November 14, 2018

The Realization of the Power of Centralized Government

*Editor’s Note* – As with all guest posts, the views expressed may or may not be the position of this editor/administrator. Having clarified that, I believe there are more than the three choices Mr. Beers has presented to readers. But I’ll save that for another time. Enjoy the article.

A story by James Beers:

HOW?

(A colleague recently asked the question, “I do not understand how the EU has such authority about wolf populations in countries around Europe.  Each country has its own singular problems with a wolf population.  It seems to me to be reasonable that each country should make its own regulations about how to control its wolf population.”  The following is an answer…  Jim) 

The EU has such authority for precisely the same reason that Washington, DC has the same authority in Washington.  The past 50 years have seen simultaneous explosions in two areas of US and European governance:

  1. Centralization of all authority and jurisdiction in one central point; Brussels for Europe and Washington in the US.  Brussels was created for all manner of reforms from saving Europe from a WW III; growing an economy to compete with the US; and deterring the Soviets from gobbling it up.  This centralization of laws, Parliamentary power and bureaucracy subservient to the politicians in Brussels who then, in turn, became both unanswerable and unaccountable to anyone except their own personal interests and somewhat to the “elected” national leaders that played a game called “two canoes”.  “Two canoes” is played by persons (national leaders) paddling in a race downstream, each in two canoes with one foot in each one.  The two canoes represent the central EU government and the citizens of the country they ostensible represent.  The winner of the race gets the most money and power that is controlled by the Brussels politicians and bureaucrats actually ruling Europe.

The exact same thing took place in the US.  Jurisdictions and authorities that were Constitutionally and traditionally both Local and State were absorbed by a growing federal government starting during WW I when the Democrat Party controlled the Presidency, the Congress and the Courts.  They established a federal Income Tax and changed the basic nature of the US Senate from representatives of States to a House of Lords where Senators became national and international interest group’ advocates approving Treaties and federal appointments in return for lobbyists’ money and emoluments. After 50 years of Depression, WW II and Soviet travails, the expanding federal centralization reached a critical mass when Vietnam and the Free Love/Drugs/Anarchy exploded in the US.  Central authority was the “only” answer to put down riots, stop drug smuggling and take over the schools that were pumping out all those “hippies”, etc.

  1. It was during the 1960’s and 70’s (Watergate/Inflation/Counterculture, etc.) that the “environmental/animal rights” movement began laying eggs in both the US and Europe.  The eggs were laid in the warm and fuzzy nest of the all-powerful central governments.  The politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington saw the eggs as sure political winners as they expanded central controls.  Europe and the US saw an explosion of “environmental” and “animal rights” laws emanating from Brussels and Washington.

First were the “global cooling” discoveries that came from the Universities threatening a second Ice Age due to human activities that, if not controlled by central governments, would destroy civilization and crop production for a thousand miles North or South of the Equator. This morphed later into “global warming” that threatened to drown coastal areas from melting Ice Caps and rising seas.  America’s E and W Coasts were going to run through Ohio and Utah respectively.  Hunting, animals as experimental objects, animal husbandry, and animals as property were all to be banned.

Right behind those scares came the calls for “Clean Air” and “Clean Water” laws that confirmed new central authorities over air “polluters” like cars, power plants, and manufacturing processes; and water “polluters” like farmers, cities, and disposal practices.  Universities worked overtime for grant funds from central government bureaucracies; and politicians crowded each other for publicity and votes as they passed laws for banning all manner of human activities and societal traditions.  None of this is to say that cleaning up air and water pollution was not worthy but, I believe it is inarguable that the magnitude of central government mandates often exceeded common sense and any fair cost-benefit analysis.  Yet, the greater magnitude and most important aspect of growing central control; more urban support and bureaucratic growth (and compensation) were generated and legal precedents were established over former and vanishing national or state-controlled activities; was the real reason for this agenda’s survival, no matter what.

To call the 1970’s anything other than the period confirming central government ascendancy over state (in the US) and national (in Europe) powers of governance would be to misread history.  On the heels of all the air and water cleansing came the federal environmental/animal rights’ laws.  Wilderness, Endangered Species, Wild Horses and Burros, Marine Mammals, New Bird Treaties, Estuarine Areas, Scenic Rivers, Parks, Sanctuaries, etc. Acts established all manner of new or increased central government jurisdictions over everything from frogs and flies to whales and wolves.  UN Conventions and Treaties were drafted by central government bureaucrats to confirm and expand their own central government authorities.  The words “Ecosystem” and “Protect” appeared and were heard everywhere.  Central government politicians were canonized for “saving” everything: central government bureaucrats were paid more and more to manage bigger budgets and more employees to fulfill all the promised benefits: and Universities became integral partners grinding out (for grant money, notoriety and tenure) all the “science” the bureaucrats paid for to justify and discover new reasons for, and benefits of the, “New Normal”.

Thus, in answer to the question:

“I do not understand how the EU has such authority about wolf populations in countries around Europe.  Each country has its own singular problems with a wolf population.  It seems to me to be reasonable that each country should make its own regulations about how to control its wolf population.”

The answer is, there is NO OTHER REAL AUTHORITY today in either Europe or the US.  The national responsibility in Europe to protect the rural citizenry from wolf depredations, dangers and destruction was passed to Brussels that both birthed the wolf problem in the first place and has no incentive to abandon all the urban animal rights’ myths and love for wolves that supports continued expansion of central government authority.  The wolves are destroying the sheep, endangering hunters, decreasing game, killing and mating with dogs thereby depopulating rural areas and making more land available for government to take over for urban fancies from Wilderness to Parks.  Likewise, State authorities over wildlife in the US have been absorbed by central government politicians and bureaucrats.  State governors, like European national leaders, play the “two canoes” game like Olympic athletes getting medals, money and publicity from central government overlords that get money from the environmental/animal rights’ organizations and then tax the public more and more to support the scams they invent to maintain power over everything from gardens to plastic straws.

European and American shepherds, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, loggers, and rural residents are living in a make-believe world where wolves are good, and livestock are bad.  Where vegans are good; and meat eaters are bad.  Where wolves are good; and domestic dogs are bad.  Where catastrophic forest fires are good; and loggers and grazers are bad.  Where far-off, remote and unaccountable central governments are good; and National/State/Local governments (closer to the people and accountable to them) are bad.

That is “how the EU (and Washington) has such authority about wolf populations.”

There are only three choices.

  1. We begin reforming these central governments incrementally into what they were 50 or 100 years ago.
  2. We fight the central governments like the Brexit voters and the State of Wyoming have done and strike for an immediate (as far as that is humanly possible) reversal of central government authority and re-establishment of State, National and Local authorities and jurisdictions.
  3. We just shrug, like Atlas, and watch freedom, liberty and accountable government disappear in the world we are leaving our children and grandchildren.

I vote for #2.

Jim Beers

3 September 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 Management as Government-Sponsored Comedy

By James Beers:

Upper Midwest newspaper articles have become vibrant reporting platforms for the increasingly absurd and wasteful machinations of the mixture of radical environmentalism and animal rights doctrines.  As loony (pardon the pun) as these popular appeals for public favor are becoming, the fact that our tax dollars support them only increases their incongruity and therefore the comedic nature of modern American wildlife non-management.  To quote the old Pogo cartoon classic;

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

The latest “Outdoors” column in a Twin Cities Newspaper’s Sports Section is one such example thanks to a summer doldrum week when fishing is slow, hunting is closed, the Twins are 12 games out, and the NFL Preseason is just getting underway.

The following is a thumbnail description of the article with my italicized comments.

The article is titled, ‘Geese police’ hoping kayakers can protect wild rice.  There are two photographs; one of a “biology student” paddling a kayak, and another of a half dozen Canada geese swimming in a very thin scattering of wild rice.  This vignette takes place on the St. Louis River that dumps into Lake Superior at Duluth, Minnesota and which forms the boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin (Duluth, MN and Superior, WI) upstream from Lake Superior for about 8 miles.  Here are some quotes in the order they appear in the article:

  1. “When the expanding population of giant Canada geese start munching on manoomin before it’s even ripe, destroying the entire stalk, they can cause a lot of damage.”

1.)50 years ago, the federal government (USFWS) began raising “Giant” Canada geese to “restore” these prairie nesting geese in the Dakotas and Minnesota.  Think “Red” Wolves. Although they were indeed “large” geese their questionable lineage and their restoration were murky attempts to give further justification to buy, ease and manage wetlands that were rapidly disappearing.  In fact, the first releases in Rochester and other Minnesota communities (Minnesota was much farther along in draining their wetlands so they got the early releases) were the beginning of the creation and explosion of “RESIDENT” Canada geese across the northern half of The Lower 48 States.  The “Giant” Canadas quickly hybridized with migrating Canadas producing hybrids (wolves/coyotes/dogs anyone?) some of which stayed year around in City Parks or near schoolyards or open rivers or below dams and learned to eat grass, waste grains and even food provided by humans as if they were wintering nuthatches. The offspring became “average” Canada geese with an occasional “giant” emerging in an occasional clutch. Canada geese, we soon discovered, are just like mallards: they will eat almost anything and given some food and open water they will winter successfully farther north than imagined only 40 years ago.  For many years overabundant “Resident” Canadas that caused lots of problems were live-trapped and scattered around to other communities’ reservoirs, golf courses, parks and other etceteras like vetted refugees; but that was abandoned as the problems and costs overwhelmed federal and state agencies and every nook and cranny filled up.  Costs and (like wolves, grizzlies and other federally-created wildlife problems) constant emphasis of made-up imaginary benefits and denials and cover-ups of growing problems steadily co-opted state agencies into federal schemes of benefit to politicians and environmental/animal rights agenda items.  Think wolves, grizzlies, southern black bears and alligators claimed by federal bureaucrats as endangered and under federal authority with dangled proffers of federal dollars to states to cooperate.  Note also that the word “giant” is no longer Capitalized since it is an artificial construct of unnatural hybrids, yet; it is still mentioned in hopes of kindling the old magic imagery of another unique species that was almost made extinct by Europeans, capitalism, and unbridled greed.

2.) “Manoomin” is the latest spelling of “Mahnomen” which is reputed to be the Indian/Ojibwe word for the English words, “wild rice”.  This is worth noting since in 1906 the County spelled “Mahnomen” was founded in western Minnesota on the White Earth Indian Reservation.  My assumption would be that the “Manoomin” spelling is a recent construct by minority and Progressive political groups much like the removal of statues and un-naming of schools and streets named after Founding Fathers and Generals that were once honored for their contributions to American history but who owned slaves or otherwise offended modern sensibilities.  In a real but subtle way, this example of spelling change authority evinces the power of a minority to modify spelling thus exert their ownership (think dogs and fire hydrants) of the wild rice subject in Minnesota as will be seen later in the article.

  1. A biology student was, “tasked with checking out an idea.  Why not draft volunteer kayakers, canoeists and paddle boarders to scare the geese away?”

Why not, indeed?  Because these students, professors the general public are so animal rights-oriented that they will eternally seek, regardless of the truth or practicality, the Golden Fleece of non-lethal animal control for every human/animal conflict.  Think wolves and “range-riders”, electric fences, guard dogs, fladry, taste aversions, penning at night, 24-hour herd/flock guards, horns, sirens, drones, etc., etc. all to no avail but that proves nothing to the modern “biologist”.  Any Upper Midwest waterfowl hunter knows when you hunt wild rice beds, most waterfowl would do anything to get at it.  Allow hunting and the birds will feed at night or earlier in the morning.  Shoot the N end of a wild rice bed and birds will pour into the S end.  Try to flush them from wild rice and they will simply get up and come back down nearby.  Yet, just think: if “volunteer kayakers, canoeists and paddle boarders” can scare them away, we will have found the ‘giant” Canada goose Golden Fleece!  That will prove it can be done.  Now all we need to find is 10, 20 or 200 “volunteer kayakers, canoeists and paddle boarders” that will sign up to “scare” geese 24/7 in August, September, October, November and December come rain, sleet or snow, in the darkness of night, in rough windy days and at night when other boats are about.  Well everybody likes the possibility anyway.

