November 23, 2017

Hold On To Your Wallet

Letter to the St. Paul Pioneer Press – by James Beers

Hold On To Your Wallet

The Headline says it all; “DNR wants increased fees”.

Our “perpetual tax and spend” Governor and his DNR Commissioner “need” hunting and fishing license fee increases of 10 to 15% “to keep up with inflation”. Haven’t our federal politicians claimed there is no inflation, or is that just to keep us retirees from asking questions?

So, “without the hike, the DNR will be forced to make several cuts”, the first of which will be “reducing the workforce”. Then without “additional funding”, roads will not be maintained, there will be fewer wildlife surveys, and walleye stocking will decrease.

Before we swallow this bait, please answer two questions:

  1. What is the trend of license sales for non-resident deer hunting, non-resident fishing and resident hunting and fishing?  Considering the devastation of walleye lakes due to indiscriminate netting, the loss of moose hunting license fees due to wolves, and the complaints of deer hunters about wolf decimation of northern deer herds; paying you to “maintain wildlife programs at current levels” seems foolish.
  2. How much of our license dollars, federal Excise Taxes and other funds including all the “incidental” law enforcement, trapping, public relations, etc. are you spending on wolves and how much more will you be spending on wolves if and when your federal counterparts “Return Wolf Management to the State” except, of course for our right to set numbers, distributions, methods of take, sale of parts, etc.?

Note to the St. Paul paper.  Since you so blithely refer to folks like me as members of the “hook and bullet” groups; how about referring to those “supporters” of the increases as “wolf-lover” groups and “indiscriminate fish-netter-lover” groups?

Jim Beers

16 April 2017

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

A TALK ON WOLVES, DISEASE AND THE NEED FOR REFORMING THE ESA

Given at the Sugar Camp Town Hall, Sugar Camp, Wisconsin on 8 April 2017, by Jim Beers

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss an aspect of modern wildlife management that is of great importance but that, in my opinion, has been given scandalously short shrift over the past 30 years.

I will speak for about 20 minutes on the topic of wolves and disease; and then for an equal time on what I see as the problems and solutions associated with wolves and the ESA in the United States in 2017 while reserving a similar period for questions.  If this seems like a daunting task to you, it seems to me like being asked to read War and Peace in a similar timeframe!

First, to wolves and disease – More than one of you is probably wondering, who is this guy about to speak about wolves and disease when he probably has never even taken a class in veterinary science?  That is true.  I am no more than an ex-Utah Fish and Game employee; a USFWS Wetland Biologist/Special Agent/Program Analyst/ Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations/Congressional Fellow/ Wildlife Biologist and US Trade Representative Delegation Member to the EU on Fur Trade Regulations.  I have a Bachelor’s degree from Utah State in Wildlife Resources and a Master’s degree from the U of Northern Colorado in Public Administration.  I am also a whistleblower to Congress about the theft by USFWS of +/- $60M in State Wildlife Funds from Arms and Ammunition Excise Taxes.  I also testified before a Senate Committee opposing the creation of federal Invasive Species authority.  I have been speaking and writing about wildlife and government programs all across the Nation for the 17 years since I was sent home and forced to retire from USFWS after a 32-year career.

This is the third time I have been asked to speak about wolves and the disease dimensions of their presence in the past 17 years.  Why is that?

Well, I first became aware of why when I was a speaker at a western cattlemen’s affair and I sat in on a talk by the state Wildlife Veterinarian and the Agriculture Livestock Veterinarian.  I innocently asked a question about wolves and they huddled and refused to answer and then said they had to get back to the Capital and left.  A few years later I was asked to explain about wolves and disease to a Natural Resource Committee of a State Legislature.  When I asked why me, they said they couldn’t find anyone else.

Looking back over these 17 years, most veterinarians, like many government wildlife folks, give me a wide berth.  With the exception of an old horse veterinarian who lost two sons to the defense of our Nation, and who squired me around one day through remote wolf, cattle and former elk hunting country, I confess that I have encountered only three kinds of veterinarians in my travels.

First, there are the pet doctors whose customers understandably “love” their pets and who are generally repulsed by trapping or lethal animal control or, for that matter, anyone that would denigrate the wolf or the “native ecosystem”.  They, understandably, wouldn’t touch this topic with a 10” pole.

Second, there are the government veterinarians.  They are like Urban Police Chiefs.  That is to say they are hired (and fired or marginalized) by Mayors and Agency Directors.  When Police “Chiefs” (not elected Sheriffs) chirp about gun control, they are little more than “Charlie McCarthies” for their boss, the Mayor.  Similarly, what state or federal Veterinarian, most of whose Agencies and Directors embrace unconditionally the federal protection and spread of wolves in defiance of many of those forced to live with the wolves, would risk controversial statements jeopardizing the agency’s proclamations and policies regarding wolves as benign additions to a communities’ wildlife?

Finally, there are the University Veterinary Science professors.  Their students flock to this over-manned profession because they “love animals”, a laudable and understandable motive.  The bureaucracies that generate grants and support for much, if not most, of their research (i.e. the ticket for more grad students, bigger budgets, tenure, and retirement security) do so for a wide variety of topics. Today, such “research” fills Veterinary Journals with ever more unintelligible (to the general public) data than modern economic research “papers”.  Additionally, the Universities understand that both state and federal governments are “all in” for wolves and that controversial reports or fodder for complaints that enable public protests would jeopardize far more than funding and other support for wildlife veterinary issues in the future.

So, here you are stuck with me.

  1. Wolves are very wide-ranging Canids that unlike our dogs get no Parvo/Distemper/Rabies/etc. shots and treatments.  They are not only fearless, they frequent human habitations routinely and with growing impunity as they increase in densities or experience no challenging behavior from humans or human settlements.  They are periodically concentrating on pastures or homesteads or big game wintering areas or calving areas as with moose in their wanderings so that when they pick up an infection or disease, they will likely go to similar surroundings where similar animals or humans can be infected.  They are constantly sticking their snout in and eating organs from a variety of animals both dying and deceased for a period of time thus exposing themselves to a very wide variety of bacteria, viruses, prions and other pathogens. It is not that they all carry all these diseases, it is that when they do get a really bad one like anthrax or rabies or foot-and-mouth or Mad Cow or chronic wasting disease – stopping the spread is almost impossible as when dogs and other wildlife disease vectors, that don’t roam far and wide, are killed to stop outbreaks of things like anthrax or smallpox.

Wolves travel in packs; romp; fight; and, like bats, sleep and groom together.  They are very often silent (and therefore unidentifiable) vectors spreading diseases, pathogens and infections among themselves and over a wide area to humans, domestic animals and other wildlife in a multitude of ways.  They are all but impossible to eliminate quickly or efficiently as when there is a rabies, foot-and-mouth, smallpox, anthrax or Mad Cow (BSE) outbreak.  Consider the havoc, often documented in early America of rabid wolves that went for miles biting everything they encounter, or the Russian sawyer (along with many others at the time, several of whom died) bitten by a rabid wolf while running a chain saw a few years ago.  Indian villages, trappers, homesteaders, and even forts with soldiers all are mentioned in historical records and reports of the terror and death rabid wolves were and are capable of imposing.

Certainly bites are an obvious danger for infection.  Less obvious (and ignored or denied) are:

–          Saliva left in yards and along (increasingly urban) paths on objects that are of interest to dogs that mouth them and nose them before returning home.

–          Mucous from a sneeze or runny nose left in areas frequented by people like yards and camping areas where dogs, children and others are exposed and can become carriers.

–          Feces laden with various tapeworm eggs (some of which develop deadly cysts years later; some of which last more than a year on the ground around where deposited and are capable of being transported by dog’s feet or shoes into homes, tents or campers onto rugs and elsewhere where small kids are especially vulnerable to ingesting them unknowingly) and also Parvo viruses that also have long infection periods where deposited.  Feces are a particular problem when undigested meat is passed and dogs do what they often do with

feces containing partially digested meat.

–          Blood transfer or deposit from accidents, fights with dogs or other wolves or incidents with other animals creates a potential infectious transfer to others and even a temporarily infected site that can infect others that touch or mouth anything coming in contact with the area, especially in places like campgrounds and rural residence surroundings.

–          Oozing sores or unhealed infections are an area of concern, in my opinion, but I could not find any information on such matter or what threat it may or may not pose.

–          Fur between toes and on the body coming in contact with the ground or infected animals can capture, transport and spread Mad Cow (BSE) prions; anthrax bacterium (capable of being absorbed through the skin, ingested or inhaled); and foot-and-mouth, and smallpox viruses among other pathogens.

For the record, I no longer let dogs lick me. I helped my Dad raise Dobermans as a kid and as a young man I had several retrievers, one of which I am about to tell you about.

The following is a list of diseases carried and transmitted by wolves.  While not totally comprehensive, it represents over 30+ infections and diseases that have been attributed to wolves.  Those that can infect humans are followed by an (H), those that affect other animals are followed by an (OA).

  1. Rabies (H) (OA)
  2. Brucellosis (H) (OA) ** i.e. Undulant Fever

Hydatid Disease (2):

  1. Echinococcus granulosis (H) (OA)
  2. Echinococcus multilocularis  (H) (OA) ** i.e. Deadly Cysts
  1. Anthrax (H) (OA) ** Cleanup Requirements
  2. Encephalitis (H) (OA)
  3. (Granulomatous meningoencephalitis) (OA)
  4. (Necrotizing encephalitis) (OA)
  5. Great Lakes Fish Tapeworm (H) (OA)
  6. Smallpox (H) (OA) ** i.e. Aral Sea Is.
  7. Mad Cow Disease(BSE) (OA) (H) ** i.e.UK
  8. Chronic Wasting Disease (OA)

From Ticks (13) ** Carried by wolves: Natural History?

  1. Anemia (H)
  2. Dermatosis (H)
  3. Tick paralysis (H)
  4. Babesiosis (H)
  5. Anaplasmosis (H)
  6. Erlichia (H)
  7. E. Coast Fever (H)
  8. Relapsing Fever (H)
  9. Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever (H)
  10. (A new type of Spotted Fever is being investigated) (H)
  11. Powassan Fever (H)
  12. Heartland Fever (H)
  13. Lyme Disease (H)

From Fleas (4) Carried by wolves:

  1. Plague (H) ** i.e.MT (OA)
  2. Bubonic Plague (H)
  3. Pneumonic Plague (H)
  4. Flea-Borne (Endemic) Typhus (H)
  1. Distemper (OA)
  2. Neospora caninum (OA)
  3. 2 Types of Mange (H) (OA)
  4. GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep) (OA)
  5. Foot-and-Mouth (OA)
  6. Parvo (OA)

Of the 30+ diseases and pathogens listed, 27 affect humans and many of these are deadly.  Whether it is a child ingesting tapeworm eggs from a ranch house floor rug, or a dog walker or jogging soccer Mom encountering wolves as a schoolteacher did recently in Alaska that resulted in a horrible death, the fact that these human health hazards have been given short-shrift and even covered up by government agencies and their allies as they forcibly introduce, protect and spread wolves is nothing short of scandalous.

