January 19, 2019

Analysis of a News Release

By James Beers:

I just received the following news release from a knowledgeable and trustworthy friend in Washington, DC. I long ago lost all trust in the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in DC; the National Wild Turkey Foundation and Trout Unlimited (TU). The Outdoor Writers Association of America is a sort of union of outdoor writers whose interests lie in sponsorship and payments for writing to outdoor writers and, sad to say, this goal lies today with political hidden agendas: therefore their interest in American values and their fellow citizens are akin to the West Coast Longshoremen’s Union’s membership and leadership’s concern for rural South Dakotans.

Titles like “Backcountry Hunters and Anglers” are purposeful misnomers on the scale of “People’s Republic of…” and “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.. This info burst below could well have been written recently by some Russian newsperson about how a handful of brave Ukrainian freedom fighters have liberated much of their homeland recently against tremendous odds and despite all the military supplies and reinforcements that could be provided by Europe and the USA. Look no further in this propaganda masterpiece than all the references to hunting and fishing to be reserved for “athletes” that will eventually be unavailable to all as wildlife and fishery management thanks to these guys goes the way of Dodo birds; and the identification of the Democrat operative nowhere as a Democrat but rather as having worked for “Republican Legislators” much as all the anti-hunters I have listened to over the years that began their speech with “I am a hunter” or “I grew up hunting”.

Note the underlines below and you will recognize that quasi-religious nature worship that despises humans of certain types, similar to eugenicists and population controllers whose real motives and future plans must remain hidden until, like the 1939 Blitzkrieg into Poland, it is too late to resist.

Finally consider today’s political date: there is an upcoming Presidential Election that is already underway. First, these sorts of outfits will be grinding out national political publicity and environmental extremism disguised as news from the Montana (environmental holy land-like) backcountry in an orchestrated and quickly responsive way as the election process proceeds; and second, in case of a loss in the Presidential election, this “Backcountry seminary” will serve as a refuge for political hacks and ne’er-do-wells (as NWF and TU have each done often in the past) as either a roost until the political trumpet sounds the next campaign or until they can retire, whichever comes first.

Jim Beers
23 February 2015

The News Release:

Subject: BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS AND ANGLERS: (This is a Democrat Party front group based in Missoula, MT with serious cash behind it.) – This underlined remark in parentheses is from my friend in Washington,,, Jim)

PUBLIC LANDS:

Backcountry sportsmen’s group beefs up policy, outreach team

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Published: Monday, February 23, 2015

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a national sportsmen’s advocacy group based in Missoula, Mont., has hired two new staff members to strengthen its policy and communications work.

John Gale is the group’s new conservation director after serving nearly a decade at the National Wildlife Federation, where he supported sportsmen campaigns and public lands policy.

Katie McKalip is BHA’s new communications director after several years with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, where she led media outreach and other communications work.

Both joined BHA’s national staff this month.

“John’s background and appetite for engagement in the policy arena combined with Katie’s expertise in communicating these issues to the media and sportsmen in general will be instrumental to our continued and increasing success,” Land Tawney, BHA’s executive director, said in a statement.

“They’re joining BHA at a pivotal moment, and I couldn’t be more excited to have them be part of our team.”

The hires come at a time of fast growth for BHA, a decade-old group whose membership numbers have doubled over the past 18 months, the group said. It had six staffers and ran on a $582,000 budget in 2013, according to its most recent filing to the IRS.

See

BHA now has 13 staffers and is hiring a 14th, it said.

BHA works to preserve non-motorized access to backcountry hunting and fishing grounds and protect wildlife habitats from incompatible off-highway vehicle use and energy development. It has ramped up efforts to oppose bids for states to take over federal lands, which it argues would reduce access to quality wildlife habitat.

Gale, who hails from Idaho, cut his political teeth after high school working for Republicans in the Gem State Legislature. He later was a whitewater river guide and ranger while studying natural resources at the University of Idaho. Currently a resident of suburban Denver, Gale said he considers elk season “a spiritual time of the year.”

“The backcountry is where wildlife populations are healthiest,” he said in an interview. “If you’re willing to work for it, the rewards are tremendous.

It’s getting more difficult to experience solitude and get away from it all.”

Gale, who has served on BHA’s board, said the group appeals to a younger generation of hunters and anglers.

“We’re attracting backcountry athletes who invest more in their hiking boots than their beer bellies,” he said. “There’s an ecumenical set of hunters who want to go deeper into the forest. The hike in is worth the pack out.”

Gale spent the past couple of years directing NWF’s national sportsmen’s policy effort, organizing hunters and anglers as advocates in public lands and energy policy. Before joining NWF, Gale worked for three years at Trout Unlimited in Washington, D.C.

McKalip cited BHA’s work to protect Americans’ ownership and access to public lands, as well as the enthusiasm of its members.

“Communicating the importance of policy and legislative issues to rank-and-file sportsmen can be a challenging task at best,” McKalip said in a statement. “I’m eager to put my experience to work in support of BHA’s mission and in service of the millions of citizens who cherish the solitude, solace and physical challenges found in America’s backcountry.”

McKalip has worked with the board of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, where she previously directed communications. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the College of William & Mary and a master’s degree from the University of Montana.

TRCP last month announced that it and more than a dozen other sporting and conservation groups — including BHA, the National Wild Turkey Federation and Trout Unlimited — were forming a grass-roots coalition of sportsmen to persuade lawmakers not to transfer federal lands to the states.

Share

We Are All Montanans Now

By James Beers:

A stunning maneuver by the federal government was recently brought to my attention. While it is directed at the government of the State of Montana concerning shooting ranges; there is a much broader precedent establishment being attempted that concerns every state official and every rural resident that farms, grazes, hunts, fishes, traps, owns animals and/or owns property or recreates in myriad ways on both public and private rural landscapes.

BACKGROUND:

* Since 1987 Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks have partnered to make about $25 M in grants available to local shooting ranges. This wildly popular program has made a huge difference in the availability of safe and suitable places for Montanans to shoot and practice gun (and by extension hunter) safety.

* Early in the program, federal funding was sought but insurmountable red tape from several federal sources made such funding impractical. For more than a decade, in-state hunting license fees were used to fund the program

* The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has always administered the program and this was confirmed in a State Statute in 1999.

* State funding budgets are confirmed every two years (the Legislature meets every two years).

* In the last two funding cycles, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has diverted nearly all of this funding from the State budget for other purposes not budgeted by the Legislature such as employee pay raises.

* This year the State Legislature is considering proposing putting the money they authorize for shooting ranges into a separate account to be used ONLY for shooting ranges.

* The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks objects to this, claiming it violates the Pittman Robertson (Wildlife Restoration) Act that is the basis for federal collection of Excise Taxes on guns, ammunition, archery paraphernalia and certain imports. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks notified the US Fish and Wildlife Service Excise Tax administrators who have threatened to deny all Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration funds (over $27M last year) if the State tells their own agency where to spend the money they authorize for shooting ranges. As a result, the State’s own wildlife agency is fixing to oppose the State legislature and Governor’s exercise of their duly elected and sworn duty to exercise oversight and set priorities OVER THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE STATE AGENCY THEY ESTABLISHED, AUTHORIZED, FUND AND FOR WHICH THEY (THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR) ARE THE SOURCE OF THEIR POWER AND CONTINUING OPERATION.

FURTHER FEDERAL BACKGROUND:

* The US Fish and Wildlife Service Office that was notified by the State agency was the Federal Aid Program. This State Excise Tax oversight office is the very office that “saw no evil, heard no evil, and said no evil” twenty years ago when their political bosses stole $45 to 60M of the Excise Taxes from the state agencies (and you and me and our wildlife programs financed by our license dollars and equipment purchases) and then used the money secretly to capture Canadian wolves and release them in Yellowstone plus open a new office in California to all but share space with the environmental extremist and animal rights radical organizations that were replacing the historic wildlife management and wildlife users organizations as federal partners. Both the wolves and the office had been turned down by Congress and were refused authorization before the appointees, bureaucrats and the administration decided to simply steal the money, release the wolves and build the new office anyway.

* This federal office oversees the operation of state wildlife agencies for compliance with Excise Tax uses named as “eligible” in the law and the operation of the state wildlife agency activities and uses of license revenue to remain eligible for their annual share or “Apportionment” of available Excise Taxes based on their area and the sale of hunting licenses in the state. Historic violations included Excise Tax or license dollars used to purchase vehicles for state motor pools; or such funds used to pay state parks’ employees; or hatchery fish or upland birds released on the private property of donors and politicians; or lands purchased with such funds used to build a prison; or revenue from timber sales on such lands put in the General Treasury; or selling wildlife for profit. These are examples of “diversions” and were supposed to be detected by audits by the overseers every five years as required by the law. Despite this requirement, the twenty years preceding the theft of the $45 to 60M were marked by the all-but disappearance of any audits, a hiatus that was welcomed by federal and state bureaucrats as their working “relationship” became closer and closer and more and more “informal”. When the theft of the money was exposed by a Government ACCOUNTING Office Audit, an audit firm was hired to audit every state wildlife agency and then to re-establish a 5-year cycle as required by law, corruption again reared its ugly head. Less than 3 years into the audits, the auditors had had found millions of dollars in “diversions”; the states were screaming (quietly); and federal bureaucrats wanted no more scandals: so the auditors were fired for being “behind schedule” and the Interior Department Inspector General who was simultaneously responsible for overseeing US Fish and Wildlife Service (?) was then “hired” to resume the audits. Needless to say, the “diversions” were evidently “mistakes” and never reported; and that particular Inspector General was introduced later by President Obama at his first State of the Union as the “New Inspector General for the Stimulus Program” that consisted of billions and which, like the state PR audits, was found to be as pure as the driven snow.