  1. The “biology student” received “a $3500 grant for the project.”

Protected wolves are killing cattle, sheep and dogs and state politicians debate annual compensation for the losses to owners that owners always say is too little.  Wolf predation on domestic animals and wild animals increases as wolf numbers increase and will be present forever and any compensation will disappear as soon as rural complainants get tired of all the rigmarole and stop complaining as ranches diminish, dog ownership decreases, and hunting/game goes the way of Isle Royale moose into the guts of wolves.  Whether the $3500 comes from hunting license funds, Casino revenue, federal Excise Taxes, State Appropriations, or federal grants; it is a waste of money intended to assuage one more negative aspect of the “protect nature, whether naturally occurring or government-contrived by government-created geese and wolves, and she will take care of herself” philosophy.

  1. “You usually had to be very obviously trying to scare them away.  They didn’t scare very easily.”

You had to have a “biology student” confirm that?

  1. “The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources, Fon du Lac Band, 1854 Authority, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission and others for years have been trying to restore wild rice beds once common along the St. Louis River estuary in Duluth and Superior.” Wild rice is “a sacred food for Ojibwe people”.

Tribal Authorities and legally-held Native preferences play a big role here.  Just like certain western Tribes encourage federal authorities to release wolves on Tribal lands to evade State and local jurisdiction and objections: so too do Upper Midwest Native authorities cooperate with state agencies to do things like restoring wild rice on non-tribal lands that may then fall under Native control and be administered to achieve different agendas.  For instance, wolves that spread onto non-tribal lands diminish rural communities in many ways thus reducing their power in any conflicts with tribal activities and claims.  Simultaneously, while non-tribal residents on non-tribal lands that kill a wolf are subject to imprisonment, large fines and loss of voting and gun ownership rights: tribal members on tribal land can kill a wolf with impunity as one North Shore (of Lake Superior) tribal member did on the Grand Portage Indian Reservation two years ago.  While presented as some sort of restoration of “buffalo and wildflowers” project; wild rice restoration while once strongly supported by waterfowl hunters and their organizations has become a nuanced effort that often turns out to be something political that everyone denied at first.

  1. “Having geese police on site was thought to be potentially more effective than sound or motion deterrents like sound-cannons which geese become accustomed to.  It was also considered more politically correct than instituting a goose removal effort.”

Quick goose habituation to such devices has been known for over 70 years.  The thing is; “geese police” will never be enough or spend enough time to make a dent in the depredations of “Resident” geese aware of a food as preferred as wild rice.  Goose removal, likewise, has proven to be an annual matter, of great cost ever since those first “Giant” Canada left Rochester, MN wetlands for the golf course and intown schoolyards and Parks.  Note the “removal” word.  “Removal” to where?  Actually, it will be “removal” like California bureaucrats tell urban fantasizers that “problem” mountain lions (protected in California) will be “removed to a ‘wilderness’ location”, meaning some rural gravel road in the middle of the night.  Moving geese about as suggested here is like taking an infected bandage off your finger and putting it on a cut on your toe: you listen to any doctor or nurse suggesting it at your own peril.  The mysterious and amorphous words “goose removal” are dog whistles for “hunting” so; just like lethal controls for wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, alligators, etc.; we hereby erase and never mention the ONLY tried, true and proven method to keep geese from destroying a wild rice restoration project. 

  1. “Early fall hunting seasons help trim local goose numbers some.  But with the entire Duluth side of the estuary off limits to all firearms hunting the geese learn quickly to avoid the Wisconsin side of the river once the shooting starts.”

The geese avoid the hunted side ( where evidently most of the wild rice occurs) during the day but surely visit the other side when there is no hunting taking place (or packs of kayakers are waiting to pounce).  Note here also the word “some”.  Hunting will kill as many geese as you want.  Want to kill “more”?  Allow electronic calls, unplugged guns, baiting, earlier and later hours, sculling, sinkboxes, urban shooting sites, etc. and you can kill all or nearly all the Resident geese in a short time or each and every year if you want to maintain a few Resident Canada geese, though why any informed person would want to do so given all the negatives that accompany these hybrids is beyond me.

But what about the “Duluth side of the estuary off limits to all firearms hunting” presented as a problem?  Obviously, Duluth and/or the state of Minnesota place a higher priority on restricting hunting for geese than on restoring wild rice.  If you cannot get any or more hunting authorized on the beds for Resident geese then face facts, you have too many geese and you are unwilling to do what must be done. Stock walleyes or “study” how to restore furbearers and the state fur market with any wildlife or fish money burning a hole in some government pocket. 

  1. “Short of killing more geese, which may or may not be a viable option, having volunteers wave paddles at the big birds may be the best option to allow some wild rice to grow.”

If killing more geese every year ad infinitum is not “a viable option” you can’t grow wild rice in that section of the St. Louis River.  You have TOO MANY GEESE, just like the rancher or sheepherder run out of business by TOO MANY WOLVES. All the silver bullet promises in the world can’t and won’t change that.  The solution for waterfowl problems like this local one with Resident birds is to reduce, and keep reduced, the numbers of geese.  Like it or not; politically correct or not; annual hunting aimed at a certain level of those geese is not only affordable, it generates license revenue unlike the bevy of kayakers and actually finances conservation programs and associated businesses from sporting goods and clothing to tackle and boats. 

As to the wolves, the answer is and always has been local control and decision authority as to if any, how many, where and the rights of residents to protect property and or authorize anything and any methods from complete protection to complete eradication.

Isn’t it funny how the same destructive organizations and ideas that gave us wolves and grizzly bears in The Lower 48 States are now giving us kayakers and “Giant” Canada geese in wild rice?  The same religious assumptions about “Native” this and that represented by hybrids shoehorned into settled landscapes presented as somehow rectifying the sins of our fathers?  The same hatred toward anyone enjoying useful traditions which with they disagree?  The same contempt for traditions and American culture as we now see in the cities?  The same tales about the search for silver bullets and Golden Fleece that will one day soon resolve the irresolvable?  The same reckless use of scarce fish and wildlife dollars? The same sagas with the same players and the same Useful Idiots that Lenin first observed 100 years ago.

What’s next, free-roaming buffalo?  You betcha!

Jim Beers

17 August 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

In Search of the Hidden Public Costs of Wolves

By James Beers:

This was written for the Wallowa County [Oregon] Chieftain newspaper and can be found on their Facebook page.

Recently an ad hoc group of wildlife professionals concerned with wolves in Europe, Canada and the US has been discussing a 7 April 2015 article in the Wallowa County (Oregon) Chieftain newspaper.  The article, by three researchers with Oregon State University,concerned the economic impact of wolves on rural communities in Northeast Oregon based upon a six-year, ongoing study.  This analysis focused on cattle depredation and harassment costs related to wolf densities and was originally published in “Oregon Beef Producer” magazine, published by the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.

Our discussion, composed of frequent comments and observations, revolved around the lack of any reliable estimates of the cost of wolves in the media, scientific journals, or government justifications regarding the costs associated with wolves, especially in the settled landscapes of Europe, Canada and the USA.  The discussion caused me to consider how I might contribute to this subject of wolf costs in a milieu of government and environmental obfuscation and deception about the costs of wolves.  My experience and background with state and federal program budgeting and analysis left me with a familiarity that enables me to speak about government costs that will hopefully shed light on the state portion of costs, both monetary and opportunity, of wildlife programs, especially controversial and political issues like wolves.

While I am not a domestic animal economist, I am a wildlife biologist with over 55 years of working in the field of government wildlife programs.  From several temporary stints with the Utah Fish and Game to 32 years with the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 4 states and 25 years in Washington, DC and then as a speaker and writer about wildlife: I was, among other things during my USFWS tenure, a Program Analyst; a Budget Analyst; a Congressional Fellow; and the administrator of the federal Wildlife Excise Taxes (currently over $600M) Apportioned annually to state wildlife agencies.

During this latter assignment I uncovered the theft of $45M to $60M from those Excise Taxes by USFWS officials in Washington to fund the capture of Canadian wolves and their release in Yellowstone in the mid-1990’s.  The stolen funds were also used to clandestinely open a USFWS Office in California and to increase bonus amounts for select USFWS managers.  Both the introduction of wolves into the Upper Rockies and the office in California had previously been rejected for either funding or authorization by Congress.  As a “whistleblower” I assisted the General Accounting Office to construct an Audit that was the subject of two Congressional Hearings before the House Resources Committee.  I spent 10 months at home on full pay and benefits before being given a large cash settlement contingent on my complete silence for three years regarding anything having to do with my separation and retirement from federal employment.

All the foregoing is necessary for you to understand that I know both federal and state wildlife agency budgets and many of the ways that bureaucrats hide and dissemble what they do not want the public or any overseer to know.  Think, at this point, about the FBI/DOJ scandal before Congress; Fast and Furious; Lois Lerner and Koskinnen at the IRS; Benghazi excuses; recent BLM actions in Nevada and the shooting in the snow near Malheur Refuge of a protesting rancher.  Federal bureaucrats are not unique in their exemption from prosecution that would send civilians away to prison for decades.  They share this “perk” with powerful politicians and the very rich.  When bureaucrats of any stripe see other bureaucrats go unprosecuted for escalating crimes; like any kid on the street that sees his friends get away with crimes; the bureaucrat is emboldened and grows more and more contemptuous of the law that he believes doesn’t apply to him or her.  For instance, State wildlife agencies have been caught using wildlife funds to buy vehicles for the state vehicle pool; giving wildlife lands purchased with Excise Taxes to land developers (Whitewater in Arkansas); paying state park employee’s salaries when the state parks money runs out; giving wildlife land to state prison administrators to build a prison; and selling timber on wildlife lands and placing the receipts in the General Fund (instead of the wildlife budget as required by the Excise Tax law).  These things were all done clandestinely and were it not for a whistleblower or a fair audit (a rarity) by an uninvolved Audit Firm, they would likely have gone unreported.  State bureaucrats want to “please” their political overlords (Governors, select Legislators, Political Party bosses) every bit as much as FBI Agent Strzok, Lois Lerner, Koskinnen, BLM thugs, USFWS appointees, etc. want to “please” those that care for them financially and politically.

It is about State costs when Government Issue (GI) wolves are imposed by federal fiat that I wish to speak here.

The federal government is imposing or has imposed every current wolf in the Lower 48 States.  Wolves present when the ESA authorized federal seizure of all wolf authority in The Lower 48 States and all those imported, released and protected have been and are (despite the few states “enjoying” wolf management “returned” by benevolent bureaucrats and politicians) under federal directives and the threat of being retaken by federal bureaucrats given a favorable political climate.  At last count, wolves are present in 25 or more states.  Wolves are not “native” to Hawaii and wolves are ubiquitous in Alaska preventing federal claims of being “Endangered”, though that does not stop Lower 48 radicals and federal bureaucrats from trying to dictate wolf policies like aerial shooting, trapping and hunting to depress wolf densities to protect large game like moose and human/wolf interfaces where human safety and human property like dogs are in danger.

Let us use one state as a hypothetical example of what happens within a state wildlife agency when wolves arrive.  What I mention here goes for any state with wolves, be they under federal (Endangered Species) jurisdiction or under state management authority within federal guidelines as the result of federal bureaucrats’ benevolence to “return management to the state”.  This “return” is a false gesture since the Endangered Species Law remains untouched to authorize future federal bureaucrats to reassert federal authority and jurisdiction over not only wolves as a species, but also about wolves’ subspecies, wolf races, wolf populations, wolf distinct population segments, as well as distinct population segments (wolves on either side of a “government boundary” such as a County line).  One significant factor in the disappearance of federal wolf claims in the current atmosphere is the reluctance of the Congress to openly cough up many millions to USFWS to protect and spread wolves at this time if they reasserted federal authority and some States suddenly realized that negotiating with federal bureaucrats over wolf presence, distribution and control is akin to negotiating with Iran or North Korea about their behavior.  Better to let the State wildlife agencies scrimp and go broke so that when the time comes next to reassert ESA provisions, they (the States) will be even more dependent on federal funds and federal bureaucrats.