How do you control wolves as vectors of these diseases when there is an outbreak?  Who pays for control?  Whatmethods are permissible? Who is responsible?  These sorts of questions need to be answered before we can determine where wolves are to be tolerated; in what numbers; and how these things are to be achieved ad infinitum.  I am a strong believer that State Governments, recognizing the primary interests and desires of the Local communities expected to bear the costs of hosting wolves in their midst, are the proper government authority for such decisions if the first and foremost purpose of all government as defined in the Preamble o0f our Constitution,i.e. – “domestic Tranquility” and “the general Welfare” of the all the citizenry – is to be achieved and maintained.

  1. What are we to make of all this?  How did it happen?  Most importantly, what can or should be done?

Wolves are like mosquitoes: both are numerous, found worldwide, and both create serious and increasing problems for humans closely correlated in magnitude to the human densities found in modern settled landscapes where each is found.  Each has benefits that are marginal as when mosquitoes and their larva provide food for fish and especially young birds with brief time windows in which to grow, fly and migrate.  Similarly wolves existing in relatively uninhabited (by humans) habitats create an insular plant and animal community that, while described by some appreciatively as “native” or “balanced”, provides a biological comparison for plant and animal management in more densely inhabited and settled landscapes as found in the Lower 48 States.  Even in these less inhabited landscapes like Alaska and Siberia, human interventions are required.  Examples of the latter being:

–          When humans are killed, attacked or injured

–          When disease outbreaks occur

–          When moose and elk et al needed for human food are being decimated

–          When wildlife licensing revenues and matching funds dwindle due to scarcity of game

–          When cattle, reindeer or sheep et al husbandry is being decimated.

–          When always fragile rural economies and communities worldwide are diminished in any of the many myriad ways that wolves can affect them from dog killings to threatening or attacking especially children and the elderly.

To say that a world with a Canada full of thousands of wolves; an Alaska bursting with wolves; a vast Siberia **Magadan/Kazakhstan/India (indeed much of Asia) with high wolf densities; a Europe currently dealing unsuccessfully with wolves continent wide; and a world full of dogs & coyotes (that are currently cross breeding with wolves in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States) dingoes and jackals (all 4 of which breeds can breed with wolves and produce viable or fertile offspring) ** current crossbreeding – to say in such a world that WOLVES ARE (currently) ENDANGERED in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States and :

–          Require federal pre-emption of traditional and Constitutional State Wildlife Authorities and Jurisdictions.

–          Require the expenditure of millions of scarce federal and state general taxes and wildlife funds.

–          Require preposterous federal bureaucratic authority to take private property without compensation in defiance of the Constitution.

–          That rural communities forced to host the wolves are to have NO say regarding their presence, numbers, distribution, control or impacts.

Is (*?) to say the least.

* What? – “Absurd”? “Crazy”?  “Misguided”? “Ignorant”? “Unjust”? “Illegal”? “Not what it appears to be”? “A direct threat to rural ‘domestic Tranquility’ and the ‘general Welfare’ of the Nation”?  NOTE: I confess to wrestling continuously with the right term to use both for the policies and instigators of this misbegotten fiasco. Too harsh or too truthful words turn off many readers and listeners.

The federal bureaucratic placement of wolves is an arbitrary nightmare for groups out of political favor **New England? and almost always not in any direct way affecting those lobbyists, ideologues and politicians enabling the wolf programs.  Wolf types in the Lower 48 (i.e. red, Mexican, timber, etc.) are simply names for varieties similar to other widespread mammals like the large whitetails in Saskatchewan descending in size and varying in coloration to the tinier and lighter whitetails found in the Southwest to the tiniest whitetails found in the hot and food-poor FL Keys.  Was the ESA really passed to preserve such morphologies?

There is an abundance of hidden agendas behind wolf programs from human population and gun control to eliminating hunting and trapping and surgically parsing rural America into expanding federal ownerships and easements with decreasing land costs.

As with grizzly bear expansions in the Lower 48 States, no one is responsible for the calamities brought about by wolves.

Only last week the morning the paper reported the first Zika-infected childbirth in the US.  The child was born in San Diego.  Imagine if you will, if mosquitos had been eliminated from the San Diego area one hundred years ago and if only ten or twenty years ago the federal government had announced the “scientific” finding that the lack of mosquitoes in the San Diego environs was unacceptable.  Suppose further that the federal government then initiated and the government of California enthusiastically embraced (no surprise there) the reintroduction, protection, and spread of the “native San Diego Yellow Mosquito”. This was done with the enthusiastic support of:

–          Midwest, East Coast and Northwest environmental organizations that collected millions to “save the San Diego Yellow Mosquito”.

–          Federal politicians that accepted “contributions” from these groups and then were subsequently featured in the news as a “friend of the Mosquito”.

–          Professors and entomologists that shared in a bonanza of grants, graduate student increases, tenure and public adulation as they justified the banning of spraying and other controls of mosquitoes and their kin; the need to further regulate and restrict chemical production and use; and the need for a myriad of new laws forbidding the removal of any standing water suitable for the mosquito’s many needs to reproduce and live.

–          Federal and State bureaucrats that outlined the need for more employees, bigger budgets, more regulations, new amendments to existing laws, “key” land acquisition and easement, and promotions and bonuses as their “workload increased”.

Could that be a “just” law authorizing such actions?  Would the Constitution in any conceivable way allow such a travesty?  Would San Diego parents and parents-to-be tolerate such a law?  Would the parents of an infected child be able to sue federal politicians, federal bureaucrats or “scientists” that denied or hid the dangers they knew to exist? Of course this could never happen, but not because:

–          Mosquitoes (and wolves) are ubiquitous

–          There is no San Diego Yellow Mosquito

–          The environmental organizations and government would look silly.

This would not happen because it would be the urban voting majority being imposed upon.  The suburban (with a few exceptions like NJ) and rural voters neither demand nor contribute to such impositions on their city cousins so the National Organizations do not reap millions; politicians do not reap votes; professors do not reap emoluments; and bureaucrats do not reap dollars and fame.

It is a fact that no one is responsible for any of the many wolf, or grizzly bears’ deadly effects or the economic and cultural sectors that they diminish and that what happened here with the Mosquito is and has happened with the wolf and grizzly bear to name just two such “Listings”.

Here is what I have learned in 17 years of dealing with the ESA and wolves et al:

  1. It is unjust and unconstitutional to empower federal bureaucrats (and their enablers from politicians and “scientists” to wealthy environmental lobby groups) to seize State wildlife and wild plant authorities and jurisdictions and violate with impunity such Constitutional Rights as are found in the I, IV, V, VI, VII, or X Amendments as defined in The Bill of Rights, and as is being done under the color of the Endangered Species Act.
  2. Large predators like wolves and grizzly bears are not endangered or threatened.  (Grizzlies are abundant in W Canada, Alaska and N. Asia). Both are very dangerous and destructive animals; and their presence, abundance, and distribution should be under State authority with primary attention given to those local communities expected to live with either of these animals.  To say that either, especially grizzles, belongs anywhere in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 in a protected status is a position that anyone valuing human life and American freedoms should think long and hard about. Current magnanimous “return of management” to State governments by federal bureaucracies with attendant “minimum” wolf levels is a chimera or mirage, like promises of “compensation” to ranchers and others, simply short-term public relations ploys intended to continue drainage of wildlife conservation funding and programs until a future push to invigorate greater federal control is judged politically possible.
  3. State wildlife agencies, state governments and Universities have each been corrupted by the current system ** PR theft w/o repayment and have become little more than subcontractors to federal bureaucrats, powerful Non-Government Organizations and their agendas.  Governments no longer serve constituents, and Universities and science no longer seek nor publicize the truth regarding these issues.  A companion issue with wolves that draws only snickers today is the downplayed but very real concerns that present wolf immersions in the dense Canid populations on the Lower 48 States spell disaster for future wolves as crossbreeding with coyotes and dogs point to a future similar to that of Russian Caucasian immigrants to Formosa over a hundred years ago that today only linger in a rare Caucasian facial feature in that otherwise dense Mongolian populous.
  4. If urban/environmental organizations and voters want wolves or grizzly bears in XYZ let them first convince those folks living in XYZ to appeal to the State government with a plan to do so and how to finance it.  Counties could allow these animals if the residents and their neighbors agree under a system like Virginia has for deer hunting wherein the Counties decide what guns, methods, seasons, bags, and goals are permissible for deer hunting in THEIR County recognizing the County  resident’s desires.  Adjoining Counties could oppose the proposal and/or authorize the dispatch of any such animal in their County under certain or any circumstances. In other words if Wyoming and Idaho and Montana do not want any wolves, when a wolf  steps out of Yellowstone, State laws and regulations could authorize shooting or trapping 365 24/7.  Other federal Parks, Forests, BLM and USFWS lands would and should need State permission as with other property owners in the State to introduce or maintain such wildlife just as if they wanted to introduce and maintain pythons or Asian carp in or on their ownership. Yellowstone has a very singular and unique legal status regarding such matters.
  5. Non-large-predator Endangered Species Act programs and policies have also become corrupt political activities.  Too often they are thinly-disguised environmental and animal rights agendas and ploys to destroy dams, irrigation, farms, ranches, private property, hunting, trapping, fishing, public land access, Local governments, sustainable and renewable natural resource use and management, national sovereignty, corporations, human development nationally and internationally, and a long list of human cultural and traditional pursuits considered politically incorrect at the moment.

For instance, while I was in Washington recently, the paper described a pending Endangered Listing of a Bee that is declining nationally.  The Bee occupies burrows in intermittently plowed fields and are “thought to be” affected by pesticides sold by “Dow” Chemical.  The Listing article (like snail darters intended to stop a dam; or smelt and suckers intended to close down farms and irrigation; or spotted owls intended to eliminate forest – i.e. timber – management) painted objecting farmers and the Dow Chemical Corporation as villains.  The Listing will and is intended to importune widespread farm production and practices in the Midwest thereby adversely affecting the national economy, the food supply and food availability for the poor.  It will also disrupt a giant Chemical “Corporation” bottom line, facilities and processes for an unknown time and with likely significant financial and job losses.  Now while all this may please some elements in the country it is counterproductive to American prosperity and our modern way of life.

