April 18, 2019

When Too Much Management is a Problem

A talk by Jim Beers at the Big Game Management SYMPOSIUM

