery” or concern about rural America – due only to simple political pressure that the more conservative residents of those three states were insisting on.  Minnesota, a more liberal and ideological “environmental” state was supposed to get the gift with those three states but due to their political reluctance to offend the urban centers that run the state (like Chicago runs Illinois), Minnesota was dropped from the list when the backlash became too hot.  Since the three states have had wolf “management authority” “returned” (considering they had claimed no resident wolves for 50 years and then federal control was imposed with forcibly inserted wolves; “returned” is a strange word about something you never wanted and had exterminated at great expense over a long period) their experience is worth noting.

–       Initial sale of wolf licenses and the increase in wolf revenue is wearing off.  Wolves are hard to find and “sport kill” are less than hoped for (to say the least).  The novelty of purchasing a wolf license is best shown by a powerful federal legislator that when I was introduced to him he smiled, dug out his wallet to show me his wolf hunting license.  I wonder if he still has one and if he ever got a wolf?

–       Federal estimates of 5,000 wolves in the Lower 48 States is a low ball number; the numbers are closer to 8,000.  Think about how many wolves you would have to kill annually to just keep the populations steady (it doesn’t really work this accurately in good old Mother Nature but humor me).  At a minimum it would take in the neighborhood of 2,000 wolves throughout the range of the wolves.  One of the states got 43 wolves, another got about 35 last year.  In other words, “managing” wolves is a farce.  Between federal bureaucrats hiding until a change of Administration and state bureaucrats using the wildlife new math of lowballing some estimates and highballing other “estimates” there will be no numbers resolutions when radical lawsuits hit state managers.

–       In the meantime, livestock depredations will increase or at best stay steady with compensation being something no state can long support.  Big Game numbers will also continue to decline as the same number of wolves will need to eat and if ranchers and dog owners can shoot (or at) threatening wolves it does not take a rocket scientist to expect ever heavier predation on elk, moose and deer.

–       To foresee a recovery of big game or a reduction in livestock depredation, the number of wolves in the neighborhood would have to be reduced 40 to 70% and kept there, ad infinitum!  Anyone telling you that ANY state can or would even envision such a scheme, given the continued existence of the ESA and the now accepted precedent that any wolf anywhere has been “recovered” so a drastic reduction in wolves would be perceived as extermination and it would provoke a federal National Emergency (under the next President to be sure) and possibly the use of federal troops like Ike sent into Alabama.

–       Dense wolf populations where they currently exist are and will continue to cause expansion into outlying areas and states, as well as suburban and in some cases urban environments.  Since wolves are so difficult to control, the increasing costs of wolf control will quickly exceed the revenue pittance they will soon bring in.  Hello, state tax increases.

–       Increasing the annual take of wolves by revenue-producing (i.e. affordable) means and private citizens in every state desiring to do so involves innovation and constant change as the ability of wolves to avoid danger goes on display.  Pack animals learn quickly as a trap goes off or a bullet hits one as they come to some sort of bait.  States and the federal government will not allow this innovation: states because of fear of federal bureaucrats and the federal bureaucrats because they work essentially for radical causes and their career success depends on radical favor. Aerial hunting (periodically necessary in Alaska and Siberia) will be found “Unfair” and a violation of the Airborne Hunting Act.  Fur sale and import/export will be attacked and its use or display will be discouraged by socialists and the politicians seeking votes in the next election.  M-44’s and deadfalls will be prohibited.  Upland, bear and cougar hunting (especially rabbit hounds, bird dogs, bear hounds, etc.) will continue to emit their last screams as their owners struggle to get to the site where wolves have bush-wacked them.  Placement regulation of baits, traps or other devices will be designed to make them ineffective. Breeding and use of wolfhounds that were bred and used in Ireland to eliminate the last wolves on that island centuries ago will be forbidden.  As will the sale of expensive guided chases made available to wealthy sportsmen interested in a unique and effective chase.  Private property, especially owned by non-resident urban wealthy folks, parks and other non-hunting public lands will be closed to “management” controls of predators, especially wolves.  Unless the State is willing to impose forcible access (as some Counties do for thistle control) to known wolf denning or other such wolf habitats for controls like denning and aerial hunting, the limited access to control operations will be very discouraging when outlined on a map. Wolves will learn these areas before the “experts will even admit their role in protecting wolves. This is only a short rundown of the problems facing anyone thinking they will reduce depredations, predation and dangers from wolves once “management is returned” to their state.

–       The only possible beneficiaries of states financing this expanding federal debacle will be the occasional (too frequent instances will require those harmed to change their lifestyle) rancher or dog owner or parent that will be able to kill a wolf in the pasture or yard where family members are present.  State enforcers and prosecutors will be more lenient in most states than their federal counterparts and the penalties will, or should be, lessened after federal control is abandoned.

–       Any thoughts of large reductions in wolf densities to protect property like cattle, sheep or dogs; or to allow large ungulates to recover and maintain hunt-able populations are pipedreams.

In conclusion, this “Recovery”, “Delisting” and “Returning Wolf Management to the States” are like prescribing an opioid to kill pain while the underlying malady increases the inevitable likelihood of a very bad outcome.  The phony “Recovery” levels are now established and the States must pay to keep them there.

Lest you think I am only whining here: chew on this.