What if the process for conserving true species in extremis was harmonized between Federal and State lawmakers and authorized and mandated that federal and state scientists first jointly determine what is causing the decline and not just hammer “all the usual suspects”?  Then work with USDA and farmers to identify and evaluate alternatives and their costs to modify practices or equipment.  Then have federal and state scientists work with and through the National Institute of Science and Technology (that routinely works with American Corporations on such matters) to cooperate with Dow Chemical on research for specific adjustments and tolerable costs to their products and existing infrastructure to reduce bee declines.  All of this should be accomplished with specifically requested Congressional funding which, if not authorized, means it is not of sufficient importance in line with other national priorities at the moment.

This is the opposite of the bureaucratic hammer in use today and returns to recognition of the Constitutional role of elected officials authorizing, funding and administering things currently left to bureaucrats with a bag of money to do all sorts of mischief and harm without accountability or responsibility except for their own careers.

  1. I am constantly told the ESA will NEVER be repealed (even though a similar travesty, Prohibition, authorized by a Constitutional Amendment, was repealed when its pernicious and corrupting effects were no longer deniable).
  2. I am constantly told that the ESA will Never be amended because any politician supporting such a thing would be deported or jailed by environmentalists, animal rightists, professors, teachers, bureaucrats, and a hodgepodge of urban residents that could be mobilized to “save” the environment.
  3. Could elected rural Sheriffs resist these federal impositions like some Mayors, Governors and County officials are resisting federal illegal immigrant enforcement activities?
  4. Could ESA reforms be enacted in laws, regulations and policies amid the turbulence of reform and confrontation now taking place in Washington, DC?

Questions:  Is rural America slated to continue falling behind the advancements and opportunities of the rest of the Nation to become like many rural African and Asian societies; places where “life is” as Thomas Hobbes once said, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short?  Where residents sell trinkets along the road or move to cities to perform menial tasks?  Are rural Americans, rural communities and urban America to be treated equally or are rural Americans and their communities and economies to be permanently inferior American sectors at the mercy of urban dreamers and pandering politicians?

How we recognize and resolve these self-imposed problems, involves and affects far more than wolves, bees and imaginary mosquitoes.

Jim Beers

8 April 2017

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.

 

Share

Speaking of Sharks, Grizzly Bears, Wolves, Cougars & Such

*Editor’s Note* – I am reminded of Leviticus 26: vss 14 and 22 –

“But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; …..I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.”

An article by James Beers

Question:  What do sharks, grizzly bears, wolves, cougars and similar large mammalian predators have in common?

Answer:

1.) They attack, injure and kill humans.

2.) Their presence in locations of human presence varying in density from the lightly inhabited to densely inhabited by humans is rightly controversial.

3.) They compete with humans for renewable natural resources like various marine species from seals to bass, and game animals from moose and elk to antelope utilized for human consumption and recreation like fishing and hunting.

4.) They depress human activities from bathing and biking to hiking and simple day in and day out actions of families and other residents where such animals are allowed to occur.

5.) They depress economic activities from tourism and animal husbandry to pet ownership and all the subsidiary economic activities they spawn thereby shrinking both employment opportunities and local tax revenues that are the lifeblood of both local governance and a political voice for rural residents.

6.) They destroy private property from dogs to cattle.

7.) They are “loved” by mostly urban people and little more than constant problems for rural people and others forced by governments to live with them.

8.) They are political vote fodder for central government politicians forever spending scarce dollars and implementing the laws they are forever passing to “protect” and “save” these “charismatic mega-species”.

9.) They are central-government bureaucrat’s ticket’s to more power and authority (resulting from the manipulation of regulation-writing for all the laws mentioned under # 8); more personnel and bigger budgets leading to increased career opportunities leading to larger retirements and public adulation; and they are an introduction to after-retirement opportunities with the Non-Government environmental Organizations (see # 10 below).

10.) They are the primary tools of the self-aggrandizing “environmental”, animal “rights”, and faux “conservation” lobby groups collecting millions from the general public that they use to “influence” the politicians, woo the bureaucrats, and give the urban population a false sense of doing something “good” while being “involved”.

11.) Too often the government schemes to “save” or “restore” such species are thinly-veiled hidden agendas for other campaigns from population control to gun control and further erosion of local governments and the political voice of rural people and their issues.

Now, lest you think I do not “like” or “want” such animals; I assure you I am committed to their preservation and conservation.  I say this with full recognition of the following:

1.)  These animals DO NOT belong wherever they want to be or where they simply existed 20 or 200 years ago. They belong where their negative impacts are tolerable primarily to those communities that government’s target to coexist with them.

2.)  The formal acceptance by local populations should be a prerequisite of any government protection, introductions or increases of these animals for reasons of both justice and morality.

3.)  While the “public” et al (see the foregoing #’s 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) knowledge of words like “decreasing”, “endangered”, etc. are rudimentary at best; their rejection of terms  like “too many”, “destructive”, “dangerous”, or “necessary lethal control” are also clouded by bureaucrats, teachers, politicians, and the influence peddlers mentioned under the foregoing # 10.

4.)  The proper and just challenge to preserving and conserving these animals lies not with destroying human society or humans as is happening in Africa and India as I write.

5.)  Lethal controls are necessary and right in areas of human density and activity.  For instance, sharks should be excluded as far as is possible from beaches with moderate to heavy use.  Until the lobby groups or private enterprises come up with a workable and dependable way to exclude dangerous sharks from such beaches in Australia, the US or South Africa or on similar beaches worldwide, that means lethal control.

6.)  As someone living in a country with a $20 TRILLION debt, I do not believe that government funding should be spent by the millions on things that would certainly appear to be no more effective than fladry or electric fences for livestock being ravaged by wolves, or bells being worn by hikers or workers in grizzly bear country.

7.)  Government funds directed toward sharks (like government funds directed toward other mammalian large predators mentioned herein) should be directed toward enactment and enforcement of laws that allow local control in certain areas and protection in other (not all) areas.  Leave it to the Universities and NGO’s to “investigate” “sonar buoys” shark “face recognition”, “electronic and magnetic shark deterrent devices”, and “cameras attached to sharks”.  The government role is to first protect its citizens.

Three years ago I wrote several articles comparing the “conservation” of mammalian and marine predators like sharks, wolves and killer whales.   The two articles below [link (WSJ is a PayWall and link] indicate to me how far astray we have come in just the short time since I wrote those articles.  I submit that we could take this shark article and this grizzly bear article and just use them in the future for the next wolf or cougar attack that kills or maims a human in the US.  For that matter, the next Nile crocodile that kills an African woman doing her wash or an African kid playing by the river; we can use these article by just erasing “shark” or “grizzly bear” and scribbling in “lion” or “tiger” or whatever misunderstood critter evokes our mercy by causing us to equate such animals with hapless humans offered up by the government druids for their notion of what the “ecosystem” should be.

Here are a few comments on what appears in these recent news items.  These items are highlighted in the articles and are not meant to be snide or to condemn either our Australian or Canadian cousins that like us emerged from the British Colonial system.  Truth be told, American concepts of wildlife management, human justice, and rural economic concern are as far or farther astray than either of these articles tell us about Australia or Canada.

1,) “The effort is being closely watched around the world—especially tourism-focused places like Réunion, a French territory whose economy was devastated after sharks killed seven people in recent years.”

Comment: While this is about sharks, the same thing is happening in the Lower 48 US States with forced introduction of grizzly bears (the latest in central Washington state) making de facto wilderness areas due to the danger from the bears as are forced wolf introductions exterminating elk and moose hunting along with ranching and rural residences.  Denying it as we do, fools no one.

2.) “Where some of these species of sharks bite people, it becomes more of a social issue, whether the government should be responsible for the safety of their citizens when they go into the ocean.”

Comment: What chutzpah!  As a former colonial and as a US Constitutional supporter, I can only marvel at any representative government being perceived as neither concerned nor responsible for the safety of their citizenry utilizing THEIR beaches.  Yet, the US government mimics this attitude by their wolf and grizzly bear activities being no one’s responsibility when they go horribly wrong and even California’s government behaving similarly with their sanctification of cougars within that state.

3,) “Record keeping on shark attacks is fragmented and inconsistent,

Comment: See, sharks are just like wolves and grizzly bears.  Nothing is for sure so only the government wizards know the “truth” and thus the courts will believe only them.  For those unfamiliar with this lingo, “fragmented and inconsistent” means you must believe whatever we say it is about “how many”, the “danger” and what to expect or who is responsible. If we say moose and elk disappeared because of “climate change” or that persons or cattle killed by wolves were killed by “undetermined animals, possibly dogs” then by golly that is the truth so move along citizen, there is nothing to see here.

4,) “Thousands of underwater video tapes showing that sharks are much more abundant in northern Australia than in unprotected waters like those surrounding Indonesia—the world’s biggest shark-fishing nation”.

Comment:  What a mysterious assertion.  Could there be a connection?  Can sharks prosper in one place (like Australia) while evidently hammered unmercifully relatively nearby (like Indonesia)?  Could this be duplicated on a scale such as lightly-used Australian beaches v. heavily-used beaches?  Inquiring minds want to know.

5.) People for some reason have a real fear of sharks,” Geoff Harris, the club’s president and a veteran lifesaver, said as he surveyed the town’s deserted white-sand beach one morning. “I think it’s the fear of being eaten by something.”

Comment: Ya’ think?

6.) “But you don’t want to jump to the conclusion that the bear’s hungry and it attacked an individual.  Norris also said it’s “never cut and dry that a bear will be destroyed because it attacked someone.”

Comment:  Indeed, animals have “rights”!  Their motive is important!  You never know when there are extenuating circumstances that justify releasing him or her like Americans are doing with criminal illegal aliens that only return and repeat offenses until they stand accused of homicide.  I am reminded of that satirical Jewish definition of chutzpah being the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.

Jim Beers

27 March 2017

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

Good Riddance (and don’t let the door hit you in the…)

by James Beers

Two years ago I wasted quite a bit of time opposing the Minnesota DNR decree to impose a ban on using any lead ammunition on State Wildlife Areas.  During this thorough waste of time (it was a simple government decree in a decree-friendly state based on nonsense with no possibility of any change from the get-go) I trekked to downtown St. Paul to the DNR Headquarters for a “Hearing” and a chance to “testify”.

What a circus. The 40 or 50 attendees were divided by sex and costumes.  On “my” half sat males over 50 sitting in groups of friends all decked out in wool shirts; they were the opposition.  On the other half sat a gaggle of females under 50 that probably thought that a gunstock was something listed on the Stock Exchange: they were obviously all acquainted with each other and each was decked out in “professional” clothes suitable for CEO-level executives recently departed from their offices or some expensive urban watering hole for this important meeting; they were the supporters of the ban.