* An “Acting Chief” of the above Office responded to the letter from the Director of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks about shooting ranges and how those mean old Legislators and the Governor were about to tell the all-wise and smarter-than-everybody-else agency what to do! Imagine! Well, the
“Acting” (federal) Chief in what can only be described as an arrogant and laughable (if everyone rolls over for him) way said in his “view” (??) such administration by the State elected officials would “render Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks ineligible for further participation in the benefits (i.e. Excise Tax funding) of the (Wildlife and Sport Fish Program)”.

He told the downtrodden State Director that, in “our (federal government?, USFWS?, Solicitor?, a frog in his pocket?) view the (sic Montana) FWP would suffer a loss of control of its hunting and fishing license revenues” if the proposed bill was passed. All the State Director does is to tell the State officials that he will therefore be compelled to oppose the attempt by the Governor and Legislature to tell him (and “his” employees) what to do or how to do it. The fact that the State Director offered no blowback to the federal threat is, take my word, a clue.

Two reasons given for this federal threat to deny any future Excise Tax sharing are taken from the Code of Federal Regulations govern the PR Act in the letter:

1.) “Revenue from hunting and fishing licenses (must) be controlled only by the State Fish and Wildlife Agency.”

Does this mean that the Governor or Legislature cannot set priorities and expenditures for lawful and eligible Wildlife and Fisheries activities? Of course not! Can anyone argue that this Excise Tax program for conservation has contained within it for over 70 years an authority for federal bureaucrats to not merely assure that State governments did not MISUSE Excise Tax and Licenses dollars BUT TO DENY STATE GOVERNMENTS ANY ROLE IN THE ACTIVITIES AND PRIORITIES THEREOF FOR THEIR WILDLIFE AGENCY TO PURSUE JUST, LEGITIMATE AND ELIGIBLE (UNDER THE PR ACT) FISH AND WILDLIFE PROJECTS (that both the Act and the State agency share and agree on? Since when did the responsibility to assure compliance intended to protect “Eligible Uses” of Excise Tax and License dollars morph into a federal bureaucrat power to tell the duly elected officials of a State government to stand down because the federal bureaucrats doesn’t agree with their and the people of the state’s priorities?

2.) “Revenues from hunting and fishing licenses can only be used for administration of the State fish and wildlife agency which includes only the functions required to manage the agency and the fish and wildlife related resources for which the agency has authority under State law” and, “A State becomes ineligible to receive the benefits of the Act if it diverts hunting and fishing license revenue from purposes other than the agency’s administration.” Really?

The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks was given the administration authority over shooting ranges by the Montana Legislature in 1999.

But, I am sure you are thinking, what about the federal view of shooting ranges especially in these days of gun control hysterics and the most anti-gun administration in my lifetime?

The PR Act and the Regulations promulgated under it define “Eligible Uses” of Excise Tax dollars and license revenues as “Constructing, operating and maintaining recreational firearms shooting and archery ranges” right alongside other eligible uses such as, “Management of wild bird and mammal populations”, “Managing wildlife habitat”, and “Providing public use that benefits from Wildlife Resources”.

So the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has the authority to manage shooting ranges and shooting ranges in totality are an “eligible use” under the federal Act and under State law, and the Governor and Legislature simply want more emphasis on it and for the agency to stop diverting shooting range money from where the State Legislators direct. How does the federal bureaucrat suggest they do that other than what they are considering? Will the federal bureaucrat pay for it like “the People” want? Will the federal bureaucrat even allow the Governor and State Legislature to even speak with these ostensible crybaby employees or will they just get their priorities from Washington henceforth? Federal priorities for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, given their way, span everything from wolves and grizzly “management” in accord with federal dictates to fooling a hostile Montana public into allowing federal “free-roaming buffalo” to be loosed like Yellowstone wolves once were and for eventually the State to “assume management” (how sweet that sounds) of the latest federal imposition following federal dictates on rural Montana in cahoots with State employees. All that takes money and Lord knows Montanans may want shooting ranges but federal bureaucrats want gun control and control of these ostensible “State” agencies AND their license revenue And their Excise Tax dollars to do what Montanans are obviously too dense to realize they should be doing if only they could see “the big picture”.

Finally, I had some extraneous, but I believe relevant, thoughts as I wrote this:

* I note that the State agency is “preparing to argue against HB 234”. This plus their request to federal overseers and then the absence of any blowback by the state agency to argue for the State (and evidently NOT the State agency’s) position leads me to believe that this State agency (like many others) is much more of a federal subcontractor agency than a State Agency. As Struther Martin said in the movie Cool Hand Luke, I think that regarding the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; the Governor and Legislature have “a failure to communicate”.

* State agencies are generally reluctant to identify with “shooting ranges” in these days of national and international environmental and animal rights “awareness”. Shooting Ranges are generally like Trapping and Animal Control in these regards in that they anger those out to eliminate hunting and fishing and do things like loose free-roaming buffalo on rural Americans.

* Wolves and grizzlies and like critters are loosed on a rural populace by federal bureaucrats and then “turned over” to state (is it their governments or one of these “independent” agencies???) management. This federally mandated management of these animals is expensive and the federal bureaucrats and State bureaucrats WANT FULL CONTROL OF ALL STATE FUNDS AND PRIORITIES WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY TO STATE GOVERNMENTS OR STATE TAXPAYERS. This is not unrelated to these federal PR bureaucrats and State agency bureaucrats colluding to do just that with STATE LICENSE FUNDING EXPENDITURES AND PRIORITIES.

* Federal bureaucrats these days accrue significant political and career benefits from enacting ways to further restrict gun uses, gun availability and ammunition supplies. Examples are – The secret negotiations by the State Department under Clinton and Kerry to negotiate a UN Small Arms Treaty that will shrink or abolish the 2nd Amendment. The Fast and Furious federal gun-running scheme into Mexico intended to create justification for more gun control that has never been explained. Closure by EPA of the last lead smelter in the US. Continuous statements by the President and Attorney General about the need to register and confiscate guns, etc……. Is it not possible that any federal bureaucrats that can establish a PRECEDENT to abolish any vestige of State control of their state wildlife agency, or their state wildlife license revenue, or such agency’s activities, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY POINT THE WAY ON HOW TO STOP AND REVERSE THE GROWTH OF SHOOTING RANGES might not at least be in line for a bonus and maybe an eventual promotion and all that portends? I do not doubt that this is involved in this whole tug of war between the government of Montana on the one hand and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks & US Fish and Wildlife Service “partners” on the other.

Consider YOUR State wildlife agency. It gets Excise Taxes and dances to a federal tune that is steadily pushing YOU and YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT out of the picture. If Montana succumbs here; whether because of State employees that serve Washington and not your state government or because of federal bureaucrats that have silenced your organizations and are working so closely with your enemies that you won’t see what is happening until it is too late is immaterial: you will be like that lonesome German noted in the early 1940’s, “when they came for me, no one was there”. Truly we are all Montanans in these regards.

Allow me two analogies: State wildlife agencies are becoming like that famous horse Lincoln once noted was bucking and got his foot caught in the stirrup and his rider (the Governor, Legislature and people of the state) leaned over and told him if he will just calm down, “I will get off so you can get up”.

The federal agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service with its ESA and easement schemes with radicals; the US Forest Service with its Roadless/Wilderness/Grazing Shutdowns/Logging & Timber Management Elimination; BLM with its Bundy Fiascoes and selective use and management shutdowns; and National Park Service with its Viewsheds/Historic Zones/Total anti-natural resource management and use mission) are like Oscar Wilde’s famous Picture of Dorian Gray. He was an outwardly handsome and wealthy man that made a pact with the devil that his secret life of corruption and vice would only be noted on a painting of himself hidden away in his attic while he stayed forever young and spotless. Just as Dorian met an horrific end, so too will these federal agencies that are operating on a no longer real image that was once true but any longer simply conceals an existence of harm to people and abuse of power that will eventually end in something much worse than anyone imagines.

Jim Beers
17 February 2015

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

Settled Landscapes

By James Beers:

“Settled Landscapes” is a term both mellifluous and of primary importance as I write this in early 2015. It is especially important to the rural residents of the Lower 48 States of the United States and the rural inhabitants of the European continent.

I first became actually aware of the term and its’ importance about ten years ago while learning all I could and writing about wolves and grizzly bears, two large and impactful predators that had been declared “Endangered” for a wide range of hidden agendas and that therefore were being forcibly imposed by federal fiat and power on a growing area of rural America in the Lower 48 States.

I was reading some comments by Dr. Val Geist, a retired Canadian University Professor, Ecologist and Wildlife Biologist par excellence. He was making the simple, yet undeniable, statement that given a long list of very negative effects on humans, human communities, human economies and the wolves themselves; his words, “wolves do not belong in ‘Settled Landscapes’” not only caught my attention but have rung ever more true over the years. Although I have never met Dr. Geist, I have learned more from him over the years through frequent communications and collaborations.

So, what is a “Settled Landscape”?

To the environmental extremist, it might be the buildings on Manhattan Island, but not Central Park itself. It might be New York City’s 5 Boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) but not Long Island or Westchester County. It might be the Eastern Seaboard but not everything West of the Appalachians and East of California, Oregon and Washington State.

To an old Alaskan bachelor trapper, it might be everything South of the 60th Parallel that roars out of the Bering Sea by Nunivak Island heading East just North of the Alaskan Peninsula and Skagway to make the Northern Border of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Many older Alaskans still see those lands South of that Parallel as what they once called a century ago, the place of the Cheechakoes or those that were new to or recent arrivals in the “real” Alaska.

To many urban Americans, it might be all of the Lower 48 States outside the current edges of suburban sprawl form the metropolitan center they tell others from far away they are “from”.

To politicians, it is where (like Willie Sutton the notorious bank robber once answered the question in prison about why he kept robbing banks and answered matter-of-factly “because that is where the money is”) the “votes are”.