The only path I see to be a valid solution to this growing problem is:

1.    Amend or Repeal the Endangered Species Act.

2.    If amended, it MUST REQUIRE any Federal Action in any State of the United States to:

A.   Be described in a 10 Year Proposal that specifically describes the reason for the proposal, the proposed federal expenditures and actions required, and any expected ancillary effects of the proposed action to save and or protect a Species (and no lesser biological entity) determined to be Endangered.

B.   Such Proposal shall be submitted to the Governor of the affected State for his review and written concurrence or rejection.  The federal agency should fund a public meeting in the Capital of the State, if so desired by the Governor, before he decides on the Proposal.

C.   Such Proposal, if approved by the Governor should be opened to the public in two Public meetings in the affected state and the findings of those meetings shall be attached to the Proposal and submitted in the Annual Federal Budget for Congressional Review, Approval and Authorization.

D.   Any work needed beyond 10-years would require a New Proposal and a repeat of the above process.

Rural communities should have a strong say in what sort of environment they live in.  Ultimately, in a just system of governance the basic framework and what constitutes a just environment should be decided by Local government.  Local governments should be protected and honored by State governments.  State governments should be protected and nourished by the federal government.  In other words, if the Local community wants NO WOLVES, that should be it, no matter what state or far-off federal politicians say or do on behalf of urban voters or those that covet control of rural landscapes.  This will never be renewed (yes it once existed to the great “domestic Tranquility” joy of rural people) as long as states are bound and threatened by federal overseers beholden to unaffected voters with no dog in the fight. “Returning Wolf Management” should be treated like Clint Eastwood’s infamous observation to his political boss who screamed in his face asking, what do you think?” to which Harry (Eastwood) simply snarled, “Your breath mints ain’t cutting it”.  It is only designed to give everyone dreams while things fall apart.

For these reasons and more I do not regret I will not be able to attend the celebration of the “Return of Wolf Management to the States”.  My wife and I play cribbage on that evening of the week.

Jim Beers

16 March 2019

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.netIf you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

The Paradox of Power

*Editor’s Note* – The following article was written by former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, James Beers, and only scratches the surface into the depth of corruption that exists in this American Government apparatus. Most people don’t want nor are they capable of imagining and then accepting the depth and breadth of existing corruption or to what extent such a powerful system of corruption will go in order to protect itself while carrying out their agendas and other clandestine operations.  

What Non-Disclosure Agreements Disclose

By James Beers:

The last two weeks have seen a constant stream of news and accusations about the President paying two women six-figure sums to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements over two years ago.  Reportedly the payments were made to guarantee their silence about reputed liaisons before then-candidate Trump was preparing to run for President.

Living as I do in a very Progressive state, neighbors and friends are absolutely appalled that such a thing (six-figure payments to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement to guarantee silence about a purported sex incident or matter) was done by “our” (not “their) President.  If I were to ask; I am sure their outrage (they would say) was just as strong when they learned of candidate John Edwards betrayal of his wife, or President Clinton’s Oval Office escapades or all those Congressional female staffers paid off by their bosses out of a secret slush fund on Capitol Hill.

The radio talk shows and cable news stations have been a constant hum as they try to “explain” and “put in perspective” this dastardly practice of President Trump paying for “silence”.  We are told:

“When John Edwards payed for the silence of his pregnant paramour during his campaign for President by having donors pay for a Non-Disclosure Agreement; the court ruled that it was a legitimate action and use of donor money”.

“When President Clinton (sic, the most powerful politician/bureaucrat on the planet) had sexual activity in the Oval Office (sic, the epitome of US government offices) with a young intern (sic, the lowest and most helpless government employee); the courts and his Congressional defenders claimed it was no big deal even when he lied about it when asked.”  NOTE – Any one of these aspects, 1) sex with any employee, especially one “powerless” due to inferior status or grade; 2) sex in a government office; or 3) lying about it – had I done so would have guaranteed the loss of my job, public disgrace, and probably lifetime unemployment until they ran out of illegal aliens at the Employment Office

“Congress has kept a multi-million-dollar slush-fund for years to secretly pay staffers coerced into sex with ‘Members ’to forego any ‘Disclosure’ and return to Podunk.”  Actually; they didn’t say “Podunk” but this reminded me of something very funny but true that I heard years ago from a very Progressive Feminist Politician when asked by a reporter why “all these continuous Congressional sex scandals always seem to involve male Congressmen and Senators?”  Her reply was priceless, “Because we (i.e. the distaff politicians) don’t have 25-year-old lifeguards constantly throwing themselves at us”.

I have taken the time to write this, not to dwell on the salacious accusations about or provable amorous incidents of our politicians lives whether before politics, when running for office or while ensconced in “their” (actually “our”) government offices from the Capitol Building to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (i.e. The White House).  I am writing this to bring to your attention an even more abhorrent and ominous use by government of the “Non-Disclosure Agreement”; that is to cover-up criminal activity using Appropriated Funds.