There were a few anomalies in the female supporters group.  First there was the DNR “chief” that obviously knew each lady and wandered amongst them like a movie star.  Then there was the old man dressed in impeccable Orvis duds that looked real “outdoorsy” as he self-identified as a “hunter”.

Last but not least was an older lady in fairly grubby clothes that identified herself and her plea as an “Eagle Rescue biologist”.  Her emotional “testimony”, that was allowed to exceed the time limit unlike the rest of us, was full of tales of Bald eagles injured by “hunters” and brought to her Rescue venue located on a heavily used wintering eagle stretch of the Mississippi.  She even shared X-rays of eagles showing “lead” pellets that were “killing them”.  She received an ovation at her conclusion.

What she failed to mention was that the fact of lead or some other pellet metal was immaterial; lead pellets or bullets imbedded in muscle or other non-organ tissue is benign.  You or I or an eagle or a loon or a duck for that matter so afflicted may live a long life or die soon depending on the wound, not the presence of lead, since lead is not absorbed into the organs and blood (where accumulations can be fatal) when it is simply lodged in muscle or other non-organ tissue.  The lead ammunition bugaboo is based on waterfowl hyperbole and over estimation where ducks and geese, et al have CROPS full of GRIT (pebbles, shot and other small round and hard items they must constantly replenish) that they use to grind their hard plant food like seeds for digestion.  Lead shot (less than claimed) is often ground up and passes through the digestive system with the seeds and if absorbed over a long period can prove fatal.  This “climate-change”-like anecdotal over-estimation successfully justified banning lead for any waterfowl hunting over two decades ago.

Then the same folks used it to justify banning lead fishing tackle because loons were dying from “lead poisoning”.  When I tried to explain to a couple of Minnesota fishermen asking for others to turn in all their lead tackle a few years ago that the miniscule number of loons documented to have toxic lead levels ALSO had digestive systems plugged with fishing TACKLE (hooks, leaders, line) and were in fact starving to death thanks to the plugged digestive system and NOT LEAD, they got irate and told me to get lost.  You see loons HAVE NO CROP AND THEREFORE NO LEAD GRIT because they are fish eaters with digestive systems more like ours than their seed-eating cousins.  When a loon finds a bait minnow on a broken line (with tackle attached) on a snag, it swallows the minnow and the attached tackle that eventually knots up in the digestive system and starves the bird to death as its digestive juices flow freely and absorb as much of the lead as possible.

So let us return to the meeting about lead ammunition on MN State Wildlife Areas and the ladies emotional appeal on behalf of eagles.  Eagles don’t have, nor need, crops.  Eagles don’t need nor gather grit.  Eagles eat fish and meat.  So, all the eagle and lead-pellet X-rays that brought tears to our eyes that winter evening were simple deceptions.  Eagles that die from or are maimed by lead (or any other shot or bullet for that matter) either die from the wound; are disabled by the wound; or recover to stir all MN progressive’s patriotism as they soar above our waterways.

I remembered that little old lady recently and wondered where she is now as I read the following newspaper article titled, “Wind-turbine rule would allow for eagle deaths”.

Having been sensitized to the “fact” that no sacrifice (like ammunition cost and effectiveness or traditional family-heirloom weapon use) is too much to ask to “save” one, much less multiple eagles, from death or wounding I was shocked by the title.  Seeing men and kids investigated, prosecuted, fined, jailed (and prohibited from future voting and gun ownership unlike current prisoners incarcerated for “non-violent” drug crimes being released to vote and bloat growing recidivism statistics) and otherwise marginalized for shooting, mounting or possessing a Bald or Golden Eagle – all at great government expense – I read the article that upset me far more evidently than all the little old ladies or urban professional ladies or the old guys and bureaucrats that hang around them.

Here are the relevant parts of the article with my comments italicized in parentheses.

Wind-turbine rule would allow for eagle deaths

The Obama administration on Wednesday (14 December 2016) finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years — even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

(THOUSANDS??  30 YEARS??  Those wind “farms” have been killing millions of “Protected” birds every spring and fall for 30 years already with nary a scream from all these do-gooders.  Not only were federal bureaucrats paid handsomely to “Protect” them, the bureaucrats of USFWS, the State bureaucrats, the “conservation” organizations, the bird outfits, the radical environmentalists and even the little old Eagle Rescue lady were all AWOL as they lied about lead to discourage hunting and fishing and treated their fellow citizens and their cherished pursuits far worse than government treats terrorists or incarcerated drug smugglers, sellers and perverters of America’s youth.)

    Under the new rule, wind companies and other power providers will not face a penalty if they kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles, nearly four times the current limit. Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.

(How come ranchers weren’t offered a silly “out” by these “concerned” bureaucrats like putting out eagle food or working at an eagle “rescue” center when they killed A golden eagle killing a lamb or a calf or a dog?  Maybe they could attach an electrical shocker to their dog or a lamb or a calf or a kid and let a golden eagle swoop in and get shocked when it grabs them?  It doesn’t work with wolves but then we could “test” it for years until the ranchers are gone. Just below you will see that the government won’t discuss or release eagle deaths data; so how do we know 4,200 is “four times” the current limit?)

     The new rule will conserve eagles while also spurring development of a pollution-free energy source intended to ease global warming, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan, said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe. 

(Pollution-free”??  4200 dead Bald eagles and an untold number of golden eagles minced up and lying about is a certain level of accumulated tissue and genes that is hardly describable as “pollution-free”.  The next time some jerk or jerkette bullies you or your children into a “come to Gaia” moment to deny any doubts about global warming, remember this bit of national disgrace because this bureaucrat justifies a magnitude of eagle killing unknown since federal ”protection” of eagles became a federal duty as a good because it eases “global warming.  As a nod to public information, this bureaucrat “Director” was a radical political staff Director in the US House and lost his job when Newt and the Republicans took control of the House 2 years into the reign of Clinton.  He was quickly picked up by USFWS in a top job and given charge of the federal Pittman Robertson Excise Taxes on arms and ammunition intended for state wildlife agencies and their wildlife programs.  Over the next two years $45 to 60 Million went missing, and per a General Accounting Office Audit was used to insert wolves into the Upper Rockies and open an office in California, both of which the Congress had refused to fund or authorize.  This effete environmentalist spent the Bush years in a non-job post and was then made Director under Obama.  The money was never replaced, state governments went AWOL, and no one was charged after Two Congressional hearings just before a Presidential election.  Yes, such a person is no surprise in the middle of this debacle.)

    “No animal says America like the bald eagle,” Ashe said in a statement, calling recovery of the bald eagle “one of our greatest national conservation achievements.” The new rule attempts to build on that success, Ashe said, adding that the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to balance energy development with eagle conservation. 

(If this isn’t straight out of George Orwell’s description of Newspeak, i.e. meaningless babble that cannot be challenged or understood, then I don’t know what is.)

   Wind power has increased significantly since Obama took office, and wind turbines as tall as 30-story buildings are rising across the country. The wind towers have spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan, and blades reach speeds of up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.

The birds are not endangered species but are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs without a permit. 

(“30-story buildings”; “passenger jet’s wingspan”; “170 mph blades”: all built in enormous acreages EXACTLY where birds migrate and soar because that is where the best and most persistent winds have occurred for centuries.  Who knew such a situation was or even could be harming birds?  No wonder NO media or environmentalists or professors said anything.  Luckily we have the likes of the USFWS enforcing these bird protection laws and state DNR’s to do thing like manipulate “Rescue” ladies to regale us with why we should stop using economical and efficient ammunition for hunting because we might kill an eagle unknowingly. Al Capone had nothing on these guys.)

    It’s unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations, although Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings.
Reporting of eagle mortality is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information. 

(Raise your hand if you are surprised that the Administration that gave us the Hillary/ATF/Gun Smuggling/UN Small Arms Treaty Attempt/ Fast & Furious scandal; the Lois Lerner/IRS record destruction scandal; Private computer servers in basements; and just recently refused to explain computer hacking by Russia to Congress and magically disagreement between 17 government intelligence agencies disappeared while the President says he knows all about in a press conference as he scoots out to a 17-day vacation in Hawaii – also gives us:

“It’s unclear what toll wind energy companies are having on eagle populations.”

Ashe said as many 500 golden eagles a year are killed by collisions with wind towers, power lines, buildings, cars and trucks. Thousands more are killed by gunshots and poisonings”.  This latter is a lie.  If there was anything near this USFWS would have been screaming to Congress for more employees and budget and the “Establishment” would have granted it immediately for fear of being called “anti- America’s symbol”.

Reporting of eagle mortality is voluntary, and the Interior Department refuses to release the information. These guys must have taken public information classes in Moscow.  They should be fired for such illegal public employee arrogance to cover up…??)

    The new rule is set to take effect in mid-January, days before Obama leaves office. President-elect Donald Trump could change the rule or scrap it, but the process would likely takes months or years.

(Wow, can you imagine what things would be like if President Obama hadn’t promised President-elect Trump an honest and friendly transition of power?)

    Ashe declined to be interviewed, but he said in a blog entry Wednesday the total number of eagles killed per year is likely to be in the hundreds, not thousands. 

(How does a “public” “servant” decline” to tell the public about public business that has NO security (other than the tushes of the said bureaucrats) implications?  This swamp not only needs to be “drained”; it needs to be tiled and planted for the benefit of those paying for it!)

    Michael Hutchins of the American Bird Conservancy said Wednesday that his group has “some serious concerns” that the new rule will not do not enough to sustain populations of threatened eagles. 

(The “conservation” organizations are full of these guys.  They are like draft dodgers telling little kids what they did “in the war”.  I include here all those urban “useful idiots” that harm their rural fellow citizens for their own selfish imaginings and even the sincere little old ladies that babble on and are never challenged like some minority spouting nonsense or a terrorist-looking man or women stranger that shows up in some public gathering wearing heavy clothing and a backpack.  All of them intend to force the rest of us to submit to th+++eir vision of a society they run and we either submit or lose our rights or worse.

Yesterday I received an email telling me I was accusing Obama and his Administration unjustly of doing bad things as they went out the door.  The writer inferred that I must be a racist to be so anti-Obama.  Well, make your own decision here but I, for one, am glad to be done with them.  And as I said in the title, “don’t let the door hit you in the &$$ on the way out!”

Jim Beers

17 December 2016

Share

Advice Worth the Cost

By James Beers

Congressman Ryan Zinke, Republican Representative for the entire state of Montana, has been named by President-elect Trump as his pick for the Secretary of the Interior.

