VIDEO: An interesting discussion on the founding of the NRA and the reason for it. Listen carefully to the historic references and then ask yourself if they are true – go find out.
An article at Pioneer Press, TwinCities.com, has blubbering about what is to be done about wolves, if anything, on Isle Royale. Here’s the link.
I’ll make a brief comment and then lastly will be followed by Jim Beer’s perspective on what the article actually is saying.
From this bit of information found in the article:
A debate is raging in the scientific community, the public and among Park Service officials on whether humans should intervene to rescue an isolated wolf population that some experts say appears doomed due to genetic inbreeding that’s causing physical deformities that are affecting wolves’ life expectancy.
Others say climate change might have a major impact on the island’s wolves, and the Park Service has formed panels of experts to look at genetics and a warming climate to evaluate their effects on wolf numbers.
Park Service officials have said they have three basic options: doing nothing; waiting for the wolves to die off and then reintroduce new wolves; or introducing new wolves soon while some wolves still are present.
I think other options are not listed and I think the options should be based on what the brain trust decides to finger as the reason wolves have disappeared on Isle Royal and not on the mainland and moose have increased on Isle Royale but decreased on the mainland. For example, climate change. If the special interest “scientists” on the panel that will decide the cause, opt for climate change, not only will they have some explaining to do for their decision but there is little reason to do anything about wolves until they have solved, as gods, the climate change issue. Let me explain further.
If it is decided climate change is the reason, or at least a substantial contributing factor, by their own fake standards, then the same people need to explain why, then, the moose population on Isle Royale has exploded to 1,000, as the wolf population has disappeared, while at the same time climate change has been fingered as the cause of the reduction of moose in Minnesota (Isle Royale is part of Michigan but the island is closer to the Arrowhead of Minnesota than any part of Michigan mainland including the Upper Penninsula.)
Using the same logic and faux science as those thinking climate change is the major factor in a dwindling moose population, and now wolves, why rush into wasting taxpayer money to introduce more wolves if an unresolved, man-caused, climate change issue has not been resolved?
I am of the opinion that the reason that we have not seen more wolves “crossing on the ice” (like they did in 1949 – wink, wink) to repopulate the island is because too many people are watching too closely.
My opinion: Don’t waste my dime on fake science that contributes nothing to the realities of wildlife management outside of a rare closed, incomplete ecosystem.
Jim Beers Perspective:
WHAT IS REALLY BEING SAID by Jim Beers
1. “A debate is raging in the scientific community, the public and among Park Service officials on whether humans should intervene to rescue an isolated wolf population”
The “public” and the “Park Service” are what they are but consider that “the scientific community” is supposedly pure and composed of incontrovertible facts and experts that justify every manner of government intervention. If a “debate” “rages” there: on what basis does it revolve? The answer here as elsewhere in government plant and animal machinations is that “science” and “scientists” are ideologues and advocates every bit as much as the urban animal “rescue” lady or the lawyer working for The Defenders of Wildlife. They are as worthy of the deference shown them in court or their argument-settling role as some Conscientious Objector wearing his Dad’s Service uniform and medals is worthy of consideration in setting Defense Policy in the Pentagon.
2. “Others say climate change might have a major impact on the island’s wolves”.
Minnesota DNR bureaucrats and “scientists” have told docile Minnesotans that “climate change” was the leading factor on the steady demise of the moose population in the State. Twice each year in prominent newspaper articles the State bureaucrats and scientists asked for more money to investigate how “climate change” explained why moose were disappearing. Every such article characterizes those who say, “If moose are disappearing as wolves have been and continue to increase, what about predation of wolves on moose?” as red-necked, jack pine savages that probably flunked out of grade school and lead an alcoholic existence in some trailer back in the North Woods somewhere. So how can “climate change” decrease wolves on Isle Royal while wolves increase on the mainland? How can “climate change” be responsible for the decline of moose throughout Minnesota while their numbers are exploding on Isle Royal? Is there a scientist in the house?
3. “Allow public discussion on wolf management on the island, a designated federal wilderness area.”