In the late 1990’s, during the Monica Lewinsky/Impeachment news, I was a US Fish & Wildlife Service employee that had just completed 6 years of hard work and worldwide travel to keep Animal Rights advocates and the European Union from destroying the international fur market and the trapping of furbearers and predators in the US, Canada, and Russia (the major suppliers of furs).  The fact that I and others were successful in this endeavor earned me the enmity of recent political appointees under President Clinton.  Although they had pretended to be advocates for proactive wildlife management (as were their predecessors for over a century), their clandestine values and relationship with radical animal rights and extremist environmental organizations were outraged by our success and they set about getting rid of me.

During this period, fellow employees jumped off elevators for fear of being seen with me; threatening official letters were left on my doorstep on a Sunday morning; and police were notified unbeknownst to me that I was going to be fired and “may be dangerous”.

One afternoon I was called by a Congressional staffer on the US House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee and asked what was going on with me?  I went up to their office the next day and explained things and casually mentioned that the federal Excise Taxes collected on Arms and Ammunition (by law only to be used by the 50 States and US Territories on a formula basis for specific wildlife management activities and amounting to hundreds of Millions of dollars annually) seemed to be below expectations for several years.  No one in USFWS was interested in this and there were no audits conducted on these funds.

Long story short: The House Committee subpoenaed the USFWS financial records of the Excise Taxes’ receipts and allocation.  USFWS thought to be clever (shades of IRS, FBI. DOJ, et al) and lied that the figures could not be isolated from the entire USFWS Budget so they sent large boxes of contiguous computer printouts of the very complex USFWS budget with separate laws and restrictions as complex as any in the federal government.  One employee had joked that, “they will never be able to figure anything out from this”.  By this time, I had been sent home by USFWS and had hired a lawyer as they tried to figure out what to do with me.

The House Committee asked me if I could look over the records based on my varied and long experience with Washington and the USFWS structure and budget.  I did so and found numerous examples of the Excise Taxes popping up in USFWS Regional Offices, top employee bonuses, Endangered Species and a Public Affairs office in Portland.  The General Accounting Office was told by the Committee to conduct an Audit* of USFWS and the Excise Tax funds.

*This was before the General Accounting Office was renamed the General Accountability Office.  The point here is that this was an Audit by Accountants.  In the 1990’s I had noticed that “GAO Auditors” were increasingly young women and minorities with Sociology and Economics degrees for reasons I leave to your imagination. By the early 2000’s it was becoming increasingly difficult to identify the General Accounting Office work products as “Audits” so the name was changed to “General Accountability Office” and their work products mostly as “Accountability Reports”.

Anyway, I helped the GAO with their questions and other problems to complete the Audit.  The results were that $45 to 60 MILLION had been skimmed by USFWS before allocation to the States.  Records had been covered up and the money was spent mostly to Trap Wolves (in Canada) and transport (without Importation border forms being filed), acclimatize and release the wolves into Yellowstone Park and on an Indian Reservation from where they now occupy all the Northern Rockies’ States.  This action (releasing wolves into the Upper Rockies) had been turned down for funding by Congress and therefore was unauthorized but they (USFWS appointees) stole the money from state wildlife agencies and did it anyway.  Another major use of the stolen funds was to open a new Regional Office in California (to be closer to radical organizations and their more extreme supporters) by laundering the money through the Regional Office in Portland. This too, Congress had refused to authorize or fund.  Remaining Excise Tax dollars were scattered in bonuses for top managers that had nothing to do with Excise Taxes but were reminiscent of those three monkeys, “Hear no evil, see no evil, Say no evil”.

I wrote an article, years ago about how many federal criminal and civil laws and regulations were violated based on my many years and experience with Law Enforcement and big Investigations (see the Vesely Forte and Cartier Jewelry cases I made in New York City 1971-1972) but people’s eyes just glaze over.

I testified twice before the House Natural Resources Committee before a packed gallery about how the funds were taken and hidden.

My lawyer called me at home one day and said USFWS had an “offer” for me.  It turned out to be a “Six-figure” amount and my lawyer’s fees to sign a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT and retire immediately.  The NDA stated I “would not speak or write about anything involved with my separation from the US government for three years or I would forfeit the payment”.  I could not answer questions (there were many) or write about the affair.  My wife and I were glad to be done with the matter and my former colleagues.

USFWS went about conducting Damage Control and blamed it all on a misunderstanding and faulty record keeping.  All (to my great surprise) of the State wildlife agency Directors remained silent about the money stolen from “their” (actually “our”) wildlife management programs (to the delight of the animal rights/environmental extremist crowds.  By this time state agencies and their national organization had grown so dependent on federal funds and federal growing authorities that they had become little more than federal subcontractors.  The GW Bush/Al Gore campaigns had begun and the difficult-to-believe and understand (thanks to today’s “fake news” predecessors) affair soon faded from the public consciousness.  Those USFWS/DOI appointees responsible for the theft and misuse were never named publicly and all went on seamlessly to higher-paying jobs and glory in the parlors of Manhattan and San Francisco after retirement.

In other words, “your” tax dollars were used by “your” bureaucrats to cover-up “their” criminal activities.  Until this happened I had no idea such things were even possible, much less actually done.

Thus, Non-Disclosure Agreements can be financed by private funds; campaign funds; Congressional slush funds;AND BY APPROPRIATED FUNDS GIVEN TO FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR (???).