I subsequently received the following inquiry (along with many others) from a group for whom I have high regard.  It is with honest forethought that I respond to this question recognizing that it is probably not in my personal best interest to do so.  The reason for this being my long-standing enthusiastic support and bias for President-elect Trump and the fact that at the urging of more than a few acquaintances I sent a resume to the Trump Transition Team for any role –full, part-time or advisory that they might use someone with my record and talents.  While I had several friends that then sent my resume to Transition Team acquaintances and some potential candidates for the Secretary Appointment, I claimed no personal preferences, endorsements, or “dog in the race”. I still find all the named candidates in this transition to have strengths and weaknesses that overall make any of them far better that any Secretary of the Interior since the three (Watt, Clark & Hodel) under President Reagan.  While an honest answer here will probably torpedo any active role in this Administration for an old guy like me, I trust it will not diminish any consideration they or the public might give to future recommendations I may write or speak about.

The question:

–       Q. I have concerns about this cabinet pick.  Xxxx tells me they were on his ag advisory committee and he is definitely NOT in favor of turning federal lands back to the states.  I also wonder about his background and will wikepedia him next.  Any ideas on how we should proceed?

My Answer:

First of all, I am an enthusiastic Trump supporter and during these times of his every move evoking more incomings than Fort Sumter, I am loathe to add anything to the barrage he is already experiencing.

Secondly, Congressman Zinke certainly seems sensible; what the English used to term a “hail fellow well met”. The two interviews I saw were impressive and left the urban New York interviewers pleased and laughing.  Add to this, his service as a Seal and his being a fellow Naval Officer and, as with President Trump, I find it hard to express negative observations.

This morning’s Wall Street Journal has given me pause for thought on what lies ahead for federal oppressions and “how we should proceed” as I ponder the question.

The following is an excerpted copy of the WSJ article with my observations italicized in parentheses.

POLITICS

Donald Trump Jr. Played a Key Role in Interior Pick

By

AMY HARDER

Dec. 15, 2016 6:36 p.m. ET

Donald Trump Jr. heavily influenced his father’s decision to fill the post of interior secretary with Rep. Ryan Zinke, a one-term congressman who shares the younger Trump’s enthusiasm for hunting, say people familiar with the pick.

(So far so good.)

Zinke, Montana’s sole House member and a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, resigned as a delegate to the GOP’s convention this past summer because its platform calls for a transfer of federally owned wilderness lands to the states. That is a position favored by most Republicans, including Ms. McMorris Rodgers, but the president-elect and his son, an avid hunter, oppose it.

(No matter your stand on returning federal lands to the states, it is a bargaining chip of the first order for anyone interested in making ANY progress in reducing federal overreach and reviving rural America.  Also, note the “wilderness” with a small “w”.  Does she mean “Wilderness-designated lands” with a capital “W” or did Zinke and Donald Trump Jr. use that term?  The difference being; if it is a typical urban observation that all that “out there” is “wilderness” replete with wolves, grizzly bears and free-roaming buffalo then it has no significance: if Ryan and Donald used it, it suggests that they are prepared to argue that those are the “most sacred”, “most unique’’ etc. acres and under no circumstances should their status be changed.  This is just the opposite of what is likely to happen.  The non-“Wilderness” acres would be gradually transferred and the status, management and uses of “Wilderness” acres questioned; to reverse this is simply what Hitchcock called a “MacGuffin” or diversionary device that serves no purpose.)

“The federal government needs to do a much better job of managing our resources, but the sale or transfer of our land is an extreme proposal, and I won’t tolerate it,” Mr. Zinke said at a June congressional hearing.

(This is very troubling. The federal government has proven over the last 25 years that it is no longer capable of this task and indeed is the source of the mismanagement and harms that helped elect President-elect Trump.  Asking the current US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service or the US Forest Service (although in the Department of Agriculture) to begin doing a “much better job of managing our resources” is truly and accurately like asking:

Animal Control Officers to surrender their guns and extraordinary Police Powers and notify Local Police of suspected violations; or

School teachers to begin teaching wild animal and plant management that benefits rural communities and generates taxes and Local control of Local issues; or

University professors to refuse government funding that influences both “science” and political dialogue; or

Federal and State bureaucrats to take a pay cut or retirement reduction and return to a hiring/promotion/bonus system free of race and sex classifications and preferences.

In other words, none of these things can happen with the current workforces in place and while the current laws and practices that spawned and protect them remain in place.  All of these bureaucracies have been staffed with ideologues that not only do not know how to “manage our resources”, they are actually mentally and physically opposed to “managing our resources” and will fight with all the motivation of disgruntled Middle Eastern refugees to create their alternative view of the world that we should all live in.

You do not have to sell or transfer land; you need to restore State and Local influence over resource management in the States and Local communities where federal lands are located.  That is done by giving State governments (the one closer to the residents) certain controls or influence over federal appropriations and federal programs in their jurisdiction.  Local governments (the ones closest to the people) will influence the states actions because the Local people will control the Local government. The threat of eventually transferring the federal estate to the State is the threat if satisfactory accommodations cannot be achieved.  People that aver their trump card like this are reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain “dealing” with Hitler or Ukrainians bargaining with Stalin in the early 1930’s.)

The president-elect’s children have urged him to seize broadly on environmental conservation as a potentially defining issue for his presidency. The younger Mr. Trump has a longtime interest in preserving wilderness areas for hunting and fishing, and Mr. Zinke’s own opposition to selling off federal lands stems from his concern that it would mean less access to public lands for outdoor sports.

(See (or request) my “Rural America Needs the Electoral College” article of 1 December regarding rural harms as urban bribes.  “Environmental conservation” and “preserving wilderness” are dog whistles for the urban voters President Trump will be seeking over the next four years.  They (and the radical environmental/animal rights organizations and the current bureaucrats, professors, et al) hear more land acquisition, more land easement, more land control and more land = more authority, more jurisdiction, more budgets, more employees and more of everything down the road.)

There is something of a split in the environmental movement between those, like Messrs. Zinke and Trump Jr., who favor preserving wilderness areas mostly for hunting and fishing, and a more mainstream group that emphasizes such issues as protecting endangered species and keeping natural lands pristine.

(Well said in an urban fashion; scary to rural residents with less political heft in many states; and something that is to be resolved one way or the other.  There is no solution similar to Solomon splitting the baby to be had here.)_

Apart from the public lands issue, Mr. Zinke supports traditional GOP positions on the environment. He backed the Keystone XL pipeline, for example, and opposed a recent Interior Department rule setting standards for emissions of methane from oil and natural-gas wells on public lands.

The president-elect, following his children’s urging, is showing signs of embracing the notion of following in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican president who protected roughly 230 million acres of public lands.

“Honoring the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt—believe it or not, one of our great environmentalists—we’ll also be able to preserve and protect our natural resources for the next generation, including protecting land and anglers and hunters and all of those who enjoy the outdoors like my sons Don and Eric,” Mr. Trump said earlier this month in a speech in North Carolina.

(If the implication of rivalling or exceeding TR’s acreage “protection” circa 1900 (that has ultimately turned out to be mostly “closure” and “non-management”) in a USA 100-plus years later and hundreds of millions more people more doesn’t scare you, I must admit it does me. The current federal (and many States as well) bureaucracies are no more able, willing or qualified to “preserve and protect our natural resources for the next generation, including protecting land and anglers and hunters and all of those who enjoy the outdoors” than the Little Sisters of the Poor are capable of playing the Chicago Bears,)

The younger Mr. Trump spoke at length about his interest in preservation issues, and his influence with his father when it comes to them, in an onstage interview at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in Colorado this summer.

Outdoor groups based in Montana that have known and worked with Mr. Zinke for years and  talked him up weeks ago to the younger Mr. Trump

“With McMorris Rodgers becoming more and more real, sportsmens’ groups pushed back,” said Land Tawney, president and chief executive of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a Montana-based group that counts the younger Mr. Trump as a lifetime member.

(This is disturbing. The TR Conservation Partnership is one of many modern such organizations that wine and dine with the bureaucracies and the radical groups while swapping jobs and grants and fostering a persona of “fighting” for (insert your group here).  Like Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited et al they spend their funds like the Clinton Foundation and send out glossies of faux accomplishments.  These groups are political hermaphrodites entertaining both Democrats and Republicans for the same end, i.e. expanding government controls by bureaucracies enforcing and regulating for their narrow interests.  One need look no further than the crickets heard from these groups for 25 years about windmills killing birds by the millions while birds by the pair at a taxidermist or one dead on the ground can get you and me put in prison unlike the Indian that killed a wolf in Minnesota not long ago and the federal government refused to prosecute. Finally, Montana has some very green organizations that masquerade as cowboy/Orvis clothes models while wielding strong political power. They seem to already be displaying a prevalent influence here.)

In summary, I do not sense any commitment for change, only more of the same.  Although I was prepared and hopeful for an Administration that could change things for far into the future by changing laws and making hard choices, I have forebodings about this and especially as McConnell is already balking about passing a stimulus as Trump had promised and Ryan is already waffling about a “wall” as Trump had promised.  What I fear is four years about arguing for short-term “feel-good” things and either four or eight years down the road the bureaucrats and long-term pols at the behest of the urban radicals will take off from where we are now with a vengeance.

Targeting the “Number” of regulations is meaningless in this government land business, unless you repeal, amend, or limit (as I suggested) these unjust laws, “reducing regulations” is no more than lipstick on a pig.  Unless you restore state and local government authorities and jurisdictions the feds will just grow and grow like that exploding fat guy John Cleese serves in the Monty Python movie, “The Meaning of Life”.  Anybody that believes that keeping this federal estate whole under the current bureaucracies’ policies will not mean LESS hunting and fishing (along with a whole lot of other harms from fires, predators and economic strangulation of the rural American economy) doesn’t deserve the right to vote in a Constitutional Republic.

We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us and to quote the Matrix movie, “he’s not the one”

Jim Beers

16 December 2016

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

Minnesota Wolves: No Kudos from Here

The following article from a Northern Minnesota newspaper describes a 40-year US Fish and Wildlife Service (retired) Wolf Biologist admitting that wolves in Minnesota have indeed decimated the Minnesota moose population and that, undoubtedly, any attempt to increase moose numbers in Minnesota would be akin to introducing impalas into a lion cage at the zoo.

Since retiring here 8 years ago, no other subject caused the shunning and downright rudeness I experienced than my saying or writing that the moose were declining due to wolf predation.  Newspaper reporters said I was stupid and the Minnesota DNR and the University of Minnesota authored article after article in the papers that went on at great length about “ticks”, “global warming” and “unspecified diseases” being the cause for the moose decline and the loss of the moose hunting season. Such articles always carried the following disclaimer that I paraphrase, “While some claim wolf predation is a factor, the one thing we are certain about is that wolf predation does not diminish moose populations”.