To the government bureaucrats it is anything they want to make of it or even ignore it in the regulations they write under the burgeoning authorities they reap as present-day politicians pass law after law to garner the votes and financial support of the urban worthies who see the results as affecting only those places and bumpkins outside the urban sprawl surrounding where they live.

What, you might be asking, did I see of such importance in Dr. Geist’s observation? What I saw was the simple and undeniable truth that as humans advance, order and improve their living conditions and communities certain animals that once occurred in those now “settled landscapes” must of necessity be either controlled at certain levels (i.e. big game, furbearers, upland game) or eliminated in those “settled landscapes”. Some examples of animals that can become incompatible with growing or advancing human societies and therefore call for management controls on their numbers and distributions, or for their elimination would be:

* Elephants in areas of agriculture where their wanderings destroy crops and endanger children and elderly persons as they pass through inhabited sites as free-roaming buffalo once did and would do again if imposed on rural residents of the Lower 48 States.

* Poisonous snakes, constrictors, poisonous spiders and frogs, etc. that reside in or near and wander into human living sites.

* Animals that carry and transmit diseases and infections like tapeworms, hoof-and-mouth, plague, rabies, anthrax, etc. like wolves and coyotes that endanger human lives or property such as livestock, valued wildlife or dogs.

* Animals that compete for forage with livestock or game animals; or that destroy haystacks, orchards or food-producing plants like elk and deer.

* Animals that denude property of plants and are responsible for deadly disease outbreaks or that make holes that cause livestock and humans to injure themselves like prairie dogs.

* Animals that are unpredictable and present threats to humans from rural children and the elderly to hikers, campers, joggers, dog walkers, hunters and other rural recreationists and workers like grizzly bears, cougars and wolves.

Uncontrolled large predators like grizzly bears, wolves, cougars or panthers, jaguars, coyotes, or black bears that kill and attack people, destroy livestock operations, kill dogs and other pets, carry diseases and infections dangerous to humans and other animals, generally make rural life regress toward what Thomas Hobbes described in his 1588 book, Leviathan, as “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

It is entirely sensible to recognize and address these conflicts with wild animals as matters to be reckoned with as “landscapes” are “settled”. Tolerance for large predators was the only option for Native American communities before European settlers arrived; just like tolerance for large predators in and around “landscapes” being settled by Europeans with primitive guns and almost no other means of reducing the growing conflicts they experienced as “settlement” began and continued to grow was the only option. As settlement grew and intensified; awareness of human dangers, livestock losses and rudimentary recognition of the health dangers to humans and desirable animals escalated with the sophistication and intensity of control of certain species that could be tolerated like black bears and cougars, and the elimination of those that could NOT be tolerated due to their inherent and uncontrollable danger to humans and the extent of their destruction to human communities and their economies like wolves and grizzly bears.

The tolerance for some species like black bears, cougars and coyotes was composed of many aspects from the difficulties inherent in trying to rid any area of coyotes to the behavior of low-density black bear and cougar populations to generally avoid humans and human communities WHEN THEY ARE HUNTED, TRAPPED AND OCCSIONALLY SHOT AT thereby making them what we call “shy” and “furtive”. Wolves and grizzly bears exhibit no such tendencies. Wolves and grizzly bears persist as dangers to humans and as behaving in exceedingly destructive ways to all manner of human interests no matter their density or the densities of humans IN SETTLED LANDSCAPES.

But, what is a settled landscape? A “Settled Landscape” is all of the Lower 48 States with three exceptions.

The first exception to “settled landscapes” is the POLITICAL exception. This exception is often mentioned regarding the Yellowstone’s (i.e. National Parks); the “National” Forests/Refuges/ BLM et al lands; the “Declarations” and Executive Orders decreeing “Wildernesses”, “Sanctuaries”, and “Preservation”/”Scenic”/”Historic” et al Areas: and the two clearly and exclusively federal land holdings that elude any State jurisdiction, i.e. the District of Columbia and all “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards, and other needful Buildings” as mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. These are, with only three exceptions, NOT exceptions in any legal or Constitutional sense to definition as “Settled Landscapes” as those landscapes “settled” under the authority, jurisdiction, protection and government authority of that State in which they occur.

A “Settled Landscape” is legally and Constitutionally ANY and all land in the Lower 48 States (Alaska is an exception due to the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act and I am unfamiliar with the State/Federal relationship in Hawaii) under the authority and jurisdiction of the people and government of THAT STATE. Unless a State relinquishes its’ sovereignty and authority over any land within the state to the federal government, the federal government’s ownership of National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, BLM lands, and all other “Declarations” and “Orders” are subject to State laws. In other words, although federal agencies that “own” parcels of lands within a State are not required to pay State and Local Taxes to the State and Local governments they are subject to State authority like other landowners, with only three exceptions:
1. Yellowstone National Park was placed under the jurisdiction of the US Army and withdrawn from the Territory of Wyoming in 1872, 4 years after becoming a Territory in 1868 and 18 years before it became a State in 1890. It therefore remained independent of the State of Wyoming and was transferred to the National Park Service in 1917. Other National Parks outside The District of Columbia are. Like their counterpart National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, et al, merely landowners of property subject to state jurisdiction. The federal government exercises what is called “Exclusive Jurisdiction” over Yellowstone similar to:

2. The District of Columbia as defined in the US Constitution, and:

3. The “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings” (i.e. Department of Defense lands when taken and maintained as properties “needful” for national defense but not when sold off or given to political patrons like environmental groups or transferred to federal agencies.

The foregoing is an explanation of POLITICAL claims of exemption from the commonly understood concept of “settled landscapes”. In other words, “Settled Landscape” not only includes (politically) land with a certain density of “settlers”; it covers all the lands that were, are or could be “settled” under the auspices, protection and laws of the state within which they lie. Federal agencies (with the 3 exceptions above), while landowners within the State, can close certain areas or roads or uses in accordance with the laws of the state governing all land owners in the state, they are not free to introduce animals prohibited within the state or to kill or trap animals within the state outside state authority unless they have specific permits to do so. Now read that again and ask yourself, – “HOW did the federal Congress and President and Supreme Court contrive and invent the ‘power’ to simply say ‘wolves will be here and grizzly bears will be there’? If I own a ranch with deer on it, I can’t just shoot deer in my crops or haystacks the year-around without a state permit any more than the federal government can just decide to kill or poison certain birds or fish or mammals on federal lands (with the aforementioned 3 exceptions). I can no more decide to introduce and release lions or jaguars on my ranch without state authority than can federal bureaucrats decide to release wolves or grizzly bears on their lands. If my dogs get loose and bite your kid or kill your foal or kill grandma out by the mailbox or chase down your son on his bike or kill your dog on your porch or run your sheep over a cliff, etc.: why am I held responsible for compensation and subject to incarceration AND FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS LOOSING WOLVES AND GRIZZLY BEARS ON OUR “SETTLED LANDSCAPES” THAT DO THE SAME THINGS ARE NOT??

The second exception to “settled landscapes” is the BIOLOGICAL exception. There is biologically no exception to the concept of “settled landscapes” be it the Chicago Loop Area or the Big Hole Valley of Western Montana. Each has a human community engaged in whatever supports healthy families, children, elderly members and the community services they need and can afford. Each has dogs and wild birds and furbearers (raccoons, skunks, etc.): each has predators like coyotes: each has available fishing and netting (smelt): and each prohibits those animals that are dangerous like poisonous snakes, constrictors, and alligators; each controls those animals that are destructive (rats, coyotes, foxes, skunks, pigeons, etc.); and each encourages desirable species like songbirds, waterfowl, and rabbits.

Notice that residents of the Big Hole Valley in Western Montana (a vast area of large ranches and few people) has trouble with species like wolves that kill cows and calves and sheep and lambs and dogs but they can neither control the wolves nor eliminate the wolves as was the case for many happy and productive decades before federal laws and federal interlopers put wolves back in The Big Hole and cowed the State bureaucracy into not only acquiescing but also in singing a duet about how wolves only kill the old and sick; wolves don’t kill livestock or reduce big game numbers; and wolves will restore stream banks and make the lame walk, the blind see and generally clean up the air and the water. We must ask ourselves, if the Chicago Loop and the State of Illinois can manage the wildlife under their authority, why can’t Montana and The Big Hole do the same? Under what authority in a just and Constitutional Republic with a Constitution can the federal government simply decide to put deadly and destructive animals into one “settled landscape” and not another? Finally, why does the federal government choose to exercise this questionable and unjust authority in The Big Hole of Montana and not, Stowe, Vermont or Napa Valley, California?

The remaining biological aspect of exceptions to the “settled landscapes” concept is the one being used by every charlatan politician for the past 40 years; that is excluding places that (reputedly) “need” protection. This may be a desert area (like the California deserts long milked incrementally for political support and votes by the two ancient US Senators from that State) or it may be an expanse of ocean recently made into a “Sanctuary” by a Presidential Executive Order or an Alaskan oil-rich area or a Utah low-sulfur coal deposit set aside from any future exploitation by Presidents looking for adulation or to divert public attention from other matters: all of them have in common that 99% of the population neither knows nor care what is happening, they only “feel good” that such vacant space or unsettled landscape is being “saved”.

Be it vast tundra, desert lands, mountaintops or an arbitrary expanse of ocean; the concept of it being “unsettled” or never being “settled” is unsupportable biologically. Even the mountain tops and ocean visited infrequently by hunters, geologists or fishermen are connected to the “settlements” from whence these men come. Like the desert and tundra are connected to and utilized by men for transportation and sparsely-settled communities, who is to say they are independent of adjoining settlements human activities biologically?

To conclude, all this is very relevant to the USA and the European Continent where the same things (forcible wolf presence and gradual elimination of animal control for human benefit) are being perpetrated by the EU in Brussels with the same enablers and incentives that we see being imposed by the federal government in Washington, DC. As in the USA, real political or biological exceptions to the “settled landscape” concept are rare to non-existent though frequently mentioned and inferred.