This is a “two-fer”. First, I wish to humbly thank the Park Service for their kind offer to “allow public discussion”. For such august bureaucrats to deign to “allow” the rest of us to publicly discuss such matters is so benevolent that I for one can merely express my eternal gratitude. Think about that folks, think about how low the American citizen vis-a-vis his government has sunk. Second, I thought NOTHING could be “managed” in a “federal wilderness area”? Does this mean that downed timber or fire-hazard brush can be removed or burned safely? Can firewood be cut with a chain saw or water scooped from a stream to fight a fire or uses like logging, grazing, vehicle travel, be considered on the (formerly?) precious “Wilderness Areas” at the sufferance of federal bureaucrats? Inquiring minds would like to know.
4. “Isle Royale has a long-standing history of broad ecosystem management,”.
This is gobbledygook. They aren’t even supposed to “manage” wilderness. Ecosystem is a maligned term that has been perversely mangled over the past 45+ years into a meaningless word alone and a word that can mean everything in the ear of the listener or the eyes of the reader. That these insular bureaucrats claim, and the media validate, that their personal work to pander to powerful radical organizations for their own benefit is “broad” ecosystem management is simply ludicrous.
5. “It’s believed that moose first swam to the island in the early 1900s and for decades thrived with no predators. Wolves are relatively new to the 45-mile-long, 143,000-acre island complex, having crossed Lake Superior ice to get there in 1949.”
And wolves that have been somewhere only for 61 years are what: “endangered”, “vital”, “native”, “keystone sp.”, what? Why aren’t they (bureaucrats and scientists and their financier-enablers) treating these moose and wolves that are such recent arrivals (radicals call them “Invaders”) to Isle Royal like they treat pheasants, Hungarian Partridge, Brown Trout, Great lakes Salmon, and all the other dreaded “non-natives” and “introduced” species they want to eradicate, that is to say with contempt? The vast majority of these desirable “non-natives” (radicals call them “Invasives”) have been in place and benefitting human society far longer than these moose and wolves on this Island.
6. “Wolves are no longer performing their function as predator on the island,” “There just aren’t enough to have any real impact on moose.”
So, let me get this straight: wolves on Isle Royal “perform a function as predator” on moose on which they are expected to have a “real impact”. Simultaneously, in the rest of Minnesota (yes Isle Royal was once widely considered to be part of Minnesota until federal controls and hegemony became so powerful that everyone believes the federal estate to simply be separate and distinct from States and Local Communities despite their window-dressing “allowing” of “public discussion”) moose decline as wolves increase and we are instructed to not listen to those fools that say there is a connection between the two. This stuff belongs on Prairie Home Companion.
7. “The situation is so unusual that it’s affecting other species on the island”.
Oh my word! Attention, “species” are being “affected” somewhere. You mean like elk and moose disappearing when wolves are forced into rural enclaves that do not want them? Aren’t “ecosystems” supposed to be like “climate” in that any (well not quite any) change is an emergency that only more government, more spending, more laws and more regulations can control before we all die? Actually, if bureaucrats and radicals want wolves or grizzlies somewhere they haven’t been for a century that is OK: if the same suspects want to eradicate wild species or domestic animals from somewhere that is OK: only if you or I want a landscape and rural environment safe and productive in which to live comfortably and safely raise our families and this is at odds with an all-powerful government acting as a shill for radical organizations –that is NOT OK! My God, “species” go up and down from moment to moment and saying that it is government’s job to intervene with no more cause than that things will be different is an abuse of government power for an unachievable purpose that could drain the world’s debt and GDP’s combined.
8. “It will be up to the National Park Service to decide”.
Unless you are one of the few that think of the Park Service or Fish and Wildlife Service or Forest Service (curious that word “Service” as in who or what do they “SERVE?”) as in your pocket, such common words these days should send a chill up your spine and heartburn down your throat.
9. “With wolf numbers so low, moose numbers on the island have exploded, more than doubling in recent years to more than 1,000. That’s the opposite trend from moose in Minnesota, where numbers have plummeted in recent years to the lowest levels in decades. While moose in Minnesota face bears, humans and deer-related diseases as predators, moose on Isle Royale have only wolves as threats”.