I was in our hypothetical state last year when I attended an all-day meeting “about” wolves.  Attendees included angry cattlemen, hunters, dog owners and the usual scattering of urban representative of radical groups opposed to anything that would affect wolves.  A State Biologist in charge of the Wolf Program from the Wildlife Agency Headquarters was in attendance.  Two wardens came and went during the day.  There were frequent breaks and lots of chitchat.  The State fellows were pleasant and honest; the cattlemen/hunters/dog owners were anxious to tell their stories; and the radicals were neither easy to talk to nor interested in sharing anything.  The cattlemen/hunters/dog owners innocently hoped that bureaucrats and environmentalists would listen and negotiate relief for their problems with wolves.  The radicals, knew their power was to be protected but not here in the open but in the backrooms of State politicians, the lunches for staffs of federal politicians, and the evening get-togethers with state and federal bureaucrats that support them like FBI Agents behind-the-scenes in federal elections and afterwards.

While speaking to the administrator about common acquaintances and politics, I asked how much money the State agency was spending on wolves and he answered honestly, “eight-hundred thousand”.  Now this state has large losses of cattle, hundreds of dead dogs (from hunting beagles and bird dogs to bear dogs), elk losses where they are trying to establish and build up an elk herd, and numerous human threats to rural people (including one killing that was mysteriously buried by the government and the media) and platoons of urban “volunteers” that count wolves and otherwise “help” state employees.  So, when he casually answered so quickly with such a round (and small) number, my interest was piqued.

I asked if that included the time spent by that warden over there and the administrator said, “oh no, that is different”.  When I then asked what the total might be he was honestly flummoxed (this did not surprise me) as most agency workers outside the budget office are woefully ignorant of what I was asking.  By the way, the warden told me that in the last 12 months he had spent well “over half his time” on reports of wolf poaching, investigating livestock and dog losses, advising rural residents encountering wolves near homes or businesses, running wolf errands for other State agency offices, helping with capturing and collaring wolves, and organizing wolf counts to speaking to schools and civic groups about how lucky they all were to have wolves in their midst.

Now this state has established and dense wolf numbers in at least 2/3 of their Counties.  The other 1/3 have transient and occasional resident wolves.  The state had wolf “management” “returned” for a few years ago and then had the federal jurisdiction returned to USFWS as the result of a lawsuit by a radical group so the USFWS did little more than “protect” wolves that increased (take note all you fans of “returning wolf management to the States”).  Even with USFWS back in the driver’s seat, State responsibilities included law enforcement, counting, compensation, public relations and associated tasks thanks to a State Legislature beholden to radical groups and interested in rural votes and a cool rural temper during elections.  Politicians that appear to not respond to voter’s ire are the politicians whose names you can never remember. So, following state and federal politicians as they “promise this and that”, and “introduce” this and that is a little like wandering through the House of Mirrors at the Carnival on a summer evening: you come out right where you went in.

Let us make a few ballpark estimates with round numbers about costs  The ball park numbers are necessary because actual numbers are all but impossible to obtain, as I found out, from state agencies hidden behind laws meant to provide transparency but that have been adapted as veils for state agencies that make you jump through more hoops than a Hula Hoop contest.  Like their federal counterparts; between the charges, delays, forms and information dissembling; public knowledge is kept to a bare minimum.  The round numbers are necessary to keep your attention and not lose you “in the weeds”.

Let us say there are 60 Counties (2/3 or 40 have lots of wolves) in the State and a Warden in each one. Based on the Warden at the meeting and hypothesizing about the other 39 Wardens in the wolf Counties, let us assume each warden spends 40% of their time on wolf-related work.  Let us further assume the 1/3 of the Counties with either transient or occasional resident wolves spend 30% of their time on wolf-related work.  Such work would include:

  • Investigating wolf depredations on livestock and dogs.
  • Arranging compensation for verified wolf depredations.
  • Investigating reports of being wolves shot or hunted.
  • Investigating reports of traps, snares or poisons set out for wolves.
  • Advising residents, dog owners and livestock producers about deterring wolves.
  • Overseeing and assisting in wolf censuses.
  • Responding to requests for assistance with wolves in campgrounds, garbage, outbuildings and on bike/hiking trails.
  • Training on state and federal wolf policies and regulations.
  • Training on equipment and handling sedated, live and dead wolves.
  • Investigating reports of wolf hides and/or skulls.
  • Meetings with schools, the media and organizations concerning wolves.
  • Training on wolf-related information management.
  • Investigating wolf and wolf hybrids in private homes.
  • Making Investigative Reports and preparing charges for prosecutors.
  • Keeping up with all the non-lethal control recommendations and non-lethal control claims so as not to be quoted in a way that could jeopardize your job.
  • Learning how to answer questions about wolf impacts and things like wolves as vectors of many diseases so as not to get in trouble with the latest state policies.

Now you might think this (40% of the Warden’s time in dense-wolf Counties and 30% of the Warden’s time in the mostly transient-wolf Counties) is all paid for out of the $800,000 in State funds but you would be wrong.  The $800,000 is first skimmed by headquarters and regional administrators for let’s say 10% for “administration”.

The remaining funding ($720,000) is mainly going to compensate livestock producers and dog owners (in this state but not in the majority of wolf states) for verified losses of livestock and dogs to wolf depredations.  But what about “research”?  The University “needs” funding for graduate students and professors all willing to work on what the wildlife agency and the radicals and those being harmed by wolves want as current justifications.  To wit, some “silver bullet” that won’t kill anything and justification for more funding to buy out livestock producers and to justify banning dogs from wherever dogs might hybridize with or conflict with wolves. So, let’s give them (rural folks and University justifiers) $420,000.

The amount available after this “compensation” is $300,000.  Well, there is also the Wolf Administrator’s salary and overhead in Headquarters along with a secretary and one or two regional wolf persons and poof, there goes the $800,000.  So, who or what pays for all that Warden time?

Before we answer that question, let us recognize where most of the license revenue and Excise Tax dollars that support state wildlife agencies goes.  It goes to salaries, equipment, land purchase and operations.  If our hypothetical Wardens make an average of $50,000 per year and 40% of that goes to wolves that means each warden is spending $20,000 of that salary on wolves.  But, then there are the hidden costs of Overhead; each warden also costs annually:

  • Health Insurance $8,000
  • Early Law Enforcement Retirement State Fund $10,000
  • IRA Contributions $ 3,000
  • Vehicle (annual amortization) $15,000
  • Boat/Trailer (annual amortization) $12,000
  • Storage for Equipment $4,000
  • Gun/Arms training/Uniforms $3,000
  • Computer/Administrative Support (@Regional Office) $4,000
  • Total: $55,000

Each of these costs must also be added to the $50,000 salary and then 40% deducted to see what the real cost of 2/3 of the Warden’s cost to babysit wolves amounts to.

$50,000 (Salary) + $55,000 (Overhead) = $105,000 (Warden Compensation) X 40% (% of time on wolves) = $42,000 the annual real cost of ONE Warden on wolves in the (2/3) Counties with dense wolf populations.  But we have 40 such Wardens, so – $42,000 (the cost of One Warden’s wolf time) X 40 (the number of Wardens in dense wolf country) = $1,680,000 (the state real cost of Warden services re: wolves in the dense wolf counties).  That is without adding in gas, overtime, vacation, and maintenance/repair of vehicles and equipment!

At this point we add in the cost of wolves in Warden’s time in the other 1/3 of the Counties’; i.e. those Wardens that only spend 30% of their time on wolves.  $105,000 (total annual cost of a Warden) X 30% (% of time on wolves) = $34,500 the annual cost of one Warden on wolves in the 1/3 of Counties with transient and scattered wolves.  Again, we have 20 such Wardens, so $34,500 (Annual wolf cost in 1/3 of Counties) X 20 = $690,000 (the state real cost of Warden services re: wolves in transient wolf counties.

If we add the estimated real cost of warden services for wolves we get:

$1,680,000 + $690,000 = $2,370,000 Total cost of warden servicing of wolves not including gas, overtime, vacation, and maintenance/repair of vehicles and equipment!  But wait; there is more.

What about the agency Director and all the staff in Headquarters and Regional Offices for the entire Department?  The Public Relations staff, the computer staff, the receptionists, environmental “educators”, biologists, solicitors, appointees, et al?  Like all those Assistants and Deputies; they have salaries, overhead, meetings to attend, travel, vehicles to travel in, and training to compose and to go to ad infinitum.  If the field personnel spend 30 – 40% of their time and effort on wolves, do you really believe these others spend all their time protecting and managing your fish and wildlife?  So, we must take the same slice +/- 37% of their salaries and support (the average of all Wardens work on wolves) and treat it as Wolf Costs.  That is a large number that I am sure varies greatly by state (imagine that cost in Washington or California and then think of comparable costs in New Mexico or North Dakota).  It is a big number and 25 states from one extreme to another are involved in it as you read this. When you figure this all out, don’t forget to add in the original claim of $800,000’s counterpart that I expect by now you no longer think of as, “not too bad” anymore.  Pause and think of how much is really being spent and how no one ever gets anything but sneers and guffaws when they say, “we’re spending a lot more than $800,000”.

In fact, Warden’s spending over $2,000,000 on wolves are not managing and regulating fish and wildlife to that tune as the public still assumes.  Fish and Wildlife populations and distributions compatible with settled landscapes and local interests, is the reason the agency was created and those employees are simply using up the available funding and the respect with which the public once held their predecessors to serve federal bureaucracies, politician’s egos, and radical Non-Government Organizations and their pernicious agendas that prioritize imaginary nature worship over those actually being harmed.

Do the math on one agency, then figure 24 more states now and another dozen in five years.  Think about how this cost is going into eliminating hunting and the Excise Taxes that support these agencies.  Hunting is threatened by lack of game from wolf depredations; human and dog safety concerns where wolves are present, disease problems for people and dogs where wolves are present, sporting dog breeders disappearing as dogs are no longer in demand (one of many animal right’s goals), and diminishing License Revenue (a self-fulfilling prophecy).  Excise Taxes are threatened by gun control, vilification of shooting and shooting sports in schools, the media and political platforms.  Who will pay for State wildlife programs in the future when these things are gone?  What will be done other than growing government control and ownership of more rural land and more elimination of any animal use or management as hunting and animal husbandry disappear and rural communities wither?

My grandmother used to say, “figures don’t lie but liars figure” and she was right.  Basing these wildlife scenarios on biology and nature myths is foolish. For instance, after about 50 years on the Endangered “Species” LIST, “experts” still cannot agree if there are one, three or more “species” of wolves in The Lower 48 States.  Someone shooting a 65 lb. “coyote” must wait weeks to have a bureaucrat tell him if he shot an “Endangered Wolf” (thereby incurring severe federal prosecution); or a coyote (thereby set free under state laws); or a dog (either under Local jurisdiction or owned by someone that may sue you for shooting his dog).  Since dogs, coyotes and wolves mate freely given the opportunity and their puppies are just as viable to reproduce and explicable as a pup out of a basset hound bred by a poodle; what then is this wolf?  One of many species, simply a Canid form like coyotes and dogs, or a unique species?  Look to the math of this scam and when you understand the costs and what you are losing: do something!

Were we able to (we aren’t because state wildlife agencies like the FBI, IRS, USFWS et al do not want the public ever getting a hold of such real numbers) get actual audit information, what I am trying to display here would be infinitely more understandable. While states vary as to audits, federal agencies never get audited unless Congress requests it and anyway the federal General Accounting Office no longer does “audits”, they do “Accountability Reports” because they are no longer an agency of accountants, they mutated years ago into an agency of social studies and political science majors as a diversity thing.  “Accountability” only exists anymore in the eye of the beholder.

All those State salaries, all those overhead costs, all that rental office property, all that equipment, all that support and all those laws and regulations were set in place to manage fish and wildlife for people.  Hunting/Fishing License Revenue and Excise Taxes both supported a wide assortment of businesses like sporting goods, clothing, dog breeding, etc., plus it controlled or eliminated certain wildlife deemed harmful and encouraged other wildlife highly desired for game, food and traditional recreation.  Excise Taxes on arms and ammunition, archery equipment, gas used for sporting and recreation boats, and fishing tackle supplemented the license revenues as the backbone of state fish and wildlife agencies funding.