Also, Non-Disclosure Agreements can be used to “silence” allegations from women in your past; women you have made pregnant while married to someone else; fellow federal employees you have coerced to have sex with you; fellow employees you had sex with on government time or in government offices; AND EMPLOYEES OR OTHERS THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THAT APPOINTEES OR POWERFUL PERSONS WANT COVERED UP IMMEDIATELY!

I leave it to you to note how the more egregious and dastardly the offense and/or the perpetrator of behind any Non-Disclosure Agreement, the more it is ignored by the public and less it bothers anyone.  Think of it as Congressmen paying millions over time to cover-up peccadilloes, a President in The Oval Office, a Presidential wannabee everyone likes and a President the press and Washington politicians and bureaucrats hate.  The last one noted is nothing more than the latest missive intended to wound him How soon we forget when we really don’t hate someone accused of “paying for silence”. 

Now think about the secret practice of federal Agencies and Departments using Appropriated money and Non-Disclosure Agreements to cover up real criminal activity as either the arrogance or paradox of power.

Jim Beers

18 December 2018

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

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

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

From Wyoming to the Alaskan Peninsula and Minnesota to Finland

A Ph.D Wildlife Ecologist Colleague in Utah just sent the following:


Subject: WY Guide and outfitters Association official publication

For some unknown reason WYOGA sent me a copy of their fall 2018 publication, which is mostly advertising by their members. What I found most interesting was that some outfitters were selling the fact that their areas contained neither wolves or grizzlies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!——–recall that this past fall  a guide in Jackson Hole was killed by a grizzly when he and a client tried to retrieve a downed elk—-the hunter also was mauled——–Charles

As telling and interesting as this is concerning the real effects of wolves and grizzly bears that are both ignored and denied by bureaucrats, “scientists”, politicians, the media and other “Ne’er do wells”: it caused me to think about moose.

I live in Minnesota.  For many decades Minnesota had the only robust moose population in the North Central Lower 48 States.  Northern Minnesota woodlands, bogs and lakes are contiguous with the Manitoba/Ontario woodlands with moose and caribou that extend to James Bay.  Our neighbors are essentially moose-free: North Dakota is a plowed landscape, Wisconsin and Michigan are not sufficiently marshy woodlands for moose with one exception.  Isle Royale, a Michigan island about 15 miles from the Minnesota mainland on the North Shore of Lake Superior.  Moose that have found the island to be particularly hospitable were introduced onto Isle Royale over a century ago when native caribou were declining precipitously.

Wolves were probably clandestinely introduced or swam to Isle Royale about 70 years ago, shortly after (what a coincidence!) the rich owners took a tax break and “donated” it to the government as a National Park.  Since hunting was no longer allowed, moose over-populated the island and the arriving wolves ate lots of moose meat and made lots of puppies since moose are particularly vulnerable to wolves in forested areas and are agreatly preferred high-energy food by wolves.  Soon, the moose population crashed, and the wolves inter-bred and could not find sufficient caloric replacement for the moose in their diet.  So, the Park Service began importing wolves (their idea of “natural” ecosystem “management”) as moose began to increase after the wolf population crash. The non-native moose on the island and the non-native wolves have become characters in a federal government fantasy media favorite about “Nature”.

Up until the 1980’s, Minnesota maintained a reduced wolf population consistent with a robust moose population, profitable livestock operations, a safe environment for hunting dogs, and levels of public safety found comfortable by rural Minnesotans.  In the 1980’s Minnesota’s wolves were declared federal wards under Endangered Species Act provisions.  The state government and its residents no longer had any say in where, how many or what management provisions (actually none, no matter what the wolf is doing short of carrying off a child with tooth imprints already breaking the child’s skin) would apply.

Long story short; wolf populations and wolf range exploded and (among many other bad things) the statewide moose population plummeted.  Hunting for moose (a once-in-a-lifetime permit with tens of thousands applying for expensive permits that were an annual bonanza for the state wildlife agency) was eliminated never to return.  State bureaucrats and their allies like radical organizations and subsidized “scientists” blamed the moose disappearance on “climate change”, ticks and unknown maladies for which only “more” money and personnel was the answer.  Thus moose numbers in Minnesota have declined never to return without drastic wolf reductions that are about as likely as reducing house cats to increase bird populations that manage to avoid power windmills.  The urban populace still reveres the state and federal “bureaucrats” that caused and justified this wolf debacle here, in the West, in Canada and in Europe.

Gone are all the Minnesota children’s books about moose.  Gone are the sightings of moose on Northern highways or in cabin yards or from a canoe along the shore.  Wait a minute; it is true that no one ever sees them anymore but the books, knickknacks, pictures, coffee mugs, Travel signs, stationery, sweatshirts, t-shirts, caps, etc. are all still marketed with the “iconic” male moose logos are everywhere.  Other than a few old fogeys that once hoped to get a moose permit – no one cares that moose are a remnant on the verge of extinction in the state!  Try explaining the role of wolves in all this and you will be lucky if you get off with a silent stare or someone’s back as they walk away.

Simultaneously; wolves have killed all 450 caribou on Michipicoten Island, about 10 miles off the Ontario mainland in NE Lake Superior, in only 4 years.  Manitoba is reporting declining moose populations Province-wide.  Moose are all but extinct in Yellowstone Park for more than a decade since the wolves were introduced over 30 years ago and the elk herd plummeted from 20,000+ to less than 4,000.  Alaska has, despite fierce pressure from radicals and government extremists, conducted periodic and thorough aerial shooting of wolves to protect moose populations that Alaskans prize for winter meat in addition to seeing them.