Finally, the piece de resistance! Like the President and his minions explaining what he “really” meant when he said we could keep our doctors and our insurance policies; these bureaucrats, scientists, and their media enablers are faced with a dilemma. How to explain how wolves decimate moose on Isle Royal and not on mainland Minnesota and why when the wolves are about to disappear moose populations are exploding on Isle Royal? If we knocked down dramatically the wolves on mainland Minnesota would moose recover? (The answer is YES.) Yet the Park Service will milk the federal Treasury for more money and people for this mysterious “situation” just like the Minnesota DNR bureaucrats and the University “scientists” have and are milking the State Treasury for more and more money and people to conduct “research on this mystery. Like the explanation of the President’s repeated use of the word “period”; these government con artists add “bears, humans and deer-related diseases” to the growing and irrelevant reasons for the mainland moose declines.
Oh well, it sell papers and garners urban votes to keep in power State pols maintaining unemployment with handouts and building stadiums (Romans called it “Bread and Circuses) and Federal pols signing UN Treaties to sell our sovereignty while taking away our property and our Rights. You couldn’t make this up if you tried to.
7 November 2013
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: email@example.com
I used to build houses. The photo below is of a house I built near my hometown in Maine. It was quite an undertaking right from the beginning. It was a challenge but loads of fun building it. I did it from a photograph and a graph paper sketch of the footprint. Take note of the round, brick structure at the center/corner of the house, now apparently the main entrance. That was built my Milt Inman; the gentleman and close friend who shares his photographs with us on this website, like the one below. He was notorious for many things and being a brick and stone mason was one.
The house has changed from its original construction. A deck wrapped around the plow front (left in photograph) and wound its way all the way around the other plow front (the one facing directly in the photo.) In addition, the beginnings of a deck over carport could have been seen coming from the house straight out over the driveway. The plan called for that deck to be 85 feet in length; I think 60 feet wide. Also, the brick turret is three stories high. The bottom level is now underground but was an entrance from the same level as the driveway under the carport.
The part of the house to the left in the photo, faces across the valley with a view of Sunday River Ski Resort. From the peak of the roof there, down to ground level is a considerable distance but seemed even higher at the time of construction because of the sharply sloping land of the side hill the house was constructed on.
The roof was originally built with hand-split, red cedar shakes.
Milt Inman Photo
MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is proud to announce the all-new Hunter Christmas Exposition, presented by Cabela’s, coming to the Las Vegas Convention Center on Dec. 4-7, 2014.
“We are extremely excited to bring the Hunter Christmas Expo to Las Vegas during the first four days of the National Finals Rodeo in 2014,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “Judging by the reaction so far, others are excited as well. This news release marks the first public announcement of the show and we are nearly halfway sold through our 560-plus available booth spaces.”
The National Finals Rodeo represents one of the largest gatherings of Western lifestyle enthusiasts in the United States. In 2012, Cowboy Christmas and Cowboy FanFest welcomed more than 186,000 attendees over the 10-day event and so far this year they are on pace to exceed last year’s numbers. Las Vegas Events reports the number of visitors in Las Vegas during what many refer to as the ‘Super Bowl of rodeos’ is actually 2-3 times that number because of all the watch parties and NFR-related activities outside the arena.
“Hunting and fishing rank among the highest activities enjoyed by this fan base, but there are currently no hunting or outdoor shows in Vegas during the NFR,” said Decker. “We feel Hunter Christmas fills a much-needed niche for these fans.”
The Hunter Christmas Exposition will take place alongside the established Cowboy Christmas and Cowboy FanFest Shows at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Hunter Christmas will be in the Central Halls while the Cowboy Christmas and Cowboy FanFest will be in the adjacent North Halls of LVCC.
Hunter Christmas will be presented by Cabela’s and feature industry leaders like Browning, Buck Knives, Leupold, Nosler, Remington, Federal Premium and many others. It will bring the best in firearms, optics, outfitters, archery, and hunting apparel, and all things hunting and outdoors to tens of thousands of outdoor enthusiasts. Additionally, Hunter Christmas will feature a full archery range conducted by PSE, the NASCAR Experience from Nationwide Insurance, the Gun Genie from Gallery of Guns allowing firearm purchases from the show floor, special television coverage by RFD-TV and seminars from top hunting pros.