The presence or absence of various wildlife species; the abundance and distribution of wildlife; the costs and revenue sources for management and control of wildlife; the uses of wildlife; and the authority over wildlife in “Settled Landscapes” should always rest with and remain with the LOWEST level of government THAT REPRESENTS THOSE HUMANS AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES LIVING IN THE SETTLED LANDSCAPES AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTIONS AND WHO ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING AND ENDURING THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. The only practicable exceptions to this rule of law in the Lower 48 States are Yellowstone National Park and large Department of Defense landholdings.

Dr. Geist, in discussing alternative sites for wolves (and by my extension grizzly bears) often mentions large, FENCED government reservation like nuclear power plants, military lands, etc., as practicable sites: though such contained wildlife communities would require intense and expensive perpetual management to sustain. When considering “reservations” or “refuges” for animals like wolves and grizzly bears in “settled landscapes” it must be recognized that visitors to Yellowstone, or defense sites made available to the public, and resident workers are in danger and the questions of liability for injuries ON SITE and the disposition of animals OFF SITE ought to be established before any release on the excepted area adjoining any settled landscape. Impacts on defense operations and facilities in such locations would have to be carefully measured and evaluated as well as protected from likely future behavioral adjustments by such animals There cannot be any arguable business about wolf control outside Yellowstone affecting Yellowstone wolves or their pack structure if that is what the residents of the settled landscapes adjoining the Park deem is in their best interest when such animals stray back under State and Local authority and jurisdiction.

“Wolves”, like far-off powerful government dictates about plants and animals like grizzly bears, “do not belong in ‘Settled Landscapes’.” It is a testimony to American and Canadian ethics that wolves and grizzly bears have been maintained in Alaska and much of Canada to date. Likewise it is a testament to European concern that supporting a similar “rewilding” of the European continent is occurring. That said, the presence or absence of either dangerous or destructive animals must, in the final analysis, be the responsibility of those living in the “Settled Landscapes” affected by these species be they Chicago Loop picnickers or French shepherds.

If there is to be any hope for such animals in the future; only the continuing acquiescence of those living with these animals in their “Settled Landscape” and the continued financial support of those from elsewhere desiring the presence of these animals in the “Settled Landscapes” where others live, gives any hope of anything but a repeat of the historic accounts of the inevitable human reaction to these animals since the time of the Ancient Greeks and The Thirteen Original Colonies of what is now the USA. That is to say intolerable incident after incident until; despite Washington, despite Brussels, despite the King, despite the Lord of the Manor; the residents of the “Settled Landscapes” decide they have had enough and take things into their own hands and using a wide range of methods and even some new ones not even seen before once again make the “Settled Landscapes” safe and productive for human settlements.

Jim Beers
14 February 2015

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

Brucellosis And Wolves

By James Beers:

It was 1957 and I spent a touch-and-go week in a St. Charles, Illinois hospital with a swollen spleen, swollen glands under my arms in a semi-conscious state. I was diagnosed with Brucellosis, called Undulant Fever in humans and my parents were worried that I wasn’t going to make it. The local newspapers did not cover this and my parents soon found out that our County did not have a Health Department and certain factions, like dairy farmers, were opposed to having one established. The doctor said I must have gotten it from “bad” milk (we bought all our milk from a store) or had somewhere been “exposed” to brucellosis. My folks knew I had been hunting in and around dairy farms that fall so everyone assumed I had somehow “picked it up” while hunting pheasants.

In spring of 2010 I was preparing Testimony for the Oregon State Legislature’s House Agricultural Committee on Wolves and particularly on the Diseases and Infections they contract, transmit and spread. As I composed a list of over 30+ such diseases and infections I discovered that wolves, like dogs, contract, carry and transmit Brucellosis. I never knew this and certainly 60 years earlier, no one mentioned this or likely even knew it. I remembered that, those fall days right before coming down with Brucellosis I had hunted with my dog and he was often very good at finding and retrieving pheasants that I shot. In those early kid days I would lavish the dog with praise when he was “good” and he would often lick my face as I squatted and scratched his ears with hands that often had cuts on them as I was praising him. THAT is where I got Brucellosis. Some of those cows in those Health Department-free days probably had Brucellosis and my dog probably had:

“contact with infected birthing tissues and fluids (e.g., placenta, aborted fetuses, fetal fluids, vaginal discharges). The bacteria can also be found in the milk, blood, urine and semen of infected animals.

Animals can get the bacteria by ingestion (oral), direct contact with mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth), or breaks in the skin. Brucella can also be transmitted by contaminated objects (fomites) such as, equipment, clothing, shoes, hay, feed or water.

Some animals are carriers; they will have the bacteria but show no signs of illness. These animals can shed the bacteria into the environment for long periods of time, infecting other animals in the herd.” (From The Center for Food Security and Public Health)

The Center for Food Security and Public Health goes on to say that:

1. “Brucellosis can affect sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, horses, and dogs. Brucellosis can also affect rats and wild animals including deer, bison, elk, moose, camels, water buffalo, and marine mammals.”

AND

2. “Brucellosis causes reproductive problems (e.g. abortions, stillbirth, infertility) in most species of animals. Other signs can include arthritis in cows and pigs, mastitis and lameness in goats, and oozing skin lesions in horses (“fistulous withers”).”

NOTE: Under # 1. There is NO mention of Wolves or Coyotes that interbreed freely with wolves producing viable offspring and are for all practical purposes the Same Species, especially in their Disease and Infection capabilities and capacities. This is a reprehensible act of political correctness (to avoid the wrath of environmentalists) and a not insignificant breach of the Public Trust that withholds information of significant importance from those rural persons increasingly at risk due to the spreading presence of WOLVES. (Jim Beers)

The National Association of Public Health Veterinarians tells us that:

“Brucella canis is transmitted among dogs by mucosal contact with infected material. Vaginal discharges, semen, and fluids and tissues associated with birth and abortion contain the highest concentrations of the bacteria, but urine, blood, milk, saliva, and feces also contain organisms.3 Pups can be infected in utero, intrapartum, or during nursing. The infective dose in dogs ranges from 104 for the conjunctival exposure route to 106 for the oral route. Concentrations of 103 to 106 organisms per ml have been found in urine of infected dogs.2 Dogs can remain bacteremic for at least five years.”

In summary; dogs are wolves are coyotes. They contract, carry and spread a very serious infection (Brucellosis) that infects and debilitates humans; and additionally destroys livestock, big game, and pets. They can contract, carry and spread Brucellosis for “at least five years”.

WOLVES are the most effective and therefore most dangerous vector of the highly infectious Disease Brucellosis. Why is that? Because:

* Wolves roam over a far wider area that any other vector.
* Wolves can contract Brucellosis from livestock, big game, dogs, rats and coyotes, all of which they eat, attack and/or kill for one reason or another.
* Wolves that contract Brucellosis are extremely likely to frequent similar habitats and similar animals (cattle, wintering elk, moose giving birth, sheep pastures) as where they have contracted the disease thus exposing similar animals to “mucosal contact with infected material. Vaginal discharges, semen, and fluids and tissues associated with birth and abortion tissue, urine, blood, milk, saliva, and feces” that infected them and that “is being passed on in their blood, saliva, feces, mucous, milk, vaginal discharges that they leave behind as they roam chasing and killing animals similar to the ones that infected them”.
* Wolves roam, fight, play, sleep and feed in packs, all but guaranteeing that, like bats, what one gets – they all get.
* Wolves kill, eat and attack cattle, big game and dogs. They will tear out their prey’s rear end and often the fetus they carry thus exposing themselves to “Vaginal discharges, semen, and fluids and tissues associated with birth and abortion (sic, that) contain the highest concentrations of the bacteria.” They sniff, roll in and smell urine and blood as well as feces and saliva of infected animals, thus making them almost perfect 100% contractors of any Brucellosis-infected material wherever they encounter it.
* Wolves sneeze and deposit mucous material on plants and other items for an undetermined time. Wolves deposit feces for other animals to smell and/or to consume nearby plants that have become contaminated by infected wolf feces. Wolves leave blood at various sites that is smelled and licked by coyotes and dogs. Wolves leave saliva on items that dogs and coyotes smell, lick, pick up and even swallow. Wolves leave urine and vaginal discharges at various sites in their wanderings.

All of the above can transmit the Brucellosis bacteria from infected wolves to coyotes and dogs for further transmission (coyotes) and to carry back into homes and kennels (dogs). The bacteria can be deposited in pastures to linger on plants for consumption by livestock, or they can be given directly to animals that survive an attack for transmission to others. The bacteria can infect big game animals and their unborn young that survive an attack for later transmission to pastures and haystacks frequented by both big game and livestock.

And the beauty of all this is that the veterinarians won’t touch this with a 10 ft. pole; the academics say, “there is no research”; the state wildlife biologists’ say, “where is your proof”; and the federal “experts” that put the wolves there just remain silent and smirk: thus there is no problem and therefore no responsibility or liability. A federal bureaucrat can’t have a finer dream.

Jim Beers
15 February 2015

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

Wolf Lessons from North Carolina

Written by and Presented by James Beers:

Last Friday, 30 January, I wrote a piece, Kudos to North Carolina and Her Wolves that Never Were, complimenting the recent success of some men in North Carolina regarding how to stand up to the federal government and the Endangered Species Act. This involves “red” wolves, an enviable (to most of us) State Wildlife Agency and both federal and State elected politicians from North Carolina listening to and standing up for the rural residents of North Carolina.

Since writing that article, I have had numerous e-mails and some phone calls asking me how they have accomplished what they have. It is with trying to answer that question that I have spoken to some of those involved and they have shared with me some samples of their methods and approaches. I have attached a series of items below for the use of those involved in this fight from the Great Lakes toYuma to Dorris (CA) and Spokane.