Wolves are pushing moose in Minnesota into oblivion.  Moose in Manitoba are declining because they have too many wolves and there is little wolf control anymore either by government or (as was the case for centuries in the US) young hunters, trappers and other rural residents exercising their sensible right to minimize wolf numbers for their own benefits like protecting family members, dogs, livestock and their right to “domestic Tranquility”.

However, like the clear dog whistle about how rural America is being changed for the worse by the subtle selling point for hunters that, “some outfitters were selling the fact that their areas contained neither wolves or grizzlies !” who seems to care?  Who will say, “enough is enough”?  How can we reverse these travesties?  I do not know.

Jim Beers

16 December 2018

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

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

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

“When, how…and by whom?”

I recently wrote some colleagues that”:

“Bad laws” not only “ensure bad results”: they are like the bushel baskets full of oysters (and salt water) that some East Coast bay man totes in the bed of his pickup from boat to market 5 days a week.  Pretty soon the bed and then the truck shows evidence of rusty corrosion but by then it is too late.  The rust spreads, the value of the truck plummets to nothing, and he just keeps driving it until it falls apart.

These bad laws are like that salt water dripping from those baskets and we are noticing more and more corrosion while we try to tell ourselves that it isn’t too bad and we should get more years from the truck.  But we are just fooling ourselves. Rural America (and urban America as well but no one dares mention it) is the truck and we not only no longer care for it but we abuse it (and the people that live there and use it) because we accept lies from government on behalf of the rich and powerful about what a good thing it is to protect large, deadly and destructive predators that eradicate game animals, ranchers, and rural communities on behalf of pagan claptrap about biology and more hidden agendas than termites in an African termite mound.

A colleague responded that:

No need to explain why something needs to be done about this ever-increasing problem, the next line of questions, when, how…and by whom?”

——————————————————————————————————————-

My response-

THE problem is (unjust, un-Constitutional, tyrannical, etc.) absolute power given to central government bureaucrats in federal legislation like the ESA, Animal Welfare Act and similar Acts “enforced”, administered and regulated by US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, EPA, US Forest Service and BLM.  In a word, it is Political.

Regarding wolves; federal bureaucracies, and especially USFWS, have stolen money from state wildlife agencies, introduced and protected wolves and with few exceptions converted the State Wildlife Agencies and environmental scientists, Universities and “science” into little more than paid subcontractors for federal agendas.  Federal politicians and bureaucrats are rewarded with money, votes (mostly urban) and fame for doing what rich individuals and rich and radical environmental organizations want for a host of hidden agendas from eliminating hunting and private property in vast swaths of America to reducing the human population and stripping most of the human benefits created in the past century.

Both federal Legislatures and the Presidency benefit from happy environmental radicals and the “Deep State”, “Swamp”, (whatever you want to call it) that manages ESA, wolves, grizz, etc. for them.  Federal judges are nominated and ratified by those folks and this accounts for the increasing national divide in courtrooms reflected in whether “your” judge emerged under Democrat or Republican reigns.

The naked truth is that, like abortion, the Democrat Party is 100% behind this environmentalism and anyone deviating from that absolute support is marginalized and either silenced or removed.  The Republican Party has many members that talk a good game about “doing something” about these matters depending on the temper of those that elect them, but it is only talk.  Given the declining rural voting numbers, electing and expecting a good person to be able to fight to limit the power of the bureaucracy in these matters is wistful, to say the least.

All through this the federal bureaucracy gets increasing budgets, more higher-grade positions (and retirements), bigger bonuses, and a publicly unchallengeable authority no matter the basis or outcomes.

The current Administration boasts it is “de-regulating” and it is but “de-regulating” is only a temporary fix because it only reflects the authority of the current President and his appointees.  What they do can (and will) be undone done in a New York nanosecond by the next President who, if the last fifty years tell us anything, will be a “Deep State” or ”Swamp” enabler to his or her bones as will their successor for a long time.  The Mueller Probe alone tells us that but don’t forget the IRS, FBI and DOJ’s recent history as political weapons that appear to only be growing bolder and stronger about controlling us on behalf of our rulers. Consider getting political support for things like wolves and grizzlies in this climate.  A Yukon trapper just killed a grizzly near his cabin and then discovered his 10-month-old baby and its mother ripped apart where they had tried to flee the same grizzly.  Do we hear even one peep from rural Americans in the Lower 48 about the insanity of spreading and protecting grizzly bears by the federal government in the Lower 48?  From any of “our” NGO’s or state governments?

The current Administration tells us they are “purging” environmental radical bureaucrats.  I watched the current federal natural resource bureaucrats pop up out of the mud in the 1980’s and 90’s, often in high positions immediately.  Using the new race and sex preferences that financially benefitted cooperating top managers quite handsomely; common sense and scientifically educated bureaucrats were steadily replaced by extremist activists with actual animus toward the agencies and their historic missions FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING WITH AND/OR UTILIZING THOSE RESOURCES.  Not only 20+years of such “purging” and hiring (I was terminated in 2000) but more importantly how they each replicated each other when hiring, promoting and awarding bonuses like wolves and grizzlies being imposed into settled landscapes has created a federal (and most state) radical workforce that if not reduced by 75% each year and then kept below 25% of current levels while Universities and science are reformed, will defy any controls by whatever it takes.