“Las Vegas Events is proud of the partnership that we have created with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,” said Pat Christenson, president of Las Vegas Events. “They have been one of the core components of Cowboy FanFest since its inception in 2012. Offering new and exciting elements for rodeo fans each year is a goal for both of our organizations, and we look forward to working with RMEF in the future.”
RMEF is also moving its annual convention, Elk Camp, to the same dates of Dec. 4-7, 2014, also in Las Vegas at The Mirage.
“We feel this will bring a new level of energy and excitement to Elk Camp allowing us to do things unlike we have ever done them before at our annual event,” added Decker.
2. A friendly gesture?
3. A deliberate attempt to anger Cubans and others?
4. An “honest mistake”?
6. Obama so stupid he didn’t know who he was shaking hands with?
Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.
On occasion Milt and I have visited a restaurant in a tiny northern New Hampshire town, not too far from our summer digs. This past summer while there, we took notice of the two signs pictured below. (Milt took the photo) We also examined what we presumed to be the property line between the two business establishments. We both came to the conclusion that things might not be all roses between the two businesses…..as perhaps the location of these two signs might indicate.
Milt Inman Photo
Oh, my! Where to begin? I’ve been keeping a bit of an eye on this issue of the turning blades of wind turbines killing birds of all kind, including bald and golden eagles. Recently I posted some information about President Obama (his Fish and Wildlife Service) issuing a 30-year Incidental Take Permit, that would allow owners of wind farms to legally kill the protected eagles.
Since this announcement came, several Online have voiced some disdain for what they were hearing, but it soon became obvious that few actually understood what was going on and how the Endangered Species Act, and its history, are playing a key role.
The American Interest, a website where readers can find articles by Walter Meade, has a Meade article in reference to Obama’s granting of the Incidental Take Permit to allow the killing of eagles. For those who may not know, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is a permit that can be issued by the U.S. Government, through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10. Such a permit, grants an entity the legal right to kill a prescribed number of protected species. In this case, wind farm owners have convinced Obama (wink, wink) that their actions of protecting certain habitat will more than offset the loss of eagles from their rotating cutter blades (wink, wink).
Unfortunately, Meade does little to help the cause of stopping wind farms from the wildlife and habitat destruction they cause. Neither does the author of a piece Meade refers to. More on that in a bit.
This issue pits two of the biggest pillars of the green movement—renewable energy advocates and conservationists—against one another. But put in proper perspective, wind farms aren’t the kind of bird-mincing machines that some environmentalists make them out to be. Cats kill five times more birds every year; glass buildings are deadlier to our avian friends than turbine blades.
Perhaps this statement is an attempt at humor; if so it’s a bad one. I have no real issue with Walter Meade, nor do I care which side of the environmentally destructive wind farm industry he comes down on. What irks me is the absurdity of a person to make the statement about how many birds cats kill and how many birds break their necks running into plate glass windows, while attempting to compare it to windmills killing endangered birds.
The statement is as dumb as those, and there are millions of them, who use the example of domestic dog attacks vs. wolf attacks. The point being there are millions and millions of domestic dogs in this country alone, relatively compared to a handful of wolves. Of course there would be more dog attacks, especially since people and dogs are cohabiting; like in the same house and bed.
I am of the impression that Mr. Meade doesn’t understand or didn’t think before making such a ridiculous comparison. How many cats are there; especially feral cats? And certainly I think there might be a few more buildings around for birds to run into than windmills. In addition, I don’t recall ever hearing of a domestic or feral “kitty cat” attacking and killing a bald or golden eagle. I would have to do a bit of research to know if eagles fly into plate glass windows, but I think you get my point.
Another point to make about the locations of wind farms. Sometimes these farms are strategically placed in areas where prevailing winds blow and blow constantly. After all, they do need wind to generate electricity. Those winds are also used by migratory birds and as a result get caught up in the blades of the turbines and are killed.