The unseen and unmentioned millions being spent on wolves by state agencies is simply money diverted from the original public mandates and objectives to manage deer and elk and moose and ducks and grouse and walleyes and ice houses and invasive species, etc.  The same thing happened at the USFWS level when several hundred waterfowl and songbird support positions were “re-imagined” overnight by Secretary Babbitt into a “new” environmental science research agency in the US Geologic Survey that Congress had refused to fund.  The old public and organizations of hunters, fishermen, ranchers and others have stood by while those opposed to their presence from the National Wildlife Federation to PETA “re-imagined” the state fish and wildlife agencies into babysitting agencies feeding imaginary nature to urban constituencies largely dissatisfied with everything American from naming streets and schools after Presidents to hunting and fishing with your children like your Dad and Grandpa did with you.

The state wildlife agencies, once one of the most beloved of all government services have been co-opted (willingly and for their own job and retirement concerns) into this scam which you might call a “two-fer”.  Not only are the wolves spreading in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 and wreaking havoc (where they do not belong for many very valid reasons from hybridization to spreading disease and danger to rural children and old ladies): the state agencies that once managed fish and wildlife for people have joined in this clandestine endeavor and managed to eliminate a steady amount of fish and wildlife management and convert it into wolves that make rural life, rural pursuits and rural economies more difficult and problematic.  They are giving License Revenue and Excise Taxes, the primary example of the tried and true “User Pays” principle, to the enemies of the “Users” to, as Lenin once observed, “Buy (actually take) the rope from the Capitalists (actually the Users) with which we will hang them”.

James Beers

9 August 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

Evolving Coyote Mythology & Urban Political Dog Whistles

By James Beers

I recently thanked the St. Paul Pioneer Press and one of its writers for exposing the controversy surrounding growing complaints in St. Paul, Minnesota regarding the presence of and conflicts with urban coyotes.  Phone calls by the author of the article to the St. Paul Animal Control Supervisor; who was quoted as saying, “It speaks well for our city that wild animals choose to live here”; had gone unanswered.  The writer noted that, “Most of us don’t want coyotes, only to discover we have as our animal-control supervisor a woman with a Golden Book view of wildlife” and wherein “at night all the creatures gather around a fire and the raccoons provide for story time.”

I noted the similarities between this urban newspaperman and his coyote concerns in the face of a city government bureaucracy that disdains to recognize or address his interests and the drama taking place in rural America between rural residents concerned with wolves and grizzly bears in settled landscapes in the face of an arrogant “Deep State” in Washington, DC and state wildlife agencies that have become little more than subcontractors to federal bureaucrats and agents of the same environmental/animal rights agendas exposed in the St. Paul newspaper.

My “thank you” to the newspaper and the writer took the form of a Letter to the Editor that was recently published in the Sunday edition.  It was placed in between a letter from a St. Paul lady that thought she was, “fortunate to live with a National Park – and its attendant beauties, including wildlife – running through our midst”, and an instructive wildlife letter from a lady assistant professor of environmental education at a local University.

The latter letter from the assistant professor brought to my attention two things.  One was a silly and contradictory modernistic biological theory justifying coyotes as beneficial to urban landscapes reminiscent of the after-the-fact of introduction of wolves that, “wolves restore willows along streams” nonsense.  She opined that:

When there are coyotes in an urban area, there are fewer skunks, feral cats, and even foxes.  Not because the coyotes are tearing them apart, but because of something known as ‘competitive exclusion’ – when more than one species relies on the same food source in a given area, competition for that food source becomes a limiting factor, driving out competitors (i.e. causing the other species to look for food and shelter elsewhere).  The result is a stronger, more robust and diverse ecosystem – more plant species, bird and small mammal species.”

According to this “something known as ‘competitive exclusion’”; “driving out competitors (i.e. causing the other species to look for food and shelter elsewhere)” makes, “a stronger, more robust and diverse ecosystem – more plant species, bird and small mammal species.”  Is it me or do others wonder how making less of some predator species probably makes for more of the winning predator (in this case coyotes) and this then makes more and hungrier top predators to decimate the prey species ever more efficiently and not a“stronger, more robust and diverse ecosystem” whatever “stronger” and “more robust” connote?  The contradiction here is all the more regrettable when spewed by a professor at a University; even when dressed up with animal rights drivel about how coyotes do not tear apart “skunks, feral cats, and even foxes” but merely drive out competitors “(i.e. causing the other species to look for food and shelter elsewhere) one must assume here in some sort of “Grapes of Wrath” convoy into oblivion.

The second thing that caught my eye was her comment that:

St. Paul doesn’t have a coyote problem. The city’s approach to coyotes hardly represents the ‘Golden Book view of wildlife’ that Soucheray (i.e. the newspaperman) claims.  It uses science to inform policy and aims to educate the public so they can form educated opinions based on sound reasoning, evidence and data.”

Just as with so much of the “science” and “good intentions” surrounding wolves and grizzly bears in settled landscapes this is hilarious nonsense attempting to eliminate any opposition to whatever is imposed by bureaucrat/ideologues with government power based on animal rights and preferences.  You have no right to question the fact that the city Animal Control lady won’t return your calls and answer questions; she is rightly busy “educating the public”.  You have only uneducated opinions and we are tasked with getting you to ratify (our) “educated opinions based on sound reasoning, evidence and data.”  Just as with calling someone not supportive of what you are saying or doing a “racist”, or “misogynist”, or “Islamaphobe”, or “homophobe”, etc.; environmental/animal rights ideologues categorize troublesome citizens as “uninformed”, “uneducated”, “questioning ‘science’”, and incapable of basing opinions “on sound reasoning, evidence and data.”  Methinks the ladies should first inform the “public” rather than hiding from and disparaging a “public” that deigns to question their brilliance and chicanery.

Lastly, the other urban lady that imagines she lives in a “National Park” “and its attendant beauties” closed her letter with:

By all means be on the watch for coyotes.  Also dogs, cars, cyclists, tweeting while walking, ticks, needles, poison ivy, storm warnings, and Archie Bunker reruns.  Danger, as well as beauty, is everywhere.  You’ll find what you seek.”

Setting aside the sarcasm here, remember this is the urban area of Minnesota and there is perhaps no more liberal/progressive political concentration in America.  When you compare the newspaperman of the paper to “Archie Bunker reruns”, you have destroyed any credibility he might have with 75 to 80% of the readers.  In Minnesota, such an epithet is a classic “dog whistle” with a double meaning ending all discussion.

As I mulled over these three ladies (one hiding in her office, another preaching nouveau biology to justify the unjustifiable, and the third in her imaginary ecosystem all too glad to disparage anyone questioning her nature beliefs) I was reminded of the 3 witches in Macbeth reciting their famous ditty.

Doubledouble toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble’ are two of the most famous lines in English literature. These lines show how what the witches say can have double meanings and can be contradictory.  The three ladies in St. Paul exhibit all of the misleading perfidy and disdain for others that we see in Macbeth and nationally regarding wolves and grizzly bears in settled landscapes and as with Macbeth they will lead us into great harm as long as we let them intimidate us and mislead others.

For your edification here is the whole poem from Macbeth that the witches, speaking of animals by the way, spoke that gave them a place in infamy.

Song of the Witches: “Double, double toil and trouble”

(from Macbeth) by WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and caldron bubble.

Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the caldron boil and bake;

Eye of newt and toe of frog,

Wool of bat and tongue of dog,

Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,

Lizard’s leg and owlet’s wing,

For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and caldron bubble.

Cool it with a baboon’s blood,

Then the charm is firm and good.

For my money, the three St. Paul ladies should keep their “charms” to themselves.

Jim Beers

10 August 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

An Opportunity to Make the ESA Benefit People

*Editor’s Note* – I have the utmost respect for Jim Beers. His experience and his knowledge, along with a willingness to share makes him a standout in today’s world of programmed automatons. However, it is my belief that there is insanity in thinking that just one more attempt at instituting change can happen if we vote in the “right” people to serve in Washington. The System is far too big, far too powerful, and far too corrupt to think that any person or group of persons can change that. Thinking so is explemplary to the ignorance of the Global Power Structure.

Inserting another “however,” we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Beers latest writing contains many accurate and powerful facts that we shouldn’t forget.

Having said this, I cannot offer any solution that will cause real change in our governmental structure, especially the criminal aspects of it. In the years that I have spent in this work, which involves uncountable hours of read-searching, it has become extraordinarily clear that in government absolutely nothing has changed – only the allowed rhetoric to rile and divide the masses. 

As to the history of the Endangered Species Act, all the promises, all the talk, all the hype over the past 20 years and, like all government establishments, nothing has changed. Beers has it right in warning us not to be fooled by false promises – promises for action in exchange for your vote. This has been the history of real criminal politics and there is no hope that it will change or that you and I can actually do anything about it…short of changing ourselves and how we perceive things.

My only suggestion is to do as we have been instructed in the Scriptures to not be a part of man’s government – “Come out of Her my people” (the Whore of Babylon). Our Creator knew and knows the corruption that would rule man’s crafted cesspool of lying, cheating, and stealing. 

Put your faith and belief in God the Almighty instead of man-gods and your perspective will change. Government will not.

By Jim Beers:

As this old wildlife bureaucrat sees the “Deep State” wriggle and squirm like a nightcrawler on the hook of the President I am encouraged that there may be a remedy on the horizon for all the damage and abuse that rural America is absorbing from environmental and animal overreach by federal bureaucracies.  “Endangered” “species” from Wolves and Grizzly Bears to Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs and Tooth Cave Spiders can be changed from tools forged by bureaucrats to decimate animal husbandry, grazing, hunting, logging and other rural pursuits necessary for rural American communities into animals that decimate such communities for a wide range of nefarious hidden agendas.

The possibility of changing this has come to mind as I have followed the political battle between the Congress, and the FBI and DOJ about if and to what extent the FBI and DOJ meddled in the last Presidential election.  Furthermore, the vitriol spewed by certain members of the last Administration, particularly in the intelligence arena, toward the President and everything he does up to and including calling him a traitor is not only stunning but suggestive of a possible remedy for Endangered Species, Wilderness and other environmental laws that use power-seeking bureaucrats as unanswerable and irresponsible tools of vote-seeking politicians that pass and protect unjust laws they then disavow as being administered by “scientists” and “experts”.

Consider the following examples.

1.) When terrorism first became a major national concern, the law enforcement “experts” made the logical case that new “secret” courts (FISA courts) were necessary to issue “secret” warrants to search and investigate the profusion of cells and individuals suspected of plotting and carrying out terrorist acts. Despite misgivings by many legal historians, Congress passed a law establishing these FISA courts.  So, what happened?

We find that the FBI, DOJ and CIA tapped phones of Congressional staff, conducted secret surveillance of the Trump election campaign, and then lied to Congress and stalled only to dribble heavily redacted documents to Congressional Committees.  When called to appear before these Committees the contempt and disdain displayed toward Congress and the Administration was stunning.  The forecast that FISA would create a Star Chamber form of “justice” wherein proceedings were secret, rulings were arbitrary and tyrannical, and there was little difference between the “Kings” enforcers and the “Kings” judges became a fact. When an investigation is launched against the President, it lasts for years while being made up of lawyers strongly opposed to the President.  The wife of an FBI official is given thousands of dollars to run for an office by the Party opposing the President.  “Lost” emails, a private server containing highly classified information kept in a private residence basement are dismissed as acceptable.

2.) When the federal government sought to “equalize” tax advantages for all political lobbying organizations under President Obama, IRS employee Lois Lerner engaged in serious discrimination against conservative groups while favoring tax exemptions for liberal groups.  When that was exposed by a Congressional Committee, Ms. Lerner took the 5th and her boss, Mr. Koskinen lied to Congress when he said her emails were lost to a computer glitch.  Ms. Lerner skated free and retired: her boss did a double arabesque and pirouetted off stage right into infamy.

3.) Gun control advocates here and in the UN began accusing American gun dealers of supplying Mexican drug lords and foreign revolutionary movements with illegal guns and ammunition early in the Obama Administration.  Soon thereafter, ATF and DOJ began a secret operation they labelled Fast and Furious.  Two thousand automatic weapons, including over 30 .50 caliber rifles, were placed in the purported flow of illegal guns into Mexico to ostensibly discover the identify of traffickers.  The guns promptly disappeared and popped up in such widespread places as Mexican drug-related executions and the personal gun collection of drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, as well as one being the murder weapon of an American Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry.  Simultaneously, the US State Department was negotiating an unmentioned “Small Arms Treaty” at the UN that supposedly would replace the 2nd Amendment when ratified by the US Senate and signed by President Obama.