I would caution you to keep in mind that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and all their environmental/animal rights’ allies are watching this closely as well. They are no doubt involved in high level and intense conferences to determine how to keep this from being repeated elsewhere not only with wolves or grizzlies but with every songbird, minnow or “bunnie” they have “Listed” or intend to “List” in the shade of the Endangered Species Act.

Here are a few observations I have made over the past few days as I dug into this victory of Constitutional government and the rights of all citizen’s to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness:

– This success story is really the victory of a few determined North Carolinians that, until recently, would have appeared to be no different than you or me. A farmer/businessman, a boat entrepreneur, and a volunteer Coordinator of the North Carolina Legislature’s Sportsman’s Caucus are three that leap out. The farmer was having “wolf” problems as some of his land lies alongside federal “wolf” habitat. The boat entrepreneur (an important vocation in a State rich in freshwater, brackish water, saltwater, seafood, fish, duck hunting and every other imaginable water recreational pursuit) is an example of a concerned citizen doing what he believes to be the right thing. The Sportsman’s Caucus Coordinator is the sort of all-too-rare political worker that sees what is best for the residents and wildlife of his State – and does it.

– They evidently made a conscious decision to proceed without any lawyers. They knew what their goals were and they seemed to have found that the lawyers either did not understand what they were about or they were not receptive to what these men knew had to be done.

– Among other things they did to gain public support while they were uncovering federal violations and trying to organize political support, was inexpensive, novel and apparently worth every penny. They hired one of those old prop planes you see hauling advertising signs along and over East Coast beaches in the summer to fly back and forth over and throughout a big (in North Carolina) college football game (UNC & ECU I believe) with a sign trailing behind that said something like “Google Red Wolf Restoration Scandal @ …….”

– They recorded federal government answers and non-answers to questions.

– They carefully read the regulations and documented violations by federal employees.

– They publicized (see below) everything they found.

– They got scientific and media help from a wide range of North Carolinians with a similar devotion to what is best for their state plus skills and experience these men needed.

– They lobbied both the newly elected conservative federal and state officials and also those progressive officials that wanted what was best for North Carolina. I was told one that one long-standing state wolf supporter politician who had had a “Research” Center named after him remained unconvinced of these men’s mission. NOTE: Naming a Refuge or Bridge or other public project after either an alive or deceased (as an invitation to others) powerful politician who supports government growth and benefits is an old (at least since The New Deal) and tried ploy of those like bureaucrats that anticipate annual returns to the public money or new law trough.

– As you consider what is useful to you from North Carolina, remember that North Carolina has its’ share of large urban concentrations and a good deal of out-of-state professors and technical workers and researchers that one would expect to be big fans of wolves “out there over the hill from where I live but where I may want to vacation one day”. Yet the politicians and rural residents generated the political support necessary within the political climate of the day to do what they have accomplished. For instance, I was told that about 75% of the current wildlife students at one of the large and respected Universities are either unconcerned about animal management and/or anti-hunting and trapping. Yet these men have accomplished what they have.

– As with many such accomplishments today, getting a coalition of state and federal elected officials on your side to not only stand up to bad laws and federal abuse but to just as importantly remind the state bureaucrats that they work for the residents of the state and that they will be backed up when they look out for and protect them; is most important.

What they have done can be done where you live and it can be, and probably is best, done by men and women just like you. Look over the following information but keep in mind that these men have jobs and not staffs for things like you might expect from all the other “players” in these wolf melodramas. Rethink what you have done and are doing as well as what you might do tomorrow. Share this around, speak with your friends and neighbors, and consider how lucky we are to have a State like North Carolina and men like these in this great Nation – and don’t forget the info below.

Jim Beers
3 February 2015

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

1.) Videos explaining aspects of North Carolina’s steps to force the federal government to remove the so-called (hybrids of dog/coyote and wolf) “red” wolves.

http://www.nchuntandfish.com/forums/showthread.php?95624-quot-Red-Wolf-quot-restoration-scandal&p=1486239&viewfull=1#post1486239

2.) A humorous but telling explanation of what is being called a “red” wolf.

RedWolfTruck

3.) Public Information examples:

1. NCWRC Resolution to End the Failed Red Wolf Program
http://vimeo.com/user28731375/redwolfrestorationscandal

(Official Video) USFWS Illegally Releases 64 Red Wolves on Private Land and Lacked Federal Authority

***MEDIA CONTACT; Jett Ferebee, 252-714-2774***

Congressman Walter B Jones, Water Jones, Congressman Jones, Joey Hinton, Doc Hastings, House Committee on Natural Resources, Congress, Congressman Doc Hastings, ESA Oversight, Sue and Settle, Sue & Settle, T. Delaene Beeland, The Secret World of Red Wolves, Cornelia N. Hutt, Cornelia Hutt, Red Wolf Coalition, FOX, FOX News, ABC, ABC News, NBC, NBC News, WRAL, WRAL News, Raleigh, Charlotte, Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly, Bill O’Reilly, The Factor, Megan Kelly, Greta Van Susteren, N&O, News and Observer, Bob Pendergrass, Dan Nicholas Park, Kim Wheeler, Red Wolf Coalition, David Rabon, RWC Board Member, USFWS, Red Wolf, Hybridization, International Wolf Center, Rob Schultz, Nina Fascione, Defenders of Wildlife, ESA, Endangered Species Act, Nonessential Experimental Population, North Carolina, Alligator River Wildlife Refuge, Red Wolf Coordinator, Section 10(j), 5 – Year Summary, Captive Breeding, Reintroduction Area, Coyote, Coywolf, Coywolfs, Coy-wolf, Coywolfs, Predator Control, Service, Take Permit, Adaptive Management, Sterilization, Federal Game Lands, Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal Welfare Institute, Lawsuit, NCWRC, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Depredation, 5 County Red Wolf Recovery Area, Hyde County, Beaufort County, Tyrrell County, Dare County, Washington County, Red Wolf Recovery Program, Reward, PHVA 1999, George Amato, Mike Chamberlain, Jennifer Gilbreath, Ed Bangs, Brian Cole, Karen Goodrowe, Karen Beck, Gloria Bell, Dave Flemming, Jack Grisham, Art Beyer, Randy Fulk, Mary Hagedorn, Mike Bryant, Todd Fuller, Phil Hedrick, Onnie Byers, Eric Gese, Gary Henry, Brian Kelly, Phil Miller, John Theberge, Fred Knowlton, Michael Morse, Mary Thebarge, Sue Lindsey, Dennis Murray, Kathy Traylor-Holzer, Chris Lucash, Ron Nowak, Will Waddell, Ford Mauney, Mike Phillips, Bob Wayne, Dave Mech, Ulysses Seal, Kathy Whidbee, Scott McLellan, Doug Smith, Aubrey White, Michael Stoskopf, Paul Wilson, Dan Ashe, Sally Jewell, Department of the Interior, Red Wolf Study, Peer Review, Peer Reviewed, Howlings, Columbia NC, Columbia
Last edited by BR549; 01-30-2015 at 07:54 PM.
*********** Please forward this link to likeminded Hunters, Anglers and America’s Conservationist, via Email, Facebook, Twitter etc.***********

RedWolfHistory

NewsClippings

From: Jim Beers

> Subject: Wolf Hybrids, North Carolina and What a Few Good Men Can Do
>
>
>
> Kudos to North Carolina and Her Wolves that Never Were
>
> As someone with a long involvement in US and European wolf debacles of the past three-plus decades, it is with admiration and a wry sense of amusement that I have followed the sordid history of federal red wolf impositions on the good people of North Carolina. I admire what you are doing about “wolves” and I am deeply amused by your resurrection of the lost power of State governments as spelled out in the US Constitution.
>
> Red (I call them GI for “government issue”) wolves released on Bull Island at Cape Romaine National Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina and then in North Carolina at various and sundry sites were always true hybrids composed largely of coyote; dog; and long gone, small SE US wolves’ genetic material. That these GI or red “wolves” (actually hybrids) are and always were fully capable of reproducing viable offspring with not only coyotes but with every variety of dogs from deer hounds and Dobermans to pit bulls and basset hounds is something honest biologists recognize as the classic definition of a Species, that is a group of similar animals capable of producing viable offspring. In other words, the bureaucratic manipulation of a federal law clearly intended to save “Species” such that something bureaucrats call a “red” wolf is given the unique identity of, say, a giraffe or a rhinoceros as a Species in order to execute a very severe federal authority capable of superseding State jurisdiction over wildlife in the State; the activities of rural residents in things from animal husbandry and hunting to animal control and the safety of all, especially children and the elderly; rural property owners like dog owners; and ultimately the economic activities of struggling rural communities: all this was and remains a scandalous abuse of government power and environmental oppression. That any citizen could be imprisoned for a year and fined $100,000 for killing or attempting to kill such mongrels placed in his midst by a remote central government is a travesty once thought to be unimaginable in a Constitutional Republic or even a “majority rule Democracy.
>
> To see a State Government and its’ Wildlife Authority (the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) stand up to this federal bullying is heartening and a hopeful sign for other States, to say the least. The Commission’s Resolutions to order the federal bureaucrats to remove the “wolves” that they have been illegally releasing on private property in North Carolina, plus their Statement recognizing and calling for a Declaration of Extinction due to the Hybridization of the “Red Wolf” Genome (i.e. a full set of chromosomes representing all the inheritable traits of a singular group of organisms) are models to not only other US States hosting these GI wolves from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Coast to the Southwest ; they are a much needed encouragement to Europeans from Germany and Italy to Spain where wolves are spreading death and destruction due to the same sort of abuse of government power by the European Union government as Americans are suffering from Washington politicians and bureaucrats. Increasingly these European wolves are being shown to be “hybrids” with dogs and just as in the US, what dogs are not being killed by wolves are bred by or breed with dog/wolves “in heat” creating the inevitable and increasingly complex hybridizations that will always be the hallmark of wolves living in settled landscapes.
>
> In France alone, just last year, nearly 10,000 domestic animals were killed by wolves. Throughout Europe; sheep flocks, shepherds, and self-sufficient rural families are, like their American rural cousins, enduring untold stress and disappearing much to the distress of their rural communities where they have contributed so much for untold generations and where grazing lands are beginning to revert to brush and fire fuel. European men are being incarcerated for killing what appeared to be rogue dogs that, after lengthy and extensive laboratory by government’ experts, were declared to be wolves. The same propaganda about wolves (“restore stream banks”, “don’t kill stock or game animals”, “belong”, “necessary”) and the same paradigm of a remote and all-powerful central government controlled by wealthy, urban factions is destroying much of rural Europe with GI wolves just as we see in the rural western States today and just like federal bureaucracies have long-intended for North Carolina and an ever-expanding ring of surrounding States.
>
> So thank you North Carolina. Your intestinal fortitude and your moxie are both a model and a ray of hope to far more than merely those ensnared by the “red” wolf spider web manufactured in Washington. All of us with wolves or about to “receive” wolves from our Pacific Shores to where East meets West in Eastern Europe salute you and will begin watching your progress and learning how we can begin emulating you.
>
> Jim Beers
> 30 January 2014