Unless we amend this top-down, federal mandate approach to wildlife management, all the “de-regulation” and personnel changes will be temporary at best.  So, one might ask, “what can we do”?  We must change the authority and jurisdictions that has been given to federal bureaucrats and replace it with a restoration of state authority over wildlife in the State excepting those species covered by ratified Treaties.  Federal concerns about “endangered” species (not sub sp., races, populations, etc.) should be proposed to the State with rationale, objective and federal funding for however long proposed.  State acceptance should allow amendments and require both legislative and Governor acceptance.  This is where rural residents of the state need to restructure the state ratification of such proposals to give rural residents increased ratification weight in the approval process.

So how do we get there in the present political “climate”? 

I live in a very liberal, Democrat state.  The only Republican elected last month was a dogcatcher in some rural norther County and has since been forced to flee when Antifa arrived in town. (That is a joke.)

About 4 hours ago I put out my flag and picked up my Saturday edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the driveway.  When I opened it, the front page had an article, “Students get charged up about climate change”.  Here are some excerpts:

  • “When it comes to confronting climate change” “Some adults get struck on certain things” and “No is not acceptable.”
  • “Youthful advocates are leading rallies, gathering petitions and taking daring climate resolutions to City Halls and County Boardrooms”.
  • “But they’ve also studied their own backyards – from the urban core to the suburbs and small towns.”
  • “So iMatter (sic note the little ‘you’ in the name of one of this little-known enviro front organization) studies the energy behind other movements, including the fight for civil rights and same sex marriage.”
  • “Emotions make movements.”
  • “Young people can personalize this, can reach people at an emotional level.”
  • “Cities can make a big difference.”  “You get an enough grass roots action happening… it can force the state and federal government to move.”
  • “The city (sic Grand Marais, an expensive, elite enclave on the North Shore of Lake Superior) has even hired a climate change Coordinator, a position funded by a McKnight Foundation Grant.”
  • “It’s a very individualistic place”, said Craig Feist, 17, of Finlayson, about 100 miles north of the Twin Cities.  “People have their land, and they consider that their domain and do kind of whatever they want to do on it.”

Now I could call this a Socialist/Communist approach to brainwashing young minds and setting the stage for a government takeover because it is the reverse of Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution wherein the rural peasants occupied and purged the cities and the elites.  It is a rare glimpse into how these liberal bastions gain, keep and control political power.  Here we have the privileged elites using their children to lay the groundwork for purging the countryside and those yokels that oppose any of their agendas. However, I ask you to consider how “our side” in this environmental confrontation has behaved and can be expected to continue to behave:

  • Do we energize young rural students to dismiss adults with whom they disagree?
  • Do we send kids into the cities to explain what wolves and grizzlies and many other GI (Government Issue) animals are doing to our communities?
  • Do we send kids forth to defend property rights to property-less urbanites?
  • Do we condemn urbanites for being herd-animals (versus “individualistic”)?
  • Do we presume to brag that we have “studied” our home places and therefore have the right to lecture and abjure urban know-nothings?
  • Do we send forth youthful missionaries to cities to explain why it is so important to “Keep and Bear Arms”?
  • Would we rightly expect rural youth to be listened to in almost any city if they extolled such things publicly without fearing of violent reactions?

Until we can put the environmental genie of unjust federal power back in the bottle I cannot imagine how anything really changes.  We are forced to maneuver outside the walls of government about controlling wolves; limiting future areas to be infested; how controls will be effected; who will do the controlling; how long will controls be effected; and how will it all be paid for?  Traps are nasty and inhumane.  Snares are icky and unacceptable non-target species.  Planes are illegal and uncontrollable over property.  Can controls be forced in private properties or government landholdings?  When can control be exercised?  When killing livestock or pets?  When in a yard?  When appearing sick?  Who is responsible for rabid wolves or human infection outbreaks like tapeworms, etc.?  Can wolf population target levels be based on big game numbers, livestock depredations, human attacks or imagined threats like hanging around school bus stops?  Can hides be sold for trophies or home decorations?  Can any County or State say, “We don’t want any wolves here and we want to be able to kill any wolf here year-around”?

It is only realistic to see a hodgepodge of temporary and conflicting results emerging and being challenged (until the next President is elected).

Jim Beers

8 December 2018

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

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

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Science Doesn’t Lie, but “Scientists” Publish

Science Doesn’t Lie, but “Scientists” Publish *

*A shameless modification of something my grandmother once told me that, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure!”

Below my 30 November email to select colleagues, there is a List of historical wolf attacks almost entirely from Europe and Asia.  My comments and the List will, hopefully, prove of interest and value to you that read them.

Jim Beers

30 November 2018

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

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

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Guys,

What a wonderful place Christopher Columbus found!  Who knew? I feel like bursting forth in stanzas of “My Country Tis of Thee”!  Now I really know why all our forbearers left “the Old Country”.