When Fast and Furious became public, the DOJ refused to give Congress, or anyone else, any information.  The Attorney General was exceptionally arrogant (shades of Strzok, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe, et al of recent vintage) and was found in Contempt of Congress.  The UN “Treaty” ploy was abandoned and since then guns from this ATF debacle continue popping up in both US and Mexican crime scenes.

4.) When I worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington in the 1990’s I saw the same arrogance and hubris emerge in top managers.  They began to feel the power at their fingertips and what it could do for themselves.  Contempt for hunters, ranchers, loggers, shepherds, private property rights, animal ownership, and renewable natural resource management was what the environmental laws had become.  Successful bureaucrats were those that saw themselves as accumulating power and the financial rewards and gravitas it created.  By the mid 1990’s USFWS appointees and top bureaucrats were placing beholden women and minorities in top management positions as endangered species came to the forefront and the entire concept of managing wildlife for people became bureaucrats managing people and their rights for wildlife.

This led to Budget Requests to Congress to introduce wolves into the Upper Rocky Mountains and to open an unnecessary new office in California to seal a close alliance with radical environmental and animal rights’ organizations.  When Congress refused to authorize or fund either;  USFWS simply “diverted” (either “took” or “stole” is more accurate) $45M to $60M from the Excise Taxes that by law could only go to state wildlife agencies and then surreptitiously captured and imported Canadian wolves, released them into the Upper Rockies, opened the California office, and gave the leftover funds to USFWS managers in bonus packages.

When this theft was documented in a General Accounting Office Audit and presented to the House Resources Committee, the Director was absent at the Hearing she was requested to attend.  When she and her underlings finally testified, the arrogance and contempt for American law and the American electorate was a copy of that noted in 1, 2, and 3 above examples.  Any prosecution or reprimand or accountability for the perps was lost in the approaching Presidential election. Any deterrence for other bureaucrats about ever losing a bonus or retirement for any transgression was not only foregone; the opposite or “we are untouchable” was the message sent to the “Lerners”, “Comeys” and “Holders” of the “Deep State”.

Recommendation

Each of these examples has 2 things in common:

  1. Excessive central government power in the hands of unelected political appointees and bureaucrats.
  2. Legal backing by elected central government politicians to enact and federal laws that implement political agendas disguised as “feel-good” goals such as “saving” species and wilderness, gun control, tax “fairness”, and fighting terrorism.

There is an approaching federal mid-term election coming upon us.  Some forecast the House and Senate ceding the majority to the other Party, while some forecast the opposite.  The majority Party is apparently shedding the bloc of politicians that fight the President and his proposals at every turn and the minority Party is putting forth a radical-socialism, mix based on Venezuela and Cuban governance.  It will be a tumultuous election with no guarantees.  That tumult is what has created an opportunity.

The harms and damage of the Endangered Species Act (and the Wilderness Act, FISA, and similar federal overreaches for “feel-good” purposes) can be greatly, if not entirely reduced by telling your federal politicians running for office and the incumbents that you want to amend the ESA.  Tell them you are concerned about having an environment as hospitable to truly endangered plants and animals AS CAN BE ENCOURAGED IN THE SETTLED LANDSCAPES OF THE LOWER 48 STATES WHERE YOU LIVE, WORK AND RAISE YOUR FAMILIES AND THIS DEPENDS ON LOCAL SUPPORT!

Then tell them “the problem has been and remains that there is no responsibility or accountability for the success or failure of these programs in either federal politicians that support the programs or the federal bureaucrats that administer them”.

Therefore, you want to amend the ESA to require that as of the following fiscal year, all endangered species actions other than listing must have the written concurrence of the Governor of the state in which any action shall be proposed to take place.  Such permission by the Governor should be a signed agreement for each species and include the end-point, funding to be available annually, compensation for likely negative impacts like cattle, sheep and big game losses and human and property losses due to  government actions or lack thereof.  Tell them if they won’t support this, you either won’t vote for them or you will vote for the other guy.  AMEND THE ESA is the sign you should put along the road for the local paper to run.

Do not be fooled by offers to “return management of this or that species to the state”: such “offers” disguise the precedent that what the feds “give” they can later take away under a future political situation.  Don’t be fooled by legislative proposals promising more “transparency” or “participation”: such things are meaningless smoke and mirrors.  Nothing, short of taking primary authority and jurisdiction for all non-treaty wildlife and plants from federal control and placing it back at the lowest (and therefore most responsive to people) level of government will work.  Two hundred years of American life proved no less.

I could go on, but your time is limited.  Suffice it to say that the Governor (include the state legislature if you will) is an official actually close to the impacts of such federal action and he (they in the case of the Legislature) can be recalled or voted out of office when things go south: that is not true with either federal politicians or bureaucrats when sheep are killed by “GI” (Government Issue) grizzlies or elk/moose hunting is destroyed by “GI” wolves.  Governors and state legislatures are more responsible and responsive than any federal politician or bureaucrat in nearly every state.

If you think this too hard to do, just picture Strzok or Comey smirking at the camera, or Holder defending the indefensible, or the discredited Koskinen explaining how the “computer ate my homework”.  Then think about your kids and grandkids in ten or 15 years when a President Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are telling Secretary of the Interior Cameron Diaz to let those fires burn over onto private property and get rid of those ranchers, farmers and sheep herders so we can consolidate and expand federal land ownership.  If they still have the authority over these unjust federal laws solely in their hands without any check or balance, it can happen in a New York nanosecond, with or without Congress.

Either we get this under control soon or we can just say goodbye to the American experience.

Jim Beers

25 July 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

Bye, Bye Partner

By Jim Beers:

See the article below regarding one more intended but denied future casualty of the war on hunting – hunting dog breeds

In the USA –

  • As more predators are introduced and protected from any management;
  • As more hunting license revenue & Excise Taxes & and state wildlife agency’s manpower are diverted to non-game and predator babysitting, propagandizing and cover-ups;
  • As wildlife management for people is supplanted by wildlife worship laws, and displacement of human activity and rights for animals is prioritized over humans;
  • As Universities, bureaucrats, politicians and the nouveau “scientists” of “overseeing” natural processes without intervention in our environment reap the rewards of catering to those false ideas:

“public hunting” will decline.

Game management is no longer understood or practiced by government bureaucracies founded to do so.  What game will be left on the “public lands” will continue to decline, government controls of public lands will continue to grow, private property will be either controlled by government ideologues through new laws and easements or will be used so intensively that game sightings will become like Ivory-billed woodpecker “sightings” (only fodder for bureaucracies to get more money and hire more people).  When combined with the ferocity of anti-gun political movements and the propagandizing of children in the public schools on these matters things do not bode well for the optimistic view that the numbers of hunters and the availability, indeed the very existence, of game birds (and big game for that matter) will continue to underpin dog breeds and all that creates thanks to “public hunting”  in the USA.

The English, as so often in past, have solved such dilemmas by leaving them to only the rich landowners and their patrician class.  This has been the case for centuries for both hunting and fishing in the British Isles.  In one very real sense, they are at least honest about it.  In the past 50 years in the US we have allowed liars, animal worship ideologues, politicians, bureaucrats, school teachers, socialists, vote-hungry conservatives and urban dreamers to conduct an offensive against hunting and animal management for human benefit that rivals the breadth and diversity of the offensive by the Allies against The Third Reich.  Yet we look the other way and avoid argument or any meaningful challenge to what is happening.

As we compromise and compromise public hunting and game on public land decline.  As the demand for game dogs in the US eventually declines, dog breeds and breeders will decline as the author notes in Britain.  Whether game farms and paid-for hunting can generate enough demand to make a difference is, in my opinion, not likely.  Either such breeds will disappear or be bred into fine-boned “beauties” like Irish setters have become or into some sort of “scientific” breed that doesn’t shed, doesn’t bark, licks the kids, is content in a condo, and is considered beautiful by vegans and others opposed to the old practice of “owning” any animal.

I want to thank Mr. Tom Keer for this informative article highlighting one more casualty of environmental/animal rights agendas, and to Sporting Classics Daily for making it available.

Jim Beers

23 July 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.

Link to Article:

Share

“Are Those BLACK DUCKS IN Those Trees?” “No, those are Cormorants.”

By Jim Beers

Recently, a colleague (XXX) in Finland sent me and several North American associates the following email about wolves Europe.

From: XXX
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 11:36 PM
To: Jim Beers

Subject: RE: France to let wolf population grow by 40% despite anger from farmers | World news | The Guardian

I bet they mean an annual growth of 40 %!!

 We are facing the same problems with wolves as we have seen with the Great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis) here in Europe. In 2009 we had approx. 2,000 breeding pairs in Finland and our authorities agreed, that’s enough. Now the population is up to 50,000 breeding pairs and recently we were allowed to shoot 50!!

 These birds were originally brought to Europe from China where they are used for fishing. Its name Sinensis means “from China”. Although it is an invasive species it is strictly protected all over Europe and thus allowed to terrorize the nature. I attach two photos giving a picture of their impact on the once so beautiful archipelagos of Stockholm (Sweden) and South-West Finland.

 Enjoy the nature now, tomorrow it is too late.

XXX

My response:

XXX, my good friend,

 If we were kids I would think you were copying my homework.  Knowing you has made me aware of how Finland and United States’ STATES (our federal government is more like Brussels) are alike.

 Speaking of cormorants:

Back in the 1970’s; when anytime someone in Washington said “this is environmental” the politicians rolled over on their backs, peed in the air and bellowed like a buffalo, while all the bureaucrats wagged their tails and ran over to the enviro lobbyists and begged for “treats”, i.e. money; the US Fish and Wildlife Service did everything they could in those days to ingratiate themselves with the emerging radical organizations since “hunting and fishing will soon be outlawed and where will our salaries come from?” was their belief.

Earlier, in 1917, the US federal government seized absolute legal jurisdiction and authority over 217 “migratory” bird species from State governments.  They did this by signing a treaty with Canada and Britain.  (When the President signs such a treaty after the US Senate ratifies it, it becomes “the Law of the land” per our Constitution.)

Certain birds like pelicans, hawks and owls were purposely excluded from the treaty as were cormorants.  The reasons cormorants were excluded were that they ate lots of young sport and commercial fish so the sport fishermen, the commercial fishermen and the general public saw those fish as important food sources since we were fighting in WW I at the time.  That meant that the individual states kept exclusive legal authority and jurisdiction over cormorants.  Thus wherever cormorants were raiding fish hatcheries; or depressing certain sport or commercial fisheries mainly by killing the young or the food of the desired fish; or killing trees cormorants roosted in by crapping in the trees and making the ground acidic beneath (as I am sure you know, cormorant crap rivals heron crap as extremely powerful where concentrated like gull or heron rookeries, islands, etc.; or where they were exterminating fish like goldfish in ponds or otherwise creating a mess (cormorant crap on the sides of buildings makes even the hardest radical wrinkle up their nose, wonder about disease and generally look the other way these days when told the cormorants will be live-trapped gently and driven in new SUVs to a location in “the wilderness” where they will be released together to begin life in their new and “natural ecosystem” (in other words killed and buried secretly by bureaucrats fearful for their pensions); etc., etc.  Today, cormorant concentrations and seal concentrations assemble at the mouths of big salmon rivers and work together.  The seals kill adult fish entering the rivers from the sea to spawn and the cormorants eat the young fish migrating to the sea. Government “experts” and radicals bamboozle the public with all sorts of Rube Goldberg ineffective and expensive schemes like “range riders” and “guard dogs” for wolves that are similarly intended only as placebos for tinker belles.

Anyway, cormorants were kept at tolerable levels for 50 years after the 1917 Treaty under a wide variety of State controls and management regimes.  Fishermen, hatchery folks, and an assortment of rural folks that had been at one time or another harmed by or were aware of the problems created by the presence of too many cormorants, such as picnic area customers that could no longer use the picnic area, insisted what the STATE government HAD to do because their State and Local residents demanded it.  Unlike Washington’ or Brussels’ politicians that act as if seemingly immune to local demands and concerns the voters that the State politicians answered to could actually vote them out and replace them. Thus cormorants could be killed year-around in some states by hatchery or fish farm operators or killed under easily obtained permits in others and violations of these various laws, like locals shooting out a roost in some high-concentration area, were “lightly” enforced something like an Indian that kills a wolf today. (This latter happened recently here where I live in Minnesota.)