4.) A note from one of the North Carolina men:

I will ask of you to leverage our message by sharing with others in the “WolfBGone” Community. If you will drive them back to ” Google Red Wolf Restoration Scandal” that would be great!! Also feel free to post and share the following two videos that expose this Federal Mess!

Video #1 – http://vimeo.com/user28731375/redwolfrestorationscandal

Video #2 – http://vimeo.com/user28731375/googleredwolfrestoratonscandal

5.) Another note and two documents from the North Carolina men:

“Here are the Official Doc’s to publish!!”

FWSgov

Resolution

Share

Helping “Bunnies”

This is Most Precious

How Absurd Journalism and Childish Nature Propaganda Are Being Used by Federal and State Government to Eliminate Hunting and the Funding for Management of Renewable Natural Resources for Human Benefit

The following article was given (the media does not generate these sorts of articles, they are “given” to them, often as already finished or partially drafted articles, by government agencies and academic “researchers” for a wide range of purposes from manufacturing support for budget or license increases to activating outrage and political support for proposed controversial actions) to the Poughkeepsie (NY) Journal recently. When I read it, I was skimming it as yet another Sesame Street-level bit of trivia until I read the last three short paragraphs that, while not really surprising me, floored me in their audacity by identifying how government hunting program money was being diverted into uses intended to eliminate hunting in the belief that the general public was too dumb to recognize it. Shades of that arrogant Obamacare “advisor” from Harvard or MIT

I have arranged my comments (A through G) corresponding to the sections of the news release on “Peter Cottontail” that follows them. The last comment (G), while insulting enough to sportsmen in its’ own right, is even more galling after reading all that precedes it.

*Editor’s Note* Please read the “bunny” article.

A. Note “bunny” and “Peter Cottontail” identifiers to introduce the article. How serious can the article be? Will there be any mention of why the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (i.e. DNR, Wildlife Agency, Conservation Commission, Fish and Game, etc. in other states) just spent $519,000 and five years on a “bunny” study? We are told it is for “helping restore, monitor and manage”; but for what, or for whom? Hunting is nowhere mentioned in what follows.

B. How cute! Rabbits as “the epitome of prolific breeding”, yuk, yuk. Oh, and the federal US Fish and Wildlife Service is evidently considering “protecting” said bunnies “under the Endangered Species Act.” A half-Million spent on “bunnies”, “the epitome of prolific breeding” by a State government on an animal that could skyrocket in numbers next year if timber and pulp cutting or odd strips of weedy-crops were planted on public and private land was undertaken? Federal ESA Listing being considered for “bunnies”? Like the observation in Hamlet about Denmark, there is something rotten going on here in New York.

C. So, let me get this straight: The “Native” habitat was “forest” that was “cut down in Colonial times” and therefore was, similarly devoid of “bunnies”. So, wouldn’t the bunnies be (like brown trout, pheasants, Great Lakes Salmon et al) Non-Native and a similar violation of the sacred pre-1492 America? Wouldn’t the remaining 14% of the 1960 “bunnie” population cited as a reason for alarm really be (according to current government mania about “Native Ecosystems) a target of eradication rather than a reason to suggest the full-Monty of the draconian federal takeover of the ESA? Actually this “bunnie” of concern is no different than any other rabbit in SE Canada or the N Lower 48 States. “New England” bunnies have all the biological significance justifying federal “intervention” as “red” wolves that are simply dog/coyote/wolf hybrids. “Bunnies” in New England are dwindling for the same reason that woodcock are dwindling in the woodlands of New England – the woodlands are no longer cut for either timber management, pulp or fire prevention on public or private lands. Thus there is no shrubby forest succession anymore for woodcock to nest in and feed their young just like there is little sunlight and little shrubbery on the forest floors for “bunnies” to live year around in cover. Agricultural land is not only shrinking due to everything from paving and home construction; agricultural crops no longer exist in weedy fields and disturbed edges so hospitable to “bunnies” and game birds. Add into all of this the government discouragement and resulting absence of consistent furbearer/predator hunting/trapping of any significance and robust populations of predators that eat “bunnies” from hawks and owls to coyotes and foxes; and you have yet another reason for this topic of “bunnies” that seem to be “using a different flyway” as government has been known to explain dearths of migratory birds in the bag in bad years. None of this; unmanaged woodlands, dwindling and sterile (for such wildlife) agricultural areas, or predation are mentioned in this article about a “bunnie” emergency that it is suggesting.

D. “Homeless” rabbits, how cute and how emotionally alarming to a large swath of urban voters anguishing over climate change and finding new worlds as ours is about to implode. Rabbits come and go periodically over time for a host of reasons. Other than dwindling predator food supplies, why is this a problem? Clearly hunting or human consumption of rabbits is never mentioned so here we have a “species” that admittedly must have been as rare as hen’s teeth when those European destroyers invaded the pristine America. Could the State be burning up a half-Million dollars in hunting program -intended money to assemble claptrap about such animal? Could State funding be being used to alarm the public about some critter that is about to be (needlessly in a biological sense) seized and (with all its’ claimed “critical habitat” as well) made into federal government grist for human activity, private property rights and economic restrictions plus further elimination of State and Local Jurisdictions and Authority? Isn’t this the “protected” Progressive Northeast where “empty wolf habitat” ignored by federal wolf Overlords whilst every nook and cranny of the rest of the Lower 48 States in slated to get wolves come “H!!! or high water”? Aren’t these those “love every environmental/animal rights law” States that insist on telling the rest of the Nation how to live their lives? Is it possible that the federal government no longer must rely on these fantasy-loving voters and their financial supporters and that somehow it will advantage federal politicians and federal bureaucrats to begin running rural New England as they are Wisconsin and Washington and Oregon and Arizona et al?

E. High deer densities are identifiable when you can see bare ground and nothing but tree trunks for six feet above the ground for a mile or more as you approach a “forest”. What all the Northeast environmentalists used to bemoan and use as rallying cries to close grazing, timber management, hunting and all other use of renewable natural resources on western public and private lands (“oh look at how they are raping the land”, “ranchers leave no stream bank vegetation”, logging has denuded the slopes and erosion is happening”, “hunting is cruel and it kills the healthy animals, not the old and sick like predators”) is exactly what they have done with their public and private property in the Northeast with deer. How is deer overgrazing impacts any different from hysterical and untrue claims of livestock effects out West? No hunting; no logging; no grazing and lo and behold none other than the august federal “Fish & Wildlife Service describes the current densities of deer in New England as “unprecedented.”

Let’s see, if hunting isn’t controlling deer (Closed-to-Hunting public and private lands abound and bureaucrats that are not strongly anti-hunting are, well, no longer bureaucrats), what will? What will save the “bunnies”? Why more predators of course. Stop all trapping and hunting and release wolves. Coyotes and foxes will supplement the expected deer massacres. But wait, weren’t we told that predators like wolves were good for the environment and big game like elk and moose and DEER? Won’t stream banks become lush once again and won’t all those rich Northeasterners, and the poor ones too, thrill to the sound of howling wolves “out back” while they reduce deer numbers? That is what Westerners and South Westerners and Southerners were told and how is that working out? Are there federal bureaucrats scheming at this moment for such a move to be announced like the Bergdal Terrorist Trade or the Cuban “Reset” in which no one knows and no one has any say because our “betters” are called that because they are simply “better” than you or me?

(F.) “The two rabbits look nearly identical and are only reliably identified by genetic testing of tissue, fecal samples or examining skull characteristics.” What can I add to such foolishness as the basis for government to use as a basis to abuse the populous (from incarceration, fines and loss of voting/gun rights) and to grow federal power at the expense of (supine) State and Local governments? Those that let this sort of thing to happen to State and Local governments, and to our freedom to hunt are those that Ben Franklin would have said “deserve neither!”

(G.) Read these last lines carefully:

“Three-quarters of the money for the project — about $389,000 — comes from federal excise taxes paid by sportsmen and sportswomen when they purchase guns, ammunition and archery items.

(The amount New York is using for this study is only a tiny portion of the many, many millions of dollars it receives each year from the federal government by way of the tax.)

The rest, about $130,000, is coming from the state and other sources.”