Many of my colleagues today are cheering the fact that Dr. Mech has “seen the light” and is “man enough to admit it” regarding the suddenly discovered fact that wolves are THE cause of the demise of moose in Minnesota.  I offer no such cheer.

The federal wolves are here in Minnesota in great densities.  Mech and the DNR and all the University “experts” have profited in great measure from protecting wolves that have been destroying moose populations, moose watching and creating many, many other negative impacts from their actions and lies performed in league with very evil (the correct word) environmentalists and animal rights radicals with broad agendas associated with wolf dangers and destruction.

Now I try to practice forgiveness but the following explanation by the “good” doctor and his cronies is simply further dissembling and meant to only keep the hunters, ranchers, dog owners and rural Minnesota in their state of perpetual subservience to Mech and the DNR and the University and their federal sugardaddy, the USFWS.

After reading all the “science” and “discovery” humbug I ask you to consider:

  1. Assuming the legal issues are resolved soon” is the caveat given for any solution.  Any biologist with the least understanding  of and appreciation for the US Constitution and the North American Wildlife Management model would not give this meaningless pap as a necessary beginning.  Federal seizure of state wildlife management authority and jurisdiction is THE reason moose hunting, moose and other things like wolf attacks on campers and dog deaths are happening throughout northern Minnesota.  While Mech warbles about court decisions and working with the radicals that control USFWS and have made the DNR and the University federal lapdogs, federal impositions driven by national and international politics and corruption will keep rearing its ugly head whenever bureaucrats and politicians see a benefit to themselves.  Anything that does not start with the complete removal of any federal opportunity (like repeal of the Endangered Species ACT) to reassert federal jurisdiction over non-treaty Minnesota wildlife is simply a pipedream.
  1. Mech recommends that the state focus more of its wolf harvest quota in future years in the primary moose range, to give the moose population some breathing room.” Any future wolf control that would give ANY “breathing room” would (thanks again to Mech, the DNR, the “U” and USFWS) require reducing the wolf population drastically over many years and then keeping it at the lower level forever.  Even if the progressive urban Minnesotans understood and agreed; it would require shooting, trapping, snaring, aerial hunting, poison (?) etc. to attain and sustain the lower wolf levels.  Would government do it? Would rural Minnesotans do it?  What is the cost?  Who would pay?  Are rural Minnesotans anymore able to do such things?  Are the staffs of the DNR or USFWS or even USDA any longer capable or willing to do what would have to be done?
  1. His assertion that, “if moose continue to decline, wolf numbers will decline as well” is pure poppycock.  If you believe that, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.  Wolves decline when moose decline as described on little islands like Isle Royale NP in Lake Superior.  Wolves in NW Canada, Siberia and Alaska switch to other wildlife and even humans when a main food source like moose decline.  In the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States when moose decline, wolves shift to deer, elk, cows, calves, sheep, lambs, dogs (when they are not breeding them), kids at bus stops, old ladies in gardens, old men checking the mail, toddlers in the back yard, garbage, hunters’ game, livestock discards, and more than I have room to describe here.  Between their doing “what they never did before” in areas they were “never in before” and hybridizing with every coyote and dog they don’t eat: I guess I am just making an otherwise “double arabesque and pirouette off stage right” retirement for this Bozo into a “get out and stay out” exit by a failed bureaucrat as he deserves.
  2. He concludes, “There’s really little reason to delay. The evidence is increasingly clear. While climate factors may play some indirect roles in the moose decline (such as making moose less healthy and more vulnerable to wolf predation), wolves are the primary direct factor behind the disappearance of this northwoods icon. That’s a scientific conclusion that’s hard to refute”.

He still keeps his foot in the radical canoe with, “climate factors may play some indirect roles in the moose decline (such as making moose less healthy and more vulnerable to wolf predation” something with no evidence and no more than a fairy tale to sell snake oil.

He goes on with, “wolves are the primary direct factor behind the disappearance of this northwoods icon”.  No Doctor; You and the USFWS and the DNR and your University cronies are responsible and you offer no solution other than a glass of warm milk before retiring.

Your nostrums from your retirement villa for the debacle and losses you wrought are too little and too late.  It will take men doing what men do best, to undo what you and your cronies once sold and offered as testimonials to justify imposing them on rural Americans.

To quote a Boatswain Mate I once knew, “put a cork in it!”

Jim Beers

15 Sep. 2016

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

Risky Business…or You’ve Proven My Point

*Editor’s Note* – Below is an article written by James Beers in which he expresses his point quite well. Those with understanding will agree, the rest don’t want to and thus, to them, he is wrong. I would, however, like to take a moment to further comment on, not what Beers wrote, but what I read that was, evidently, a letter/email the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin – Stout, sent to his students about why he removed two paintings from a heavily traveled hallway, and hid them is more difficult to find locations within the university.

Before I do, let me remind readers of an article I wrote only a few days ago called, “Why Blind Ignorance Persists…Blindly.” What the chancellor wrote, proves my point, exactly. Here’s why.

The letter states that he decided to move the two paintings because, “their current uncontrolled access poses a risk of having a harmful effect on our students and other viewers.” (emboldening added) Hold that thought for a moment.

The chancellor then attempts to explain what he was thinking (I use this term very loosely), “it was never my intent to “censor” these paintings or remove them from public view. I simply wanted to get them into situations where we had some control over who would view them.” (emboldening added)

The chancellor uses the the word “censor” as a verb, and thus the definition of “censor,” as a verb, is: “examine (a book, movie, [painting] etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.” He says he did not intend to censor the paintings and yet, because from his perspective as being the sole holder of truth and all others are wrong, he exactly censored the paintings, then pulled a typical politicians move to deny he did it.

Once the chancellor described the previous location of the paintings an “uncontrolled access” the mere term describes the lack of being able to censor. Once the paintings were moved, the chancellor eagerly admits that he wanted to get the paintings to a location where he had “control over who would view them.” Isn’t that precisely the definition of censorship?

But, I’m sure from the chancellor’s perspective, because any dialect these days is only right and left, and regardless of the false paradigm team you are on, your side is the only one that holds the “truth,” he has done nothing wrong and is justified in deciding which history is remembered and who gets to discover that history. 

To be so ignorant to deny censorship while exactly describing an act of censorship, I believe is a perfect example of the product of post-normal thinking, which is the result of propagandizing and indoctrination from Communitarianism’s control over what we casually in this country call education. Communitarianism, the creator of Common Core produces non thinking robots willing to subject their rights and independence to the authority of the common good.

If a person actually knew the difference, why would they want to spend the thousands of dollars at a university in which the result of your investment would be blind ignorance?

Risky Business

By James Beers

WARNING GRAPHIC INFORMATION, Definitely NOT Suitable for All Ages or Persons.  (BE WARNED!)

Welcome to the Upper Midwest; actually welcome to the Great Lakes States.

This is the part of the country (WI, MN, MI) where we all “love” wolves.  Where we all must (or we are disinvited from all ludafisk festivals and ice fishing contests) argue that the disappearance of moose; the loss of moose hunting; the decline in deer; the decline in deer hunting; the deaths of all manner of dogs from beagles and hounds and pets and bird dogs; the losses of cattle, calves, sheep, lambs, etc.; and the attack on a Minnesota camper and the death of a Wisconsin lady…. all of these things and many more; like over 30 diseases and infections of great and mortal danger to humans, wild animals and domestic animals; and the constant danger to children in rural yards, going to and from and waiting at rural bus stops or elderly rural residents checking mailboxes or mistakenly going “out back to get the neighbor’s dog” that turns out to be a wolf — all either do not exist or are the result of ticks, global “warming/climate change/whatever”, “tough” winters, or criminal “jack pine savage” (i.e. redneck) poachers that should be “cleared” from the land and imprisoned or banished back to whatever non-Muslim (of course) country they or their ancestors came from.  Future immigrants to these states should be “vetted” by federal “vetters” for any such “poaching” or “animal’s aren’t equal to humans” tendencies and if observed to have such tendencies forbidden to enter or obtain a visa.  Future illegal immigrants with any connections to harvesting, controlling or in any way harming wild animals should be sent to Guantanamo Bay and held there indefinitely and sterilized so that they will no longer “pollute” the USA gene pool we are building thanks to Progressive thinkers and their “partners” and “cooperators” in government and especially the UNIVERSITIES!

Think that is hyperbole, pilgrim?  Nationwide, the Universities are the main education/propaganda/justification hotbeds that:

–          Justify politician’s, both state and federal, unjustified pandering to and profiting from ignorant urban voters and radical environmental/animal “rights” activist’s interest in forcing their fellow Americans to submit to and endure all of the unjust laws (Endangered Species, Wilderness, etc.) and unjust takings (Critical Habitat, Access closures, rural economic elimination, Local government submission, etc.) that build their hegemony and that are destroying this once-great nation.

–          “Cooperate” with and “partner” with federal and state bureaucracies by creating faux biology and romance biology disguised as “science” to get grants, publicity, tenured teachers, increased staffs and funding, etc. to supply the propaganda demands of politicians running for re-election and bureaucrats larding their empires and careers.

–          “Educate” the teachers who get more power over our children every year.  Teachers that indoctrinate our children to accept what we know to be morally reprehensible or entirely false while turning out more and more academically-challenged “graduates” every year to bolster arguments for the need for more and more foreign students to fill the “technology gap”.

–          Create the whole aura of a “scientific elite” that increasingly must rule the rest of us ignorant boobs for our own good because the world is getting more complex and we are getting dumber.

Now the University of Wisconsin has, ever since the Vietnam War/”free”-love/drugs-for-all days been rightly known as “the Berkley of the Midwest”.  This title applies equally to their subsidiaries like UW-Stout from whose “Chancellor” the following Wall Street Journal tidbit emanates.

Note the titles of the paintings “French Trappers on the Red Cedar” and “Perraults Trading Fort”.  The Catholic priests like Father Marquette and Father Hennepin explored and worked to convert the native people of these states in the 1600’s. It is arguable that since the above-mentioned 1960’s the practice of the Catholic faith has dwindled in the Upper Midwest due to the same societal and cultural factors affecting trapping, hunting, wolves, rural clearances and the growth of amoral government and laws.

Fur trappers from Montreal were among the first Europeans that, simultaneously with those priests, explored the country, traded with the native people, and provided the basic foundation and transition for the inevitable change from a hunter/gatherer, use-of-natural-resources society to the settled and more-beneficial (to human society) landscapes that were the pride of these states up until the infamous 1960’s.  The sanctification of wolves, the total demolishment of major sport fisheries, explosion of harmful and injurious plants and animals, and the diminution of hunting and trapping have accompanied the complete and ongoing vilification of trapping, trappers and the worldwide fur market.