Everyone was happy with that 1917-1972 cormorant situation except the federal bureaucrats that wanted MORE power, employees, salaries and higher pensions; AND politicians like Presidents Nixon (tangled up in “Watergate”) and his successor Ford that wanted to be elected President when running against soon-to-be President Carter in.  On the heels of the Vietnam War in the early 1970’s radicals of all sorts and especially environmental/animal rights’ radicals were seen to have a rich potential for political donors and voters. Nixon and Ford and a bevy of Senators and Congressmen began passing an orgy of new federal laws seizing State natural resource jurisdictions and authority by the bushel.  It was as if we were in a war and everything was an “emergency.  Suddenly, in the 1970s, the federal government was the sole dictatorial arbiter and “owner” under the new laws of “endangered species”; “clean water”; estuarine areas”; “animal welfare”; “American ‘antiquities’”; marine mammals in state waters; “fish and wildlife improvement”; and “free-roaming horses and burros”.  Wilderness Declarations by Presidents became as common as passing out “freedom medals”.  National Forests and National Wildlife Refuges began evolving into (“National”) Parks where there were no roads, no hunting, no fishing, no trapping, no logging and less and less grazing.  It was in this lemming-like national enthusiasm that the radicals and bureaucrats saw and seized another opportunity.

At this time, the radicals wanted, and were given federal control of hawks, owls, pelicans AND CORMORANTS, or all the migratory birds not listed on the 1917 Treaty.  This was done by the US signing Migratory Bird Treaties with Japan and Russia in 1972.  The public perception was that this was just another federal “rescue” of “unprotected” wildlife that was headed to eventual extinction and the ONLY hope for them was federal control and legal punishment for the vile people killing them and a body of regulations that forbid any management and allowed the beautiful and “important” cormorants to live peaceful existences as they did up until European immigrants arrived to destroy the ecosystem.  One government announcement even characterized it as “Environmental Detante”. There was hoopla about how cormorants would “balance” the ecosystem and benefit native fish (“fisheries” were unmentioned).  It was just like the “restoring the willows along streams”; “they only eat the sick (or mice and small rodents when a different crowd appears) and the lame” nonsense today about wolves.

So, our cormorants became much more numerous like yours under Brussels and censuses were minimized and mostly lies soon thereafter, but who could deny the censuses?  Again, just like wolves today.  Government fish hatcheries came up with all sorts of “non-lethal” cormorant controls like nets, firecrackers and exploders that never worked for long but anyway the hatcheries and thefisheries they supported were being steadily reduced anyway as fishing became unacceptable and spending fish dollars on the new “environmental” programs was easier for government bureaucrats that justifying the New Wave stuff.

Many of our big Midwestern rivers hosted growing cormorant roosts that became ubiquitous coincidentally as Asian carp were imported by American catfish farmers using them to keep their ponds clean.  The federal government had allowed importation of the Asian carp while simultaneously charged with denying importation of “Injurious” Wildlife like boa constrictors, pythons, snakeheads – each of which have become established as I write – looked the other way as the carp were imported.  Almost immediately, the catfish ponds flooded (imagine that in low-lying water areas where ponds used stream water and flooding was routine) and the Asian carp escaped and simply eliminated fish life and aquatic vegetation everywhere. The Illinois River in my home state of Illinois was once a great waterfowl wintering area with lots of aquatic plant food and nearby fields for enormous wintering flocks of ducks.  Today, the Asian carp have eradicated all those waterfowl food plants AND all the sport fish like bass, bluegills, catfish and bullheads.  The last estimate I saw, Asian carp made up 95% of the fish biomass in the River.  Millions and millions are spent in Chicago in a vain attempt to keep the Asian carp in the Illinois River/Chicago River drainage from breaching an electric weir that they hope will forever keep Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan and eventually all the Great Lakes.  What role did the growing cormorant populations play in the demise of sport and commercial fisheries?  No one knows or investigates, or honestly could be expected to tell the truth about it.  This is only one small example of what is going on.

Anyway, by the 1990’s when I was expelled from the federal government, cormorants were seriously affecting fisheries in the Great Lakes and many US rivers, especially in the Eastern 2/3’s of the Lower 48 States.  The federal tinker belles had no idea what to do but they wanted to appear to be doing something.  I attended one silly meeting where this came up painted a pretty big cormorant impact on Great Lakes sport fisheries.  One of the New Wave young ladies asked, “why don’t we just open a hunting season on them?”  As if hunters would line up to shoot and buy licenses, equipment and ammunition for an inedible and smelly bird that you had to use or be in violation of the law for “wanton waste”. She, like her cohort, believed that some hunting (wasn’t “hunting” responsible for the extinction of buffalo, passenger pigeons, dodoes, grizzly bears and wolves???) would miraculously put cormorants into a tailspin toward extinction that could be cut off when it got too near, by federal bureaucrats?  I remember sitting there thinking about the duck hunts I had been on and all the decoys (I have a nice collection) I used.  I imagined a cormorant decoy with its face upturned; another with a big lump in its throat; another beginning a dive; yet another with the tail of a big perch sticking out his bill; and perhaps two cormorants (actually one decoy) that appear to be fighting over a young walleye.  It would have looked like about a thousand mallards feeding on a pile of bait like corn or buckwheat!    The mind boggles at the unreality of these government wildlife programs today.  Our State agencies have become little more that federal subcontractors in all this.

So XXX, we have more in common then we knew.  None of this is going to get any better without drastic change and without a more knowledgeable public and a rejection of this mad notion that the people in Brussels or New York or Berlin or Los Angeles can force the sheepherder in Italy or the hunter in Finland or the rancher in Idaho or the camper in Montana or the dog owner in Wisconsin to live with animals they do not want and that cause them harm and financial loss be they wolves or cormorants.

Jim Beers

Wed. 11 July 2018

————————————————————

Addendum

On the following day, an American colleague who was copied on my response wrote me to tell of a Wisconsin Lake he fishes.  As the federal cormorants increased, the perch fishing declined and all but disappeared (just like Minnesota moose as federal wolves increased in Minnesota).  After several years of complaining to their state agency and the state agency running out of excuses, the state bureaucrats began “oiling” (i.e. killing the chicks) of cormorants in large but untold numbers.  The cormorants declined and the perch returned in a very understandable and predictable fashion.

He also mentioned a Lake on the Upper Peninsula on Michigan where a friend of his reported the demise of a large and popular perch fishery, clearly as a result of cormorants; the same as the wolf explosion on Isle Royale in Lake Superior preceded the collapse of the moose on Isle Royale.

I mention this because it occurs to me that many might wonder why the State agency is the one getting the complaints and resolving, in a patchwork way, a federally-generated problem caused by birds under federal primary authority.  The answer may be of interest.

Historically, since 1917, when the US government actions or inactions (Asian carp; pythons; boa constrictors; snakeheads; wolves; grizzlies; black bears in the South; sea otters & abalone, clam mussel fisheries; manatees and boats; cormorants; etc.) involving fish and wildlife run into scandals or bad publicity, they do one or more things:

  1. They cover up the facts like they do about the insane “Florida Panther” “Recovery”.
  2. They mumble about “compensation” for things they caused but somehow money is never available for, or only much less is available just for long enough for opposition to fade away.
  3. They deny the truth just like the FBI has been doing for a year about their political investigations at this writing.
  4. They figure out a way to get more money and people to “solve” the self-inflicted wound.
  5. They pay some academic to publish a paper about how a disaster like the loss of the largest elk herd in the US to government wolves was worth it because “willows have been restored along streams” and rodent populations (the only thing wolves reputedly eat besides sick and dying animals) benefit from more food and their increased tunnels aerate the soil and benefit earthworms, etc.
  6. They grind out endless blather about “native” ecosystems as the ONLY ecosystem to have and how things like wolves, cormorants or grizzlies are absolutely necessary if we are to have any hope of passing on an “ecosystem” to future generations.  Then they stress that, “this is the government speaking; this is the ‘New Normal’ and you better get used to it”.
  7. Failing all of the above, they instruct the always-compliant State agencies to accept the “Return of Management to the State”.  This one never fails.  Think wolves here.  When wolves are introduced by the federal government and protected by the federal government they cause massive problems.  A few states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota (States that have never encountered a federal program they didn’t love) welcome and protect the wolves much to the pleasure of their elite political power centers like L.A., Portland, Seattle and the Twin Cities.  When the federal wolf numbers become all but intolerable the “offer” of Returning Management to the State is as enthusiastically celebrated by the public as V-E Day or V-J Day.  Now with that said, note the following.  The “Return” comes with “strings about numbers, distributions, growth, methods of control, etc., plus THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT with all its implied power for bureaucrats REMAINS IN PLACE!  What Trump or Zinke DO; Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders; Chuck Schumer & Nancy Pelosi can UNDO even quicker with a lock-step Congress.  The federal government can seize control of the “Returned” wolves or the Southern Black Bears in a New York nanosecond as long as the ESA as written remains in place.

So, quietly, the federal government “Returned Management of Cormorants” to State governments UNDER FEDERAL OVERSIGHT since the cormorant is named in those two (Russian and Japanese) Bird Treaties.  The State discretion is kept in line with the minimum the federal government thinks it can get away with when perch fishermen complain in Wisconsin or a hatchery loses thousands of dollars and fish to cormorants that figured out how to get under the nets unnoticed.

One last item for your edification.  These federal “Returns” of fish and wildlife are not only temporary placeboes over time – they cost money, lots of money.  State Wardens spending most of their time and office support and equipment responding to complaints, damage, hand-holding, commiseration, etc. for cormorants, wolves, snakeheads, black bears, pythons, etc. costs millions per year.  Supervisors, main offices and administrative staffs all divert their time to “the New Normal”.  Where does the time and money come from?  The State may make some Appropriation gesture or get some federal dollars initially and everyone cheers but take my word and I know whereof I speak: the vast bulk of the costs (75 to 90%) come from the hunting and fishing license money and hunting and fishing federal Excise Taxes collected for the States.  This does TWO THINGS:

  1. It hides the costs of all this fish and wildlife babysitting justified by animal rights/”native” ecosystem” agendas that no one admits exist.
  2. And perhaps most important, it DEFUNDS the game management and fishery management programs. Bye, bye pheasants, walleyes, ducks, deer, moose, elk, etc., etc.: from now on you are only good for feeding cormorants, wolves, bears and cougars.  Bye, bye Bass Pro Shops, LL Bean Shoes, Browning Arms, US Fishing Tackle manufacturers, US Archery manufacturers, Hunting/fishing gear manufacturers, and all the taxes, jobs and rural benefits you once generated.  Hello, US Taxpayers to BIG tax increases to keep things that are but a shadow of the current State fish and wildlife agencies operating under federal “oversight” for????

Think of it, if you are a radical, as a “twofer”.

Jim Beers

13 July 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.

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

A question of “Science”?

The following question was sent to a colleague recently”

Question: “Was the Arctic Gray Wolf EVER native to Washington State?”

————————————————

The following response to that question comes from another colleague who is coincidentally a retired University professor in Canada for whom I have the greatest respect.

The gray wolves are all one species, and the subspecies game is highly questionable. There are indications that a very few local wolves did exist in the west before the release of wolves from Alberta. I only saw one picture of a wolf in Yellowstone before the release, and it was simply a large, black wolf, no different from what I had seen in Canada. Size is not a taxonomic criterion, because wolves increase in size markedly with good nutrition and shrink in size with poor food availability. The large wolves from Alberta released in Yellowstone merely came from a good wolf habitat.”

——————————————————

Though in no way dissatisfied with that response, this old bureaucrat (me) added the following government-science perspective: 

The last political-correctness-free treatise on the Wolves of North America is oddly enough the name of the 1944 book by Stanley Young.  He was a Bureau of Biological Survey/USFWS (the modern name) trapper, control agent and finally a bigwig in Washington over the old Predator & Rodent Control Division going back to WWI and he was all over the place doing all manner of things.

In his 650-page tome full of pictures (the one of the red wolf/hound dog cross on a chain in Missouri is priceless) he treats the wolf as a species.  He pictures many coyote/dog/wolf crosses and innocently explains that they interbreed freely and the pups are all viable and completely capable of transferring their genes to either wild or domestic “cousins” for posterity.