There has (according to this List) only been but ONE wolf attack and death in North America for that matter in recorded history.  It was in 1989 in Forest lake, Minnesota (“where all the children are above average” per Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion and for other unmentioned incidents’ fame) about 20 miles from where I am sitting at the moment AND that was from a CAPTIVE WOLF!  It must have been imported from those other countries far away and it only goes to prove that only North American wolves, unsullied by those dastardly Euro-Asian oppressors, are “natural” and “beneficial”.  Obviously, our wolves are like angels placed here for the virgin forests and wild grazing animals to live in loving harmony with “native” people and this List proves it.  Once invaded (there was no wall) by these European immigrants “seeking asylum” sure enough they brought in this “captive wolf” that couldn’t help killing his “caretaker”.

My point here is to take this list for what it is.  It is a PARTIAL European/civilized Asian List (i.e. where they kept records that endured and where such things were noted, much less recorded).  There were lots more and the historic references back to the Ancient Greeks are chilling to say the least.

Enter North America.  Consider that Norwegian Canadian trapper the other day that killed a grizz a hundred yards from his cabin only to find his “partner” and their 10-month old baby dead and “mauled” (i.e. ripped apart) where they had tried to get back to the cabin by “apparently the same bear”.  How often did frontier families and settlers experience the same horrific deaths from wolves and bears and mountain lions?  Who “Knew”?  Who “Investigated”?  Who “Reported”?  Who Publicized”?  Who “Recorded”?  Who “Kept Records”? 

Despite all that, Stanley Young in Wolves of North America mentions a lot of word-of-mouth incidents passed down and still mentioned when he was “controlling” (only they didn’t have qualms then and spoke in real words like “killing”) predators.  Today the same necessary activity (predator control) is verboten to even (like Oscar Wilde’s “love” that “you dared not speak its name” and got him imprisoned and ruined his life) speak its name or necessity.

This very valuable List is but the tip of an historical iceberg.  There were undoubtedly many more deaths and survival-with-injuries in Europe and Asia in these years and a similar ratio of wolf attacks and wolf-caused deaths based on rural expanses and wolf-to-human ratios undoubtedly occurred under “Native” occupation and European occupancy in North America.

The real horror and scandal is the government functionaries, quack “perfessors”, teachers, over-educated influential elites, immoral NGO’s and many others with all manner of anti-rural hidden agendas that have not only sold the re-imposition of deadly predators by government force and finance but also buried this history (like Holocaust-Deniers) and created Socialist automatons that will not only deny but actively suppress these horrific facts and put them on the “Mention at Your Own Peril” List.

A Grant to some fearless person who is neither afraid of the truth nor squeamish about what must be done (“Yo Demosthenes, are you out there?  We need you.”) should set about recording what took place in North America as best we can reconstruct it and then attempt an ordered and supportable synthesis (like the incomplete Euro/Asian records) to extrapolate what most likely took place.  Should I go to the University of Minnesota or the University of California or where?  Decisions, Decisions.

Should I look for funding at the Animal Rights NGO’s or the federal bureaucracies or the spineless hunting NGO’s or the “hiding-under-their-desks” State agencies?

I leave all that to you dear reader.

Jim Beers

————————————————————————————–

On Nov 29, 2018, at 5:08 PM,     XXXXX    wrote:

YYYY and I were talking today about recent wolf attacks on Humans.  I started to search in the internet and found this.   Wow.  There are many more attacks than I had known about!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks#2010s.

Share

Delisting Wolves: Going Down the Rabbit Hole

Going Down the Rabbit Hole

By James Beers:

My Inbox this morning had 5 separate copies of the news article, House of Representatives to vote on gray wolf delisting Friday from the Spokane newspaper.  Two of the senders asked what I thought, while the other three sent it for my information.  My following comments and the news article that follows them are provided for your consideration.)

Re: Wolf De Listing

This is only a temporary fix for everyone.  The basic authority for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, under the ESA, to relist and reintroduce wolves is not limited by this. 

So “they” (a temporarily benevolent Congress) make a law that wolves either in the Lower 48 or in certain States are not Endangered or Threatened and even that full management and authority over wolves (it cannot do this as long as the ESA authorizes federal bureaucrats and “scientists” to inform us that wolves are once again on the cusp of extinction in … and that the ESA “directs” and authorizes them to “save” the wolves.  Thank you, President Hillary or Alexandria Cortez or Jeff Flake or whoever wins the next electoral recounts.  Thank you as well to the next simultaneous House and Senate bursting with Dems, Socialists (but I repeat myself) and “get along” RINOS.  Do I believe that the Dems in the incoming or even current House will pass this?  Who, in Washington, will push this in the most toxic national political climate since 1860? What Dems or Republicans will fight for something Trump (think WALL, Ryan and OBAMACARE here) might possibly get any credit for?  The only thing really going for it is a blip in rural support for Washington mischief in the future (before reality is reintroduced about federal authority in such matters).

Imagine, that Wyoming (or NC or NM or ID, etc.) says “whoopie” now we can eliminate wolves in 21 0f our 23 counties (or even that they might think they could exterminate all their wolves).  Under a spineless governing class and with every rural resident back asleep because “wolves are delisted”, do you really think USFWS and that pack of hyenas they employ and even all those closet tinker belles now working in state “wildlife” agencies wouldn’t scare all the urban women and kids about the imminent demise of wolves everywhere and how they need to intervene quickly to “save” them under the provisions of the ESA?