What you are about to read is merely the latest move by those destroying this nation.  If a state, like Wisconsin, can and will bamboozle a gullible public about history while justifying wolves and their effects why not just make the Great Lakes States like New Jersey and ban even the possession in your own home of a trap?  If New Jersey can ban even the possession of a trap on your wall; why not the art on your wall just like on some University “Hall wall”?  Are the state “educater-educators” teaching their “graduates” to do the same in the schools and perhaps even support encouraging children to inform on parents having “sensitive” or “banned” art on the walls of their homes?  Evidently, there is no extreme these pandering ninnies will not go to.  Why not just have a big bonfire of books and art objected to by these tax-paid propagandizers at the next UW-Stout Homecoming?  Joseph Goebbels would be proud!

Just read the following article.  My disgust for these bozoes and their incessant “it was never my intent to ‘censor’ these paintings or remove them from public view” and “the concerns Native Americans have expressed about how they are portrayed in the paintings” excuses about how, like guns and hunting, grazing and logging, private property rights, and state and local government eradication; it is never about doing-in those things; it is always about some higher good as, in this case rewriting history to please an interest group or denigrating both trapping and the arrival of a much more advanced society that we are dismantling as we simultaneously deny we are doing so.

Jim Beers

19 August 2016

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

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.

This is a copy of the email/letter sent to students:

Bob Meyer, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Stout, in an Aug. 5 email to students, faculty and staff:

I am providing an update on the status of the two paintings in Harvey Hall that I have decided should be removed from two hallways in that building because their current uncontrolled access poses a risk of having a harmful effect on our students and other viewers. . . .

“French Trappers on the Red Cedar” on the second floor will be relocated to the Dean’s Conference Room on the first floor of Harvey Hall. “Perrault’s Trading Fort” on the first floor of Harvey Hall will be relocated to room 504A in the Robert S. Swanson Library and Learning Center, the future location of University Archives. . . .

I also want to emphasize that, despite opinions to the contrary, it was never my intent to “censor” these paintings or remove them from public view. I simply wanted to get them into situations where we had some control over who would view them. These relocations will achieve that objective. . . .

. . .[T]hey will be made available for public viewing, along with a document that explains their historical significance and the concerns Native Americans have expressed about how they are portrayed in the paintings. After all, a university needs to encourage a free flow of ideas, even if those ideas make some people uncomfortable, as long as we don’t foist those ideas on unaware or unwilling recipients.

 

 

Share

Argue the Premise

By James Beers:

I am in agreement with those that say we are living in a “Dictatorship of Relativism”.

Relativism refers to the lack of agreement in any one truth and the embrace of unlimited alternatives that conflict with each other in any and all matters of the day.  Consider all the deeply held and conflicting beliefs surrounding such matters as:

–       Hunting is and should remain legal.

–       Grazing and logging on private and public property is beneficial and sustainable.

–       Private ownership of animals is a legal and beneficial tradition.

–       Prosecution and punishment of criminals should be the same for all races and sexes.

–       Churches should be subservient to government controls.

–       Gun ownership is a valuable right of all Americans interested in protecting themselves, their families and their community from criminals, terrorists and government factions determined to establish a dictatorship.

–       Government should never discriminate based on sex or race for any purpose.

–       Central government should be grown and lower levels made subservient to it.

–       Government should control sermons, healthcare, native/non-native species, water, land uses, life support decisions, etc.

–       Fetal (in the womb) humans should receive the total legal protection afforded federally-protected migratory birds.

–       Central government bureaucrats should decide bathroom use, education priorities, endangered species’ decrees, dam construction, energy development matters, whether to cooperate or not with State or Local officials, access roads and Local decisions affecting Local communities and their economies, etc.

*Note that I do not mention the Endangered Species Act or the US Forest Service or government regulations or some politician’s latest distraction disguised as some all-good proposal to solve some big problem he concocted in the first place.  What appear above are the PREMISES claimed to justify government allowing or prohibiting everything government controls or aims to control, as believed and supported by the most powerful among us.

dic-ta-tor-ship, n. 1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.  2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.

“Dictatorship of relativism” means the emergence of a ruling class with absolute power simply declaring under the auspices of what is in THEIR best interest what is right; what is wrong; what will be allowed; and what will be forbidden.  There is no “right” or “wrong” beyond what the dictator decrees.  There are no “rights” beyond what government allows or prohibits.  Regarding the PREMISES examples list; what government allows today, they may well prohibit tomorrow.  In other words, there is no truth or consistency guaranteed by government and the powerful that control it: there are only their individual interests served by such uncontrolled and unresponsive government.  It has always been so.

I must constantly remind myself of this.  While the day-to-day confrontation of the latest US Fish and Wildlife Service lies about government-imposed large predators; or the public refutation of the latest land closures to grazing or logging or hunting or trapping or access or beaches by government; etc., etc. are each and totally necessary: too often we limit ourselves to the minutiae of the problem at hand.  By that I mean we refute and argue the “study” or the “regulation” or the court precedent or the bureaucrat’s lie or the scientists misleading humbug and collapse in a heap either as winners emboldened to keep fighting or as losers mumbling “what’s the use, it is hopeless”.

Whether we are hunters, trappers, fishermen, wood cutters, ranchers, animal owners, small businessmen, rural residents, beach-goers, property owners, Local governments, State governments, or the foregoing’s Non-Government Organizations; we all are guilty of not arguing the PREMISES.  When we have numerous disagreements among ourselves we are like armies without discipline or any agreement about what we are fighting for.  Thus we avoid the conflict associated with taking on the PREMISES with government and those controlling them to savage our rights, our families, our culture, our traditions and our way of life.  As long as this persists, we will steadily diminish and ultimately vanish into the maw of a dictatorship like plankton disappearing into the gullet of a whale shark.

For instance, arguing about wolf/coyote hybrids and their “protection” is like arguing about how many angels can coexist on the head of a pin.  It is meaningless trivia to avoid reaching agreement that angels exist or not; just like the hybrid question avoids the resolution of the question that government either has or does not have the authority to introduce, protect, take property, reduce rural economies, or endanger rural residents on behalf of any animal not accepted or welcomed by those forced to accommodate them.

Is it “just” (i.e. “actuated by truth, justice, and lack of bias – to be just in one’s dealings”) for government to “prefer” certain “races” and “sexual designations” for everything from jobs and college admissions to housing and financial assistance?  What is the Constitutional and “just” role of US government?  What is the truth?

All of PREMISES underlying these matters are hidden and distorted by government and media propaganda as well as the schoolroom nonsense disguised as “education”.  Rationales from growing government power and the implementation of so many hidden agendas from gun control to elimination of hunting, ranching and timber management are all driving these “do-good” laws, regulations and policies.  We are reduced to arguing about these immediate issues based on things like:

–       Hunters and trappers are mean persons.

–       Ranchers destroy rural habitats.

–       Loggers kill animals, habitats, and precious vistas.

–       Federal experts are smarter than State or other “experts”.

–       “Scientists” (in the employ of or hoping to be favored by government fund administrators) say…

In short, we and “our” (mostly cowardly) organizations need to Argue the Premises of our interests loud and clear.  We need to stand firm about defending what we hold dear.  All the last 45 years of getting along, pretending to see the “wisdom” of radical government policies, and worrying about how neighbors or voters will see us and our interests has gotten us only deeper into the hole they are digging to bury us.  If the Founding Fathers had behaved like we do; we would have just had to vote about whether or not “we” (i.e. Great Britain) would leave the EU (BREXIT)?  If Britain was full of folks like us for that vote, they would probably still be in the EU and the papers would be full of pictures of boats full of refugees from not only Islamic war-torn lands but also from Terrorist-infested lands like Norway and Sweden.

Argue the Premise.  To do otherwise is like the Founding Fathers sending a Committee to London in 1776 to “appeal” tax and military policies of the King.  Lots of luck with that, just like our luck with all this arguing about meaningless things has been and will remain, all bad.  If we cannot agree on a common truth (the role of government; the responsibility for our surroundings; the very nature of our humanity; etc.) our fate will be dictatorship by a default we brought upon ourselves.

Jim Beers

10 August 2016

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

Letter to the Wall Street Journal

by James Beers

*A Letter to the Wall Street Journal and to Shawn Regan (PERC, Bozeman, Montana) about his 25 April Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled, National Parks: Lost in the Wilds of Neglect.

Tick, Tick*

Shawn Regan is to be commended for his description of the irresolvable and increasing maintenance backlog throughout the National Park System.  The same is true of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forests and the Bureau of Land Management real estate.  His recommendations of stopping acquisition; selling land to generate revenue for maintenance backlogs; keeping park revenues locally; turning to the private economy to tackle infrastructure and operations problems; and creating a franchising system for new parks are each and all sound and needed actions for all four large federal land ownerships.

We must keep in mind one hidden cost however; the cost hidden by the federal bureaucrats from the public for decades.  Concessionaires on these federal estates are mostly long-established and entrenched businesses operating under government agreements and contracts.  Over time, Concession improvements, facilities and other real property have been provided by the concessionaires.  Such real property remains the property of the concessionaires that use that as a reason to remain the concession operators although the illusion has been that of federal bureaucracy providing them.

Close the Park (or Refuge or Forest et al) and the concessionaire can sue for return of or reimbursement of the property and values “donated” over the years.  The costs of this on these federal properties subject to Mr. Regan’s badly needed (for more reasons than maintenance) prescriptions will present the Congress with an enormous bill and lawsuits that will significantly diminish the hoped-for revenue to “tackle” maintenance and operations on remaining landholdings.

Jim Beers

Former Chief of Refuge Operations, USFWS, Washington, DC

25 April 2016

Share

WOLVES – How Much? How Long?

By James Beers:

I receive many requests to “write something” or “support” some federal wolf legislative proposal or some State fish and wildlife Budget Request for a “special” appropriation to “manage” wolves that are killing livestock.  I regret to say that, like other requests to get behind a “special” federal regulation modification to “return wolf management” to certain states; I more often than not spend my time on other things that I believe to be more useful.

Why do I not actively support such “important” and “necessary” government actions?  Let me count the ways.