That said I always hear echoes of that high school/college/biological historic definition of an animal Species when I am discussing Species, i.e. “animals with similar characteristics capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring.”.  By that definition, a horse is a separate species from a donkey because the mule is not viable.  Ergo, a dog is a wolf is a coyote is a dingo, in fact all one “species”.  I mention this to provide what they call “full disclosure” of my belief. 

Mr. Young, whom I never met but have always held in high regard treats the wolf “species” Canis Lupus as having 23 “subspecies” on a map on page 414.  Each subspecies name credits some long-gone biologist as their discoverer (i.e. given the privilege of “naming” their “discovery”).  The North America map is covered exception for Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida(?) from Southern Mexico to Greenland and all the Islands between Greenland and Canada with 23 “subspecies”.  There is no “Arctic” wolf mentioned.  The closest is those wolves Canis lupus tundrarum found in the “tundra region of NW Alaska; south to the Noatak Valley.  Intergrading to the south with pambasileus, and east along the along the arctic coast with mackenzii.”

I mention all this to show how our biological perceptions have changed with scientific advancements driven in this case all too much by political opportunism and the hidden agendas of rich environmental/animal rights extremism.  This is so distorted because the government bureaucrats and radicals came up with the ESA claims and regulations that (insert any animal here) implement the Endangered Species Act.   

So, the erstwhile bureaucrat writing regulations and staging faux court cases for “precedents” finds the “Beers’ Grass Mouse”Peromyscus Beersii to be “endangered”.  As our bureaucrat toils at his computer and while at coffee he decides and shares with fellow bureaucrats that, “We are really “saving habitat” (i.e. people-free zones infinitely expanding) and not just animals, so we “must save not only:

  • The Species Beers’ Grass Mouse Peromyscus Beersii found throughout the Great Plains but more specifically;
  • The Subspecies Beers’ Big-Eyed Grass Mouse Peromyscus Beersii magna luscus found in the Eastern Prairies and more specifically;
  • The Race Black Beers’ Big-Eyed Grass Mouse Peromyscus Beersii magna luscus negris found “only” in the Eastern Woodlands/Prairie interface and more specifically;
  • The Population Indiana Black Beers’ Big-Eyed Grass Mouse Peromyscus Beersii magna luscus negris indianus) AND EVEN – drumroll please;
  • The Distinct Population Southern Indiana Black Beers’ Big-Eyed Grass Mouse Peromyscus Beersii magna luscus negris indianus meridionalis) AND EVEN;
  • (Full band roll here) The Distinct Population Segment Larry Bird County Southern Indiana Black Beers’ Big-Eyed Grass MousePeromyscus Beersii magna luscus negris indianus meridionalis larrybbirduscountyii found “only” in Larry Bird County, Indiana! 

All such nonsense has come to mean access to billions of dollars, millions of acres of private property and unquestioned, unconstitutional and unlimited power for the central government and radicals over a once free Nation.  You see there is probably a dam or pipeline permit application somewhere in Larry Bird County, Indiana that would benefit taxpayers, the economy, rural communities, rural families and could, if anyone cared to try anymore, benefit the human ecosystem and the natural aspects of that system but it will never happen: The Critical Habitat Declaration for the Larry Bird County Southern Indiana Black Beers’ Big-Eared Grass Mouse kills the project and they are cheering in Washington Offices and on the North Shore patios of environmental radicals in Chicago.  Welcome to the world of government “science” “saving” “species”.

Val (the retired professor quoted in the first answer) hits the nail right on the head about those “large wolves from Alberta”.  Concern about the “red” or “Mexican” et al wolves is disguised in the imaginary aura of somehow involving sacred and unseen biological material and factors hidden in the Sp./Sub. Sp./Race/Pop. /Dist. Pop. /Dist. Pop. Segment. du jour.  We have sold our kids and soccer Moms that a red wolf or “Arctic” Wolf is like the rhinoceros, unique, distinct and in “need” of severe intervention by government saviors; people, property, families, rural communities, expense and Constitution be damned!

I would submit that this environmental/animal rights hysteria of the moment is, hopefully, a passing phenomenon because the subject of scientific inquiry is so distorted now that, like Diogenes with his lantern looking for an honest man; looking for an honest biologist/veterinarian today is on a par with seeking an honest bureaucrat/politician.

Jim Beers

26 June 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.

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

Share

George Orwell, call your office re: Wolves

The attached news report of a presentation touting the re-introduction of wolves in Colorado is so egregious, we debated even placing it on the Wolf Education International website.  Upon further examination, it was thought to be so misleading and so full of disinformation that it might serve as a useful example of how the public is manipulated and government mislead by radical and extremist views and funding.

What follows are 10 quotes (90%?) from the news report with a short comment about each.  Upon your examination, please consider them in total and you have a composite of what wildlife management as a tool of radical government has come to….  Jim Beers

The news report:

https://www.csindy.com/TheWire/archives/2018/06/18/rocky-mountain-wolf-project-calls-for-animal-reintroduction-amid-pushback

Comments:

1). “Though native, wolves have not roamed Colorado since the 1940s, when unregulated hunting pushed populations to the brink of extinction.” 

  • Comment:  Wolves were not pushed “to the brink of extinction” by “unregulated hunting”.  They were hunted; chased by possees on horseback; trapped; poisoned; snared; and otherwise “controlled” by ranchers, bounty hunters, federal trappers and state trappers with the express goal of exterminating them for a period of almost 100 years.  This is just as they were exterminated in the British Isles, in fact, Irish Wolfhounds were bred expressly to hunt and kill remaining wolves in Ireland. Europeans were engaged in similar programs as recorded in writing since the time of Plato and Cicero.

2). “The animals are still listed as endangered in Colorado.”

  • Comment:  That is a Listing strictly by the state of Colorado.  It implies no responsibility or intention to re-introduce them in Colorado.  Wolves are not present in New York or New Hampshire, yet those states “list” them as “endangered” and only extremists call for their restoration.  This is true of many other states that “list” animals that they have no intention of restoring like cougars and grizzly bears that are especially dangerous to human safety and health as well as destructive of dogs and other pets.

3). “Though seemingly unable to shed the stereotype of the “Big Bad Wolf,” statistically, wolves do not kill people.”

  • Comment: First, this a senseless sentence.  What does “statistically, wolves do not kill people” mean?  Wolves have killed people by the thousands down through the ages.  It is documented in writings and the limited reportage since Roman Times.  It is mentioned in the Middle Ages and in recent times.  It is mentioned circumpolar in Russia, Siberia, Europe and North America.  Read Wolves of North America by Stanley Young.  Read Will Graves’ Wolves in Russia. The fact that the press and governments that introduce wolves for which they recognize no responsibility kill people (recently, like Kenton Carnegie in Saskatchewan, the school teacher on the Alaskan Peninsula, the two ladies in Craters of the Moon in Idaho, the vacationing lady in N Wisconsin and all the annual deaths and disfigurements in Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Europe and Siberia etc.) is the only basis for and belie this specious claim worded like a child’s bad English grammar homework. 

4). “[Historically] wolves don’t pose a threat to human safety,” Phillips told the audience, throwing his hands up emphatically. “That’s just a fact.”

  • Comment:  Repeating a lie (when spoken by an “expert as purported in the Introduction it is a lie); when spoken by someone that does not know better it is either misinformation or propaganda spoken for a host of reasons.

5). “But just three weeks prior to Phillips’ presentation, Mesa County Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution to oppose any efforts to expand or reintroduce wolves in the county, citing threats to moose populations and livestock, and the spread of disease. Phillips says it’s rare for a wolf to kill livestock, and if/when it does the wolf is older, or injured, and it’s not normal pack behavior.”

  • Comment:  I. Ask yourself, “who is Mr. Phillips or for that matter his coterie of national environmental extremists financing his campaigns, to ignore the opposition of the people of Mesa County opposing any wolf reintroduction”?  If the people of a County and their elected representatives oppose such action, the intentions of those in other Counties or states for that matter should respect those legitimate wishes.

II It is as rare for wolves to kill livestock as for foxes to kill mice.  They must eat and livestock has always been a good meal, far more vulnerable to capture than swift wild animals.  They kill as much livestock as they want and can get away with.  They even kill many domestic animals at a time for “fun” as in the hundred + sheep driven off a cliff recently in Idaho.

III. Wolves are no more “normal” than coyotes or the family pet when hungry or excited or just plain “wild” as when Fido runs off with a pack of dogs to harass and kill domestic animals until stopped. “Normal” means “expected”, not “only”.

6). “Between 1997 and 2015, Phillips says 117 cattle were killed by wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. That’s 0.002 percent of an estimated six million cattle during that time. He also notes that ranchers are compensated for their loss when it does happen. The 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act authorized up to $140,000 per eligible state from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for wolf loss compensation and preventing future conflicts. The Act replaced Defenders of Wildlife‘s Wolf Compensation Trust, which paid $1.4 million over 23 years to compensate ranchers. Defenders of Wildlife, which works to protect native animals and their habitats, contributes funds to help states initiate wolf compensation programs. In lieu of the Wolf Compensation Trust, Defender’s created the Wolf Coexistence Partnership, which works with ranchers on nonlethal techniques to keep wolves from livestock.”

Comment:  The Defenders of Wildlife illegitimately “administered” this public relations scheme for the US Fish and Wildlife (whose Director at the time went on to be the top person in Defenders of Wildlife after resigning when the Political Party of the President changed.  Less than 10 % of the claims were even recognized due to the lateness of investigation and the anti-livestock orientation of the DoW investigators.  Ask ranchers in Montana and Idaho about this natural resource Ponzi Scheme that was only meant to spread wolves by protecting them.  “Nonlethal techniques to keep wolves from livestock” are another chimera intended to delay wolf management to make ranching less profitable and vulnerable to buyouts like the current American Prairie Restoration land scheme in central Montana.  There is no evidence that nonlethal control techniques (Fladry, range riders, aversion agents, dogs, exploders, sheds, etc.) are not temporary at best and often quite expensive and impractical. Look no further than your pet dog and imagine some deterrent that, while he is unrestrained, he does not figure out when hungry or when he really wants something beyond it.

7). “As for the threat to the moose population and of disease, Phillips says wolves rarely hunt moose because of their size, and disease is also rare.”

  • Comment:  I. This may be the biggest lie in this presentation.  Wolves all but wiped out moose in Yellowstone in 10 years.  Wolves so decimated the Minnesota moose herd that moose hunting was abandoned about six years ago and will likely never be resumed.  Wolves decimated the moose population on Isle Royale, a large island in Lake Superior.  Wolves decimated the moose herd in E Washington.  Wolves kill moose in Finland and will decimate herds in 5 to 10 years if not controlled.  Alaskan periodic wolf control from planes and on the ground is done mostly for moose and the moose rebounds after a significant number of wolves are taken.
  1. As to “wolves rarely hunt moose because of their size”: it is precisely because of their size and vulnerability, especially in timber, that wolves zero in on moose.  All moose from unborn calves torn from the still living mother to cow moose and bulls are preferred prey. Moose give birth in certain habitat covers that wolves learn to frequent.  Moose caught by several wolves in timber are vulnerable to being hamstrung as the wolves feint in and out and the animal can neither flee nor defend itself.
  • Comment:   How misleading is it for an “expert” to say a state-authorized wolf management program forced on a State by the federal government to maintain so many wolves in such and such area is something wherein “wolves are considered predatory and can be killed without consequence”?   It also tells the reader a lot that, “Although Colorado Parks and Wildlife wouldn’t stop a natural repopulation” because this state agency is trying to please their pro-wolf urban constituency they aren’t opposed to wolves while telling their rural constituency that they won’t force wolves on them.  This has become a national phenomenon during the recent rise in federal power and money resulting in many, what are often called, state agencies that try to canoe down a river with each foot in a different canoe.  Mesa County and western Colorado need support, not platitudes.

9). “A recent Outside Podcast questions the theory of how reintroduction of top-down predators can create a trickle effect on an ecosystem, and how much credit wolf reintroduction should get for the health of the Yellowstone ecosystem over the last 20 years. According to Outside, the benefits of wolves are exaggerated, not giving enough credit to increases in other predators like grizzlies, or the effects of drought, which also contribute to the thinning of elk and deer herds. (Thinning herds makes for healthier woodlands, according to Outside.)”