1.)$520,000 from “federal excise taxes paid by sportsmen and sportswomen when they purchase guns, ammunition and archery items” are funds intended for hunting programs in each state based on the amount collected each year and the size of the state and the hunting licenses they sell. A clever and unprotested change 15 years ago renamed the funds “Wildlife Restoration Funds” precisely to allow state agencies to spend the money just like this on whatever they wanted to or (remember it was feds that made the change) on what Federal Bureaucrats want them to do. Hunters be damned and ask yourself why you never heard about this or hear about these things such that they (the feds) have come to take for granted your tolerance and ignorance as fostered by your hunting organizations and those State bureaucrats that you have more often than not believed to have had your interests and rights at heart. As an aside, these are the funds that in the mid 1990’s the US Fish and Wildlife Service stole from the funds due to the States in order to capture Canadian wolves and release them in Yellowstone. Not only were the stolen funds never replaced, the state Wildlife Directors never even asked Congres to replace what federal bureaucrats stole from state programs and the American Hunters.

2.) “(The amount New York is using for this study is only a tiny portion of the many, many millions of dollars it receives each year from the federal government by way of the tax.)” Really? In 2013 the State of New York received $14.2 Million of these funds; in 2014 the State of New York received 20.5 Million of these funds. Anyone thinking that spending a half million of those precious hunting funds on silly science about an animal that is evidently not being hunted much and is not intended to once again be hunted as the federal government is tooling up (like some tin-pot dictator preparing for a surprise invasion) to take it over – well such a person probably neither hunts nor supports hunting. By the way, do you know the reason for the big jump? As President Obama’s final years approach, gun owners like a lot of other Americans are in great fear of losing their rights as well as many other things. Gun Rights are but one of those rights dangerously threatened as the federal government buys up billions of rounds of ammunition for untold purposes, closes the last lead smelter in the US, and has clearly embarked on an illegal and un-Constitutional campaign to rid the Nation of both guns and gun owners. Just like Obama’s first two years and Clinton’s first two years when gun control was also being pursued, 2013 and 2014 have seen an explosion of gun and ammunition purchases and an upsurge in Excise Taxes from those sales for State Wildlife Programs. How ironic is it that the more the federal officials buy up ammunition (thereby running up the price); close down domestic lead production (also raising the price and increasing our dependence of foreign sources; and threaten to confiscate guns – the more money goes to State Wildlife Programs to be squandered and thereby be denied to hunting programs and hunters. This makes federal bureaucrats and all the environmental extremist and animal rights radical groups happy as they progress toward their goals. Ask yourself why DU, Pheasants Forever, the NRA, Shooting Sports, Rocky Mtn. Elk, and your favorite State wildlife bunch never howled when this change was made or how this money is being spent today? I personally wonder why I am such a Pariah after years of trying to explain these things both verbally and in writing? I’ll give you a hint hunters, killing the messenger doesn’t change the truth in the message one “tiny” bit as this Poughkeepsie writer is wont to write.

3.) “The rest, about $130,000, is coming from the state and other sources.” The “State”? While technically true, it doesn’t come from the state employees union or the gas tax or the sales tax or the income tax – it comes from Hunting License Sales dollars and “other sources” like revenue from state hunting lands and state hunting program charges like entrance fees or consulting fees or other dollars generated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It is seriously illegal for any of those funds to be spent outside the state wildlife agency in order to continue getting future Excise Tax shares. So, it has finally come to this that the hunting dollars go to preparation to surrender another state hunting species to federal never-to-be-hunted-again Control and no auditor or no federal “wildlife person” or no hunting organization even notices.

If all the foregoing isn’t enough to jar hunters to see what’s up, consider this. By Law, State wildlife agencies must be audited every five years. In the 1980’s and 1990’s this went undone by federal bureaucracies as anti-hunting forces took over and saw easy access to those funds as in their best interest. When Congress found out in 1999 that the USFWS was stealing millions, audits were hastily re-instituted. Within three years millions of dollars of “diversions” and disappearance of funds were discovered but the theft was resolved politically behind closed doors, the auditors were fired, the audit reports redone with no findings of note, politically sensitive auditors were appointed, new audits or any negative findings have been invisible ever since.

Oh and one more thing, many states renamed and reorganized their wildlife agencies in order to allow the Excise Tax/License Revenue money to go into state motor pools, or to pay other state bureaucrats when their funding was low, or to take revenue from state land timber sales and put it in the General Treasury, or to allow a prison to be built on lands purchased with Excise Tax dollars, or even to allow illegal crossing access to favored land developers like Whitewater in Arkansas. One of the worst reorganizational setups for such skullduggery was the ones called “Environmental Conservation Departments”. This made all the sacred and blessed state programs like Pollution, Climate Change”, Environmental Education”,” Water and Air Management”, “Parks”, “Land Management”, etc. bedfellows with “Wildlife” and those Excise Taxes and License Revenues. The opportunity for chicanery and mischief is unlimited. But of course this was only a factor in a state where corruption was possible. Of course States like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey would be above suspicion so disregard anything I have written here that might seem suspicious of or negative toward about the State of New York, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or those bureaucrats at both those levels that labor away day in and day out trying to unravel the mysteries of things like disappearing “bunnies”.

Jim Beers
2 Feb. 2015

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

Wolf Wisdom from a Wolf Authority

Dr. Val Geist is a retired Canadian University Professor now living in British Columbia. While his title is “Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science” his field of expertise for which he is internationally recognized is the biology of wildlife and the societal implications of wildlife policy options. I have no greater respect for any academic in the field of predators and predation; two topics of great moment as you read this in North America and Europe.

Below are some very succinct and candid comments by Dr. Geist regarding the controversies and complications swirling around European wolves, their effects of rural Europeans, and the question of what is a wolf. This last question involves the genetic definition of a dog v the genetic definition of a wolf and when is a hybrid one or the other. As I have written many times over the years; I believe a wolf is a dog is a coyote (truly one species using the classical definition of a species) since all three interbreed freely and always produce viable (reproductively capable) offspring. The emerging question of what genetically is a dog or a wolf (or a coyote in North America) is both an academic (i.e. pedantic) determination as well as a value decision by government. The real, everyday aspect of this question is the many current and growing numbers of hybrids that can easily look like one another while carrying vastly different genetic make-ups.

This question of hybrids; which is what, what is protected and what is the government purpose overall is another one of the interminable sidebars that confuse the public and make informed decision-making by the public and government merely a matter of bureaucratic interests, emotions and propaganda fantasies. I would refer you to wolf effects on big game herds like elk and moose; wolves as disease and infection vectors endangering humans, domestic animals and other wildlife; wolf effects on domestic dogs; Red v Gray v Mexican v Timber, etc. wolves; and wolf effects on rural economies and the general welfare of rural residents as all similarly ignored and undefined ramifications of wolves kept totally beyond the control of those forced to live with them by powerful, remote governments.

Dr Geist’s comments are in response to a European proposal – after just sentencing some Finnish hunters to jail for killing some wolves/dogs/hybrids (?) – to legally define just what is a wolf and what is a dog. These comments should be read by everyone involved with or soon to be involved with GI (Government Issued) wolves, dogs, hybrids or “whatevers”. If you agree, PLEASE SHARE THEM FAR AND WIDE. Thanks.

Jim Beers
19 January 2015

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.

————————-

Wolves cannot be kept in settled landscapes, because of the impossibility of keeping wolves and dogs apart, and the destruction of the wolf genome by creeping hybridization. While I whole-heatedly agree that there should be no keeping of wolves and wolf hybrids as pets, the sheer size of the “wolf-dog” industry as well as past releases of wolf hybrids will insure further erosion of the genome of free-ranging wolves. Secondly, how is officialdom to know of wolf hybrids unless wolf numbers are strictly and closely regulated so that plenty of specimens are available for testing. Thirdly, from my experience identifying wolves or dogs from photos sent my way I have serious doubts that European wolf specialists can currently distinguish wolf from dog. Unless limits are set early to wolf numbers – and I see no hint of that – wolf populations will expand to destroy the populations of deer and turn to livestock and humans.

Do the authors of this manifesto really think that they can significantly keep wolves and dogs apart by minimizing the number of free-ranging dogs? Even if they have some success in doing so, are they not aware that lone wolves themselves seek out dogs? Do they really think that lone wolf females in heat will desist from visiting suburbs and farms looking for a mate? Do they think that chained farm dogs will not copulate with a female wolf in heat at night? Has nobody had the experience of holding a young very large male dog in training while they come in contact with am estrus female canid? I had a Bouvier de Flandre on the leash while we came across a small wolf track in the snow – and the Bouvier went wild! He then weighed only about a hundred pounds. I had my hands full! An amorous male wolf threatened my wife when he approached an estrus hunting dog in an enclosure. No neighborhood male dog had been that bold! In short, given wolves with a desire to mate and they will intrude deep into human habitation. There is no way to effectively segregate wolves from dogs in settled landscapes. Moreover, as this is written, there is now way to protect wildlife from marauding packs of dogs either.

As I have said before, all efforts to make wolves compatible with settle landscapes are a waste of time and energy. All marauding canids in settle landscape need to be removed. This raises the question of how to conserve wolves as a species. What we know for certain is that they need to be kept away from people and dogs. In the first instance that means that wolves and other large predators need to be kept where the public has no entry. And such areas need to be large. The very first step is to negotiate internationally for keeping large predators on military and atomic reserves. I doubt that national parks are suitable because the tourist lobby will balk. Secondly, means and ways need to be found to control closely wolf populations in such reserves to insure that the predators do not run out of prey, and leave the reserves for settled landscapes. Well-fed wolves will cause the least problems. Severe trapping and predator control in 20th century North America kept wolves out of settled landscapes, eliminated agricultural losses and disease transmission, retained their genetic integrity, while attacks on humans were unheard of.

Wolf conservation as proposed here (i.e. Europe) is not serious.