  1. As long as the Endangered Species Act remains on the books, all of these things are like a hologram in one of those Star Wars movies; that is to say merely illusions controlled from some far off location.  They can be made dormant when convenient and activated immediately when opportune to bureaucrats and their “partners”.
  2. As we hum like busy bees over the need for more dollars for the state guys and gals that put the wolves in our midst and that look away as they spread and multiply killing livestock and dogs and big game while lying to us about the wolves and when pinned to the wall whine that their “Plan” (dictated, approved and overseen by federal bureaucrats) is all they can go by.
  3. Federal bureaucrats, utilizing federal law and the regulations they (the bureaucrats) write and modify with pro-wolf non-government organizations) to constantly “push and probe” the American public like ISIS terrorists as to how to keep the states “in line” with federal goals as the wolves spread and multiply from valley to plain and state to state.
  4. State and federal wildlife bureaucrats that were once (decades ago) the most highly respected bureaucrats in government have come to be known as liars (the right word) and connivers that, without hesitation or reluctance, ignore legislative review mandates and public input, use groundless figures like puppet-government bureaucrats in an occupied country, and operate and enlarge a lawless shadow government for their own benefit utilizing clandestine NGO “partners” with more lawless hidden agendas than the American Communist Party or the latest Moslem lobbying organization.
  5. I have come to view all those things I admit to not supporting as simply delay and distraction tactics by bureaucrats, politicians and NGO’s that are destroying rural America and the national rule of law.

As I write this, March 2016, the bureaucrats are all being “so nice” and “listening to our “needs”.  Why?  Because there is a Presidential election underway and all those wildlife bureaucrats and their political hacks appointed to run them know where this gravy train is buttered.  They all want a President, Congress, Supreme Court, State Legislature and Governor of either Party that will “support” “sound conservation biology”.  “Sound conservation biology’’ is translated as “bigger budgets”, “more land ownership and control”, “more bureaucrats”, “more government authority and jurisdiction”, and any other things the bureaucrats want that will get and keep votes for the politicians in power.  Thus, bureaucrats will “push and probe” (see 1 through 5 above) in ways that get those politicians most in the bureaucrat’s pockets (yes they are just like lobbyists) elected and reelected.

There are two kinds of politicians that bureaucrats do not want to see elected: one they can live with and one they despise.  They can live with the “can’t we all just get along” politicians.  Those guys will just leave everything (see 1 through 5 above) in place and occasionally throw crumbs like a new Wilderness or Marine Sanctuary to urban voters or suburban women, or support the latest “management return” to a State (under conditions of an “approved” Plan and with the clear bureaucrat understanding that it can all be reclaimed with a lawsuit or regulatory maneuver by federal bureaucrats when opportune in the future).  An example of this was President GW Bush keeping a politician (in charge of the +/-$60 Million missing from the Pittman Robertson Excise Taxes for state agencies’ wildlife programs to introduce wolves in the mid 1990’s into the Upper Rocky Mountain States) in a non-job until the his Party came back into power and made him Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Like so many other transformative Progressive actions, they push and push relentlessly until there appears to be a developing pushback (today?) and then we are all supposed to sing Kumbaya around the fire and let it all stay in place until they seize total power again (like 2009-2010) at which time they resume right where they left off with a vengeance.

The politician the bureaucrats despise the most though is the one that comes in saying and actually intending to amend unjust laws, reduce government and reorient federal intrusions into state and local authorities and jurisdictions.  I saw this first-hand when Ronald Reagan was elected and while he served two terms.  I had been working for the federal government for over a decade by then.  I was in Washington when President Reagan was elected and when he left.  Those were the days (1970’s-1990’s) when the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, BLM and other federal natural resource/land-owning bureaucracies were beginning to marginalize wildlife-managers/foresters/range managers and hiring, promoting and transferring anti-resource management employees with growing minority and female employees largely under EEO Preferences for which bonuses were paid and accepting political appointees with more and more of those anti-management, pro-environmental-sanctification values and agendas.  The result is what we deal with today. The nasty and hateful things commonly said about President Reagan and his appointees (i.e. the “menacing” Manny Lujan, the “dangerous” Jim Watt, et al) in bureaucratic privacy were both stunning and appalling.  The bureaucrat’s propaganda machine did everything it could to make him look stupid and his appointees to look like morons.  It never let up and it was disgraceful to say the least.  Ask yourselves Mr. & Mrs. America, how is any reform even possible without a strong confrontation?

So you ask, what has all this to do with “Wolves”?  What do you mean by “How Much?” by “How Long?”

Never forget or doubt that the Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS, Animal Welfare Institute, Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Wildlife Federation, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, PETA, et al agree that the end game is no hunting, no trapping, no animal management, no animal control, no animal ownership, no animal use, no animal commerce and no unregulated activity by any citizen even remotely involved with any wild or domestic animal.  These groups have annual get-togethers with state and federal bureaucrats, they lobby federal and state politicians and they serve as an employee-pool for federal and state agencies.  They work with and serve as a bookend for federal and state wildlife agencies when paired with the increasingly get-along hunting/fishing/ranching/land owner Non-Government Organizations originally formed to advocate for their namesakes (Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, American Cattlemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, et al).  These latter have, like many accuse the Republican “Establishment” in Washington of becoming, evolved into “get-along partners” with the very bureaucracies and Non-Government bureaucracies they were founded to either support or oppose.  Add in the big sporting goods businesses (selling smuggled – no Excise Tax – Chinese fishing tackle, supporting federal “Invasive Species Authority while displaying pheasants and brown trout on the walls of their stores, etc.) and you have plenty of blame to go around.

But, the big 800# gorilla in the room described in the foregoing paragraph is which ones (or one), take your time here, would really fight to keep the federal animal control function when (not if) all of the above dandies advocate or go AWOL when Wildlife Services is finally dumped into the bureaucratic junkyard or moved and renamed the Office of Interpretive Human Management or some such concoction?  That is going to happen.

Wildlife Services was the first federal foray into federal wildlife authority and jurisdiction way back in the 19th century.  Wildlife Services has had many names and up until the environmental Armageddon in the 1970’s many USFWS Managers came from the Wildlife Services workforce.  The Avant Garde, Nouveau employees and political appointees of the 1990’s led the charge to abolish Wildlife Services but powerful advocates came to its defense and everyone cheered when the despised Wildlife Services was transferred from USFWS to the USDA under President Clinton.  Make no mistake there are increasingly powerful bureaucrat and NGO forces that will cut funding to and move to abolish the Wildlife Services under the next tyrannical reign (like Roman Emperors’ changes often were) and opportunity.

So, the question is, “How Long will Wildlife Services be around to:

–       Act as a placebo (i.e. “kill a wolf when 2 / 3 whatever ‘verified’ livestock losses take place) while wolves are continuing to spread?

–       Verify, “Yes it was wolves” or “no it was dogs” honestly?

–       Be the only state-wide or national data point for dog losses to wolves?

–       Be the only state-wide or national data point for what is REALLY happening to big game animals due to predation by wolves?

–       Be the only entity capable of actually catching/capturing/trapping/snaring/ etc. offending wolves quickly and efficiently?

–       Be the one remaining entity with a few employees willing and able to kill offending dangerous and destructive animals?

–       Be the only remaining government entity recognizing the destructiveness of both wild and domestic animals and the need to be equipped to take concrete and effective action.

–       Be the only repository of government employees that (while in the field and away from political-hack handlers) can advise and describe wolf problems and solutions to American citizens.

The point being, when Wildlife Services is gone or converted into some sort of environmental seminary for new employees, HOW WILL OR WHO WILL CONTROL WOLVES AND THEIR DESTRUCTION?  The federal and most state governments are committed to not let the “management by the state”, or faux concern for predation, or eased control for rural residents go on long.  That may be when the wolves are irreversible (perhaps in another 4 or 5 states) or when numbers in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 states are in the tens of thousands and the next arrogant President and “his” or “her” Congress takes control and Wildlife Services is teaching macramé; will any of us look back and say (or will out kids and grandkids say?), “how stupid were we (they) to think that there would be:

–       Eternal wolf-counting to monitor adherence to “plans”?

–       Never-ending selective wolf control based on actual damages?

–       Obligatory government protection of rural property and rural lives from government wolves?

–       Ever any management of wolf damage and destruction levels or wolf densities by the bureaucrats and politicians that put the wolves there.

–       Government wolf control in a world of no rural rights to control any animals that was always a lie that once realized it is too late to ever put the wolves back in the bottle or punish the liars that profited and are long gone to some gated-golf community in a sunny climate.

The second question is, “How Much State and Federal Tax Dollars is all this, and Future, Wolf Bay-Sitting Going to Take?”

 

Take Washington State’s latest maneuver to hire a “conflict specialist” or Oregon’s request for more money to control wolves depredating on livestock: where does such money come from?

–       When fewer folks buy hunting licenses because of lack of game and human safety concerns, wildlife program funding declines.

–       When government gun control and ammunition bans make purchases more difficult, more expensive and (except for self-protection) gun sales decrease; Excise Tax Revenue from the sale of Arms and Ammunition for state wildlife programs decreases.

–       Hunting License Revenue and Excise Tax Revenue are the two major sources of funding for state wildlife programs.

–       Baby-sitting wolves (counting, researching, enforcing, public relations, hearings, investigating depredations, etc.) not only comes (from the federal government) with NO FUNDING OF ANY PERMANENCE, IT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE DECLINE OF ALL WILDLIFE PROGRAM FUNDING!  Why it’s enough to make you a “black helicopter conspiracy” guy. Who could let this happen?  Why doesn’t someone say something?

–       So with a federal government +/-$20 Trillion in debt and state governments wondering where their next year’s tax revenue will come from, does anyone in rural America really believe that there will be money from either the state or federal politicians to do all this predation “verification”/compensation-payment/control of offending animals/public relations/censussing/federal compliance/etc. wolf babysitting ad infinitum?

Yeah, the New England environmental voters will support keeping ranching and big game hunting safe from wolves Out West with federal dollars. Federal and State bureaucrats will request budget increases to “study” alternatives like contracting it out to Defenders of Wildlife like wolf compensation was farmed out when wolves were first dumped and forced into states that were too “nice” to object. The Seattle/Portland/San Francisco/Los Angeles voters will enthusiastically vote eternal big ticket state funding to minimize cattle depredation, big game losses and rural dog deaths from wolves in rural parts of their states.  Just like I am sure Minneapolis and Milwaukee voters will gladly spring for more and more millions every year to bring back Minnesota moose or Wisconsin elk being eliminated by wolves.  Especially when the ONLY REAL ANSWER is killing 70% of the wolves every year for a decade and then killing the amount required annually to keep them at about 25% of current numbers or (in a just world) exterminating them from Counties that do not want wolves and then KEEPING them extinct in such environs.  Heck, I’d bet that Chicago voters and Philadelphia/New York voters would be the first ones to step up to the plate to save the state wildlife agencies of other states if they were asked to do so with federal funds.  Who can believe any of this?

We are just like those passengers on the Titanic, so secure in our belief that we and our vessel are indestructible that we ignore the iceberg before us while rearranging the deck chairs.

Jim Beers

30 March 2016

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