  • Comment:  I. “Trickle effect” like the following “trophic cascade” are simply words that say nothing but are intended to assuage the consciences of those that might be hesitant to importune their rural neighbors with something that harms them and their families.  They are terms denoting “change” as in the weather changes.
    Health of the ecosystem” fits into the same category.  You either have the “up and down” chaos of a “natural” or “untouched” ((meaning NO people) ecosystem or you have the managed ecosystem of a settled and human-inhabited landscape wherein the interface between humans and “the ecosystem” is managed to be beneficial to humans and wildlife or not beneficial to either.  In our Constitutional Republic, the people should have the final say about the ecosystem THEY live in.
  • II.  As to contributing to the thinning of elk and deer herds. (Thinning herds makes for healthier woodlands)”.  If all these “Johnny Come Lately” claims of wolf benefits (willows along the stream, native plants, etc.) were legitimate, why didn’t federal Yellowstone Rangers, for instance, “thin the herds of elk and buffalo” for decades and decades?  Why were hunter’s bag limits not increased by state agencies?  Where were all these “(willows along the stream, native plants, etc.)” advocates for years? Ask yourself, where are they now?

10). “But Phillips and his colleagues counter that wolves, over time, can restore balance to an ecosystem if they exist in large enough numbers. In the Yellowstone example, multiple pack reintroduction thinned deer and elk herds and increased herd movement. That movement not only aerates the soil and creates healthier woodlands, but also increases competition between coyotes and wolves, and decreases predation on smaller mammals. This is all in line with the idea of Trophic Cascade, and the trickle-down affects everything down to waterways and aquatic life.”

  • Comment:  What is “balance”?  There are times and places where plant thinning or reductions are desired for renewal or fire fuel reduction.  What in the Good Lord’s name is the “decreases predation on smaller mammals” all about?  Should we consider reducing fox populations or hawks and owls?  My silliness here pales in comparison to the absurdity of such claims.  Ditto for ”aerates the soil and creates healthier woodlands”.

11) “Western Colorado represents a true mother-load of ecological habitat for the gray wolf,” he says. “All we have to do is put them back.”

  • Comment:  A cute closing quip for a flawed proposal and philosophy.

Jim Beers

24 June 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

Advice to a Professor Wanting a Meet and Great Before Making Wolf Documentary

*Editor’s Note* – With the permission of the author, I redacted some elements of the original email for obvious reasons. Knowing the names of some involved does nothing to alter the message in the advice given. The focus and intent of this publication is a delivery of the important message. 

As a preamble to the content of the written work of Jim Beers, let me set the stage as best I can. A university professor contacted an editor of a Western ranch magazine seeking advice as to whom he should contact before making a movie about wolves. According to the original email, this professor, along with a group of university students, intend to travel to Wyoming and Colorado to “explore the question of whether wolves should be allowed to re-populate wild areas in Colorado.”

In asking who they should talk with before making the film, James Beers offered the below advice. This advice has already been told to me that it should be “required reading for every Wildlife Management Student” as well as hunters.

Dear Professor XXXXXXXX,

I see that you are from a Jesuit school named after the great Jesuit _______________.  I further see that your Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation program is ten years old and that you are evidently quite honestly enough concerned about this modern Gordian Knot of American wildlife that you asked [Western ranch magazine’s editor] for both her advice and perhaps her presence to be interviewed by you and your students.

You cannot know how refreshing and hopeful your simple request may be to millions of Rural Americans either affected by or familiar with the wolf phenomenon of the past 40 years.

First of all a word about who is writing this.  I am a retired US Fish and Wildlife Service employee.  I can send you a resume but the simple ‘Bio” I put after most things I write is posted after these remarks.  I am a graduate of a Benedictine High School where, 60 years ago, the excellent teacher/monks communicated their misgivings that I still hold about Jesuit schools, although my son is a graduate of Wheeling (WV) Jesuit University.  I spent my first year of college in the late 1950’s at DePaul University where I learned a good deal about philosophy.  Today, I have a low opinion of DePaul that has, like Georgetown, become a hotbed of animal rights jurisprudence.

Why, you must be thinking, would someone like me be enthusiastic about a professor and some students from a modest Eastern (where the federal and state bureaucracies have not taken up the rural cudgel of wolves with all its hidden agendas as they have done in the rest of the Nation, HHHMMM) College are taking a summer field trip in 2018 to investigate, study and integrate the American wolf experience into their lives and the school’s academic life.  Quite simply, you bring “fresh eyes”, not to a biological issue but to a political/social issue that is even more basically an ethics issue.  You are like St. Peter Canisius journeying from Holland to Germany during the Reformation and after years of work there generating a Catechism that went on to evolve over 200 editions in less than 40 years.  Would that you and your students bring some resolution to this issue that so many from those affected and those wise enough to see the impacts of wolves on so many things have been unable to resolve.

My advice –

Everyone you meet or speak to, with any bona fides about wolves, will have a basic belief that is set stone.

You will meet “hunters” and “ranchers” that will appear to be pro-wolf but who upon investigation will be discovered to be politically active progressive reformers that support all manner of transformative political ends with the same sort of “think of me as neutral” approach.

You will meet both state and federal politicians that will be as duplicitous about where they “stand” and what they “believe” as they would if you were asking them about the latest budget battles or a proposed bill to place “All Waters of the USA” under federal authority.  Investigation will reveal the “golden egg” from the “Goose” of wolves to be urban votes (assuring re-elections) and lots of money from environmental/animal rights’ coffers to politicians that meet the agendas and daydreams of those unaffected by or familiar with the effects or truth about what they are creating.

You will discover that the vast majority of academics will be as enthusiastic about wolves as they are about tenure and grants that generate graduate student stipends.  Careful reading of the academic studies and pronouncements of the past 50 years about wolves and their impacts will show them to be reflections of the bureaucratic need to justify regulations, court case and Budget Requests.  They are the result of those bureaucratic needs, paid for by government funding, rather than the assumed other way around, “science” guiding concerned bureaucrats in search of wise decisions on behalf of all Americans.

You will meet many deceitful federal and state bureaucrats: I say this as a whistle-blower and “reforming” bureaucrat.  They have agendas these days as diverse as covering up autopsies of bodies taken away quickly without investigations, and spinning nonsense about a wolf attack being due to a “deformed wolf brain”, or the Minnesota moose population (so decreased by wolf predation) disappearance and moose hunting being closed (probably forever) as due to climate change and deer (coexisted for centuries) brain worm; to concern for kid’s college bills and paying for daughters weddings.  I cannot overstress the very real adverse consequences (as bad as using a forbidden word or of being accused of sexual harassment) to any government employee not being completely “in” on wolves.  Wolves allow them to decrease land values to enable government purchase or easement.  Wolves establish precedents for eroding the Constitutional concept of animals as private property thereby enabling agendas from prohibiting killing and eating them to making products of all kinds or even keeping them as watchdogs or pets.  All of these things in this short and incomplete list are grist for more government land control and more people control but most importantly more bureaucracy with higher salaries, higher retirement pensions and increased status both professionally and within various communities.

Lastly, you will meet very radical (the correct word) ideologues that work for and volunteer with a plethora of “environmental” and animal rights NGO’s (non-government organizations).  I have a long lifetime of experience with such groups and their treachery (again the right word).  I am reminded at this point of what my Irish grandmother that raised me during WWII told me while Dad was driving a tank in Africa and Europe; “Jim, if you can’t say anything good about someone; don’t say anything at all.”

Think of what you are about to do as interviewing people going to and from a Planned Parenthood Clinic and interviewing people in a Church parking lot after a 9:30 Mass on Sunday morning about abortion.  Others without the basic belief and experience are a “general public” whose thoughts and ideas are little more than indications of how any future vote is likely to come out.  So what to do?

I would hope you see your opportunity to collect your data, impressions, facts and references as you travel about and meet who you will.  Then go back to Buffalo, sort it out, and discuss it.

Then assign some students to investigate and document the abundance of wolf history from the Greeks and Romans to modern day Siberia, Russia and Kazakhstan. Look into why wolfhounds were invented and what they did.  Look into metal dog collars and spike dog collars so popular in Medieval England and why walkers always walked between villages with dogs and why Dalmatians often accompanied carriages.  Read about America settlers from Colonial times in isolated cabins to the spread of smallpox in Plains’ Indian Villages to the problem of rabid wolves invading US Forts.  Read Will Graves’ Wolves of Russia especially about a Russian sawyer bitten by a rabid wolf WHILE RUNNING THE CHAINSAW.

Look into the 30 + diseases and infections carried and spread by wolves.  Be honest about wolves frequenting farmyards at night and tapeworms and be honest about the danger wolves present if anthrax or smallpox (both in current bio-weapon inventories) is released or if foot-and-mouth or Mad Cow Disease outbreaks occur.  Note the absence of any veterinarians willing to say anything or to be quoted as someone says, “what does he know, he’s not a veterinarian!”

Draw a picture of the “costs” (government, social, and business-wise) of introducing and protecting wolves from the millions stolen by federal bureaucrats from state fish and wildlife funds to introduce them back into Yellowstone to all the salaries, admin support, equipment, office space, grants, legal support, enforcement support, public “information”, meetings, travel, etc. spent and being spent at the state and federal level to concoct and enlarge the wolf debacle for 40+ years.  Take a shot at the costs that lie ahead.  Debate how we are to live without control of wolf numbers and how we will do it when things get intolerable

Calculate the costs to rural communities losing animal husbandry, hunting, camping and associated funds from guiding and locker plants to taxidermy and businesses from hardware to restaurants and motels as a result of wolves.  Do not be bamboozled about “eco-tourism” and “biking/hiking” et al.  That tourism is a chimera and the first time a wolf runs down a biker (like a dog chasing a bicyclist or a wolf engaging some lady with a leashed dog, etc) or kills a kid in a backyard all that euphoria will disappear in a New York second.

Document the truth about wolves and “species”.  If a wolf breeds with and has viable offspring with coyotes, all dogs and dingoes (given the opportunity) is it really a “species”?  How absolutely crazy is it to (as is happening as I write in NE South Dakota and more often all the time everywhere) to give government the power to “rescue” free-roaming dogs that disturb the neighborhood; allow legitimate and necessary managed control of coyotes; and simultaneously the power to “protect” a wolf when all three or many of the millions of genetic combinations their interbreeding begets look as much alike as clones?  How is it even conceivable, much less occurring, that a NE South Dakota coyote hunter may go to prison, pay a large fine, lose the right to vote and lose the right ever own a gun again BASED ON SOME DNA ANALYSIS CONDUCTED POSSIBLY BY SOME IDEOLOGUE (environmental/animal rights) ANALYST based on sketchy parameters and definitions?

Then compare things about where wolves are now, where they can be expected to be (don’t be hoodwinked about “pack animals” avoiding suburban/urban areas: undiscouraged wolves will look for food at night in a Denver suburb as quick as they will a Montana farmyard or a dumpster behind the pizza joint in the shopping center) and just how any likelihood of wolves killing a kid by a bus stop or some grandma walking out to the rural mailbox is worth whatever nonsense being peddled like “willows along the stream” (if that was important, simply allowing hunters to reduce grazing game populations would have been done but it wasn’t; so ask yourself, why?)

If you get this far, take this from the biological/political/hidden agenda realm to an Ethical perspective.  This is the tough part since our modern secular society has demolished most common moral understanding and replaced it with a “whatever floats your boat” morality: ethics is today a relative matter where your right is my wrong and vice versa but given the University approach to relativism, you might find a way to apply a common standard as to what is ethical about aspects of wolves et al.  Nevertheless, attempt to form a basis (like Peter Canisius’ did with his Catechism(?) for dialogue and debate that avoids harm and leads a way out of a worsening  situation for millions of Americans and American Wildlife.  You and this are needed more than you can imagine.

When you are in Yellowstone you might call on Mr. Bill Hoppe, a third generation Montanan from that area.  He lives near Gardiner at the N end of the Park.  I suspect his views would be a welcome relief if you have been subjected to US Park Service bureaucrats by that time.

Good Luck.

Jim Beers

12 February 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 is an advocate for a Rural American Renewal that benefits rather than ruins the culture, economy and surroundings of rural American communities and families. 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

Share