Sincerely, Val Geist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science

Share

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The following is an editorial/Letter to the Editor sent to the Green Bay (Wisconsin) Press-Gazette in response to a “fawning” article about the recent decision by a lady, federal judge in Washington, DC to place all Great Lakes wolves back under federal jurisdiction, thereby precluding even a modest, “fig-leaf” illusion of states (i.e. those living with the wolves)managing wolves or having any say about how many, where, and to what extent wolf damage and destruction will be tolerated as enforced by draconian federal law enforcement. ..Jim

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The recent decision by an activist federal judge in far-off Washington, DC utilizing (not really enforcing) what is arguably the most recklessly un-Constitutional law in American history to abolish all State and Local authority over the presence of wolves in their midst is a Tragedy of a magnitude worthy of a Shakespearean Play. It would not be out of order to compare it to some individual cleric in W. Iraq issuing a Fatwa based on his interpretation of Sharia Law.

Your paper lauds how the lady judge has confronted “hostile state management” (i.e. of wolves). Hostile state management by State politicians and bureaucrats would have first and foremost been to follow state and federal law and forbid the expenditure of any state hunting license revenue or and Pittman-Robertson excise taxes derived from arms and ammunition sales on any wolves that were forced into the state by federal bureaucrats and that have caused great harm to rural life, livestock, game animals, and the “domestic Tranquility” of Wisconsin residents being forced to endure the harms spreading wherever wolves become established.

State government has become a handmaiden to federal overreach and Local government revenue, jurisdictions and authority have been severely restricted, for what?

What is “management” of any wild animal population other than achieving and maintaining numbers and distributions of the animals as desired by those that live with or utilize those animals?

How can anyone right-thinking person (the judge in question and your writer are as right-thinking as St. Louis demonstrators shown a Coroner/Police Report) describe a wolf season with stated number goals as “unregulated killing?

If Killing wolves is “barbaric”, what pray tell is wolves killing and eating an Alaskan schoolteacher or a Canadian college student?

What is “recovery”? As many wolves as can be shoehorned into 48 states (when there are millions worldwide)? What were all those early ESA “goals” for wolves other than lies?

Even the miniscule annual harvest quotas in our states are merely tiny efforts meant only to quiet critics. The 10-15% harvest quotas of the (asserted) wolf population (since wolves cannot be accurately counted we may be sure DNR numbers are as reliable as national jobless and inflation numbers) are even lower than annual harvest quotas of desirable game animals. These tiny harvest quotas do only 2 things, 1) they reduce winter competition for food guaranteeing more and healthier reproducing females next spring and 2) they encourage larger litters and therefore MORE wolves next fall. That nonsense about “pack structure” and “alpha males” is no more that romantic biological propaganda. To reduce however many wolves are out there, a harvest of 50-70% for at least 5 years and then a 35-50% reduction annually thereafter would be required.

If leghold traps (that by the way allow for release of non-target animals), snares, electronic calls and baiting are “cruel” and “unsportsman-like”; this latter term from organizations that would eradicate all “sporting” hunting, trapping and fishing activities tomorrow; are to be banished what is left? Evening classes for predators? A domestic Jane Goodall Corps?

Please spare us the use of the term “science”. Wolf/predator “science” over the past 30 years has become little more than propaganda purchased by government bureaucrats and radical environmental/animal rights organizations from University professors seeking funding, tenure, recognition and graduate students.

Wolves kill people, livestock, game animals, dogs and other predators like coyotes and foxes. Wolves spread, carry, and contract over thirty diseases and infections that kill and disable humans, domestic animals and other wild animals. Wolves cause great stress to rural families, rural communities and rural life. To call this “decision” a Tragedy is actually being kind. So what is so funny? Where is the “Humor” in this Tragedy?

The “Humor” lies in how your paper and all those wolf-lovers you serve in all those places distant from where the wolves and rural people are doing their “Danse Macabre”, (i.e. Dance of Death) can say with a straight face that it is “barbaric” to kill wolves with “packs of dogs – with hounding of wolves so out of the realm of responsible action that it’s drawn condemnation around the nation”.

Jim Beers

1 January 2015

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.

jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

If I Owned the Woods

Suppose I bought all the woods and hills around a thriving valley where farms and ranches abounded and town families prospered from a mix of agricultural support and several small industrial businesses. Suppose further that all the former owners from whom I had bought the land had been considered part of the greater valley community for generations.

What if I:
– Went to court and closed every road through my property that I could?

– Vegetated every closed road so that travel through my property by anyone from hunters to firefighters was impossible?

– Eliminated all grazing and timber cutting on my property?

– Closed my property to hunting, fishing, and trapping and any access?

– Refused to clean up downed timber after a big storm?

– Refused to spray insect-infested trees, or to remove dead ones?

– Brought cougars, wolves, and grizzly bears onto my property and released them?

– Refused to accept any responsibility for human injuries or dead animals resulting from MY predators?

– Made firefighting access and water availability to fight fires that started on my property unavailable UNLESS the valley residents bought ME airplanes and hired many new employees to work FOR ME when they weren’t fighting MY FIRES that could spread to the valley?

– Went to court and obtained a judgment that because I was not commercial and was considered a charitable, scientific entity that Local and State governments not only could not tell me what to do on my property, they and my neighbors would have to accept any impacts my land use practices imposed on them?

Well, of course:
– Sawmills would close because timber harvests that had gone on for generations ceased.

– Sawyers, like ranch-hands, would become unemployed as timber cutting and grazing acreages disappeared.

– Ranches would steadily dwindle in herd size and then in numbers as forage availability dwindled.

– Farms would dwindle as part-time work in the valley and in The Woods disappeared.

– Businesses would dwindle and disappear as transportation into and out of the valley was constricted.

– Real estate values would plummet as farm land became unprofitable and town homes lacked for buyers since there was no work available and predator problems even in town became endemic. Insurance rates skyrocketed since predator damage was the sole responsibility of the unfortunate citizens damaged in any way.

– Hunting, fishing and trapping disappeared. Businesses for guiding, housing and feeding such folks also dried up as access disappeared and predators both reduced game and posed deadly threats to visitors, children, and others considering outdoor activities.

– Local government and State government revenue of all sorts fell precipitously while demands for government “help” skyrocketed. My land went untaxed since it was “devoted to a higher ideal”, businesses closed up, agriculture dwindled, families moved away or went on welfare, and vacant and “foreclosed” home sites proliferated.

As all this went on, I became more powerful. I bought up parcels all over the valley. While I closed them to any use by local people, I bought, or rented at a discount, properties that would further close roads and pinch off increasingly isolated private property of former ranchers and farmers and long-time residents of the valley. Local government did only what I ALLOWED and I stacked the State Legislature with the best politicians that MY MONEY COULD BUY!

QUESTION: Who am I?
No, I am not Henry Potter. You remember him don’t you? Lionel Barrymore played him in “It’s a Wonderful Life”. He was the evil old cuss that made everyone poor and created that gloomy town where James Stewart (George Bailey) contemplated suicide until the angel showed him how important he (and really EACH OF US is) was to his community.

No, I am not some media mogul or Hollywood gazillionaire buying up rural land and then imposing urban standards and fantasies or rural communities.

I AM UNCLE SAM!

I am the US Forest Service. I am the National Park Service. I am the Bureau of Land Management. I am the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I control over 40% of the United States.

I am steadily eliminating all sustainable uses and management of RENEWABLE natural resources on MY LAND. I am eliminating roads and access on MY LAND. I am ignoring enormous fire-fuel accumulations resulting from Wilderness, Parks, storm damage, Roadless Areas, insect damage. I am closing access and roads everywhere to impede firefighting and public access. I am demanding that already-impoverished taxpayers give me more firefighters and expensive equipment to appear to be fighting fires of increasing magnitude and frequency. I accept NO RESPONSIBILITY (exactly as I have established the legal precedence for damage from the wolves and grizzly bears THAT I INTRODUCED AND SPREAD) for fire damage to residences, towns, and businesses resulting from fires STARTED AS A RESULT OF MY ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ON MY PROPERTY! I have spent over 40 years establishing legal precedents that say State and Local governments cannot tell me what to do or not do on MY PROPERTY. I have financially and professionally seduced State bureaucrats and State politicians to become my secret mistresses for whatever I want to do. I put millions of rural employees and thousands of rural businesses out of work and then vow to “reduce unemployment” and “support small businesses”. I pay no taxes and renege on promises to “replace lost taxes and share revenue with State and Local government”. I breed and release wolves on MY PROPERTY to infest State and private “neighbors” and do likewise with even more deadly and destructive grizzly bears and, like Henry Potter, despise and ridicule the ignorant bumpkins he evicts into the snow.

Uncle Sam has exceeded the slumlord Henry Potter in arrogance and evil. I suggest that when they make the movie one day, they consider cutting and pasting Spencer Tracy from the movie “Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde”. The 4 federal agencies cited above go about like Dr. Jekyl daily making scientific pronouncements and seeming good; while in truth killing and spreading evil nightly before reassuming the sweet appearance of a do-gooder.

Jim Beers
20 August 2012
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 Government Action to Get Out The Apathetic Environmentalist Vote

Renaming these areas, mentioned below, the “Harry Reid Areas of Critical Environmental Concern” in November or December would be a nice touch and assure big bonuses for the BLM sycophants that concocted this travesty for their political bosses pandering for votes.

1. REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT
2. EMPOWER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (SHERIFFS, COMMISSIONERS, ETC.) and orient State government to be their protectors
3. REPEAL OR SERIOUSLY AMEND ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL/ANIMAL RIGHTS/UN-CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAWS OF THE LAST 50 YEARS. They spawned all of this illegitimate power for federal bureaucrats to us to destroy Rural America.

4. Do #’s 1, 2 & 3 and the ability and willingness of most State governments to again assume their role of protecting us from tyranny, and to putting and keeping oppressive federal power abuse in the bottle like some evil genie will return faster than you can say:

“From Nixon to Obama, All the Presidents have tolerated and profited from this growing ‘RURAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE’. It is perpetrated by urban radicals, extremist NGO’s, and the self-serving profiteering of federal and state bureaucrats and politicians. The time to stop it is NOW! If not now, the question is not WHEN? The answer is it will be TOO LATE!”

Jim Beers
31 October 2014

Share