What is not being talked about much is the fact that many of these wind farms are the pet projects of President Barack Obama. He loves them so, he took our tax money and gave it to his “pals” (voters) within the wind industry so they could construct their not so cost effective wind farms. Did you really think after allowing his “buds” to use our tax money and build giant, wildlife-killing windmills, he wouldn’t also give them their Incidental Take Permit? Or who knew anyway?
Smart people know and understand that the killing of eagles by windmills is a far cry from exclaiming the woes of cats and plate glass killing birds. In addition, some of the same smart people know and understand that when you call upon government to issue permits for themselves or to implement regulations against themselves, little right can come of it.
By not being grounded in the historic abuses of the Endangered Species Act, by political groups and our own government, would only lead someone to call upon more government regulations, dressed up with some lipstick, to fix government regulation. Such is the case in the article referred to in Meade’s piece. That article is written by Mario Loyola, called: “How Texas Can Save the Endangered Species Act.” It’s a very long and wordy piece that I’ll let readers work their way through should they choose. But I’ll point out a couple of things.
The reference to efforts ongoing in Texas, as they relate to endangered species, has to do with Texas government efforts to find ways of allowing industry to continue it’s violations against the ESA by making people, the landowners, think they are getting a good deal, but in the end still lose their land and rights.
In Loyola’s piece, 99.99% has to do with benefiting large corporations, protection of habitat (more accurately known as theft of land and rights), and still screwing over the private landowner.
One thing to consider right up front is found in an opening paragraph by Loyola referencing the economic destruction of the spotted owl issue.
The decision caused a lot of pain and suffering for how much good it did, which turned out to be none at all. The northern spotted owl’s population continued dwindling because, as it turned out, the principal threat to its survival was apparently not habitat loss, but the spread of an invasive species: its cousin, the larger eastern barred owl.
Apparently? And herein lies the issue that angers many of us. Way back when, it was argued there was no good science to support claims being made by the environmentalists that loss of habitat was supposedly killing the spotted owl. Now that the environmentalists were successful in shutting down land, they now want to try something else claiming that “new science” has revealed something better.
The article in reference makes claims that this plan in Texas would solve the science issue because habitat exchanges would provide for scientists to use money, paid by corporations into the exchanges, to bribe landowners to let them go on their land and do research in order to better discover how much habitat is needed to protect certain species and whether or not private land would do the trick for the corporations. And then, they would screw over the private land owner. In addition, history of government corruption should teach us that the so-called private industry scientists would be nothing more than government bribed individuals continuing the bastardization of science for political purposes.
And this somehow would solve the “best available science” issue? I think not. Government regulation and politics destroys everything. What is being suggested is simply more government regulation dressed up with a bit of lipstick.
The author admits the ESA needs amending but thinks what needs to be done can be accomplished with utilizing Texas’s mitigation exchange programs. He even refers to, but does not recognize as such, the abuse by non governmental agencies, through the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in forcing the USFWS to act on over 250 demands for action against threatened species. Knowing full well that the USFWS cannot act on all of these, places government money (that’s taxpayer money) into the pockets of these environmentalists. It has become their cash cow.
Government got involved in the wind industry when Obama and Congress opted to subsidize it. And now to protect their investment (not ours) they must issue an ITP in order to not slow up a failed energy system they must prop up for votes. People believing that the issuing of the ITP is wrong and suggesting government regulation can fix it, are insane – by definition.
I have long written that real amendments to the ESA and the EAJA can go a long way in curbing the abuses undertaken by greedy special interest groups, while at the same time actually doing something to protect those threatened and endangered species. Government subsidies amount to the spread of communism. The intent in the subsidies is to insure government control and interference. Until these changes are made, it is fool’s folly to think more regulation will make a difference to the individual.
And that lost difference is all by design.
“On Wednesday, with just three weeks to go until he leaves office, Mr. Bloomberg’s controversial Board of Health is set to vote on new rules that would force children as young as six months old to be immunized each year before December 31 if they attend licensed day care or pre-school programs.”<<<Read More>>>