Raise your hands if you really believe that Washington politicians would come out from under their desks to straighten things out.  What would stop it?  Some judge whose wife and daughter “love animals”? Some “scientist saying it’s all humbug” (how many of them have you seen lately)?  The same old line of XY&%# would be resurrected and plugged into the ESA’s un-Constitutional, unjust and destructive blather (but very real federal authority/jurisdiction/power grab that it wrought) about how federal bureaucrats and “scientists” trump (a great word) any delay or argument about private property rights, human health & safety, economics, liberty, domestic Tranquility, etc. etc.

States will try to respect federal and environmental demands using the rationale that “we can all get along, but that has never worked because the wolves are doing what they are supposed to do from wrecking ranching, shrinking hunting and destroying animal ownership like dogs.  Nearly all state agencies realize their bread is buttered by federal bureaucrats and national NGO’s, so challenging the status quo results in only a temporary respite much like “De-Regulation” enthusiasm.  They all know that any attempt to manage wolves as the people of the state want or most particularly the desires of those LIVING WITH WOLVES want will eventually meet with disaster for those attempting such impertinence.

The same goes for the Animal Welfare Act as a secondary tool of rural tyranny.  For instance, say North Carolina finds (as most states will) that you can neither count or “control” wolves satisfactorily and that:

  • Trapping.
  • Denning (the killing of wolf pups).
  • Year-around taking by a few shooters and young guys that enjoy shooting, hunting, etc. (exactly the young men and boys most affected by teachers, public pressure, recent laws, etc. feminizing American males).
  • Running dogs bred to run and kill wolves (in the Lower 48 States with a hodgepodge of private property?) as was the case centuries ago when the British, Scots and Irish invented and ran Wolfhounds to extirpate wolves when other methods were found to be inadequate.
  • Aerial control in certain areas.

Are the only methods that would really work but that no one dares even suggest for fear of reprisal.

Then when it sinks in that it is necessary to routinely use effective methods to maintain “tolerable” wolf levels and that whether on a local, state or Regional basis it is prohibitively expensive if attempted by government employees, and somewhat less expensive if done even by license-purchasing hunters given all the lawsuits, controversies and demands meant only to make any control impossible: enter the Animal Welfare Act as backup.

“Welfare” (as in “Animal”) folks, in collusion with the “environmental” folks will go to court; make arrests; charge; fine; and incarcerate those using “IN-humane” methods as decided by a judge or some Washington bureaucrats paid to enforce the AWA.  Grants and research will flourish and provide fodder for prohibitions.  “The ammunition is lead and eagles are dying.”  “Wolves are being wounded by inadequately trained gun owners”.  “Traps and dogs are ruled IN-humane and are prohibited”.  “Shooters are killing too many immature wolves because …”.  “Trapping during calving season is causing suffering to wolf pups still in the den”.  “There is insufficient ‘data’ to allow indiscriminate shooting of wolves’ impact on the family structure of packs in crowded habitats or in packs that roam vast areas”.  “Aerial control is cruel and unusual”. Etcetera, Etcetera.

All the while the wolves will increase, habituate, and continue to learn how to exist in the settled and artificial landscapes of the Lower 48 States. Expansion into ever-broader landscapes will occur as harassment increases, livestock is somewhat better protected, and wolf densities make roaming more and expanding their range to where wildlife, livestock and dogs are more available a likely outcome.

It is a much bigger mess than anyone admits or realizes.  These ramifications and problems are only increasing with time as wolf advocates imagine a success thus far, and wolf realists and Constitutionalists look to “De-Listing” as a solution for something that is only being covered up and kept out of site until favorable conditions return.

Pardon me if my unmentionables aren’t wadded up and my eyes all teary.

Jim Beers

16 November 2018

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

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

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Wildlife 101

By James Beers:

Fantasy disguised as “science” is called “junk” and your report about Yellowstone (Wolves, Cougars Help Restore Landscape) in the 12 November U. S. Watch is “junk”.

Despite the titles of the authors and University status of their employment, elk herds did not “grow in size” due to the “widespread extermination of wolves and cougars”.  They grew in size because the Park Service bureaucracy would not allow hunting of elk (or anything else) in the Park for the greater part of the last century.  Neither hunters nor federal bureaucrats did anything about the elk increase except study and whine about it.

Hunting that would have kept the elk at any desired level while funding conservation programs went unjustified for decades.  In addition to visceral NPS prohibitions, could elk management have been justified to “restore willow plants and other vegetation along the park’s streams” or to change “the herd’s behavior” or to “allow streams to return to a ‘more’ natural state”?  Right!

Hunting or those vaunted “government sharpshooters” using modern wildlife biology could have kept elk at whatever level was desirable.  Such a “level” however, has become a value decision for decades with urban fantasies slowly gaining steam to denigrate human management of wildlife for human welfare in favor of unmanaged ecosystems with dangerous deadly and destructive large predators at large threatening people while killing certain animals like moose, dogs and livestock in unacceptable numbers.

Think of it as replacing truthful data and knowledge with free-roaming, protected predators; a practice condemned in writing first by the Greeks hundreds of years before the time of Christ.

Jim Beers

12 November 2018

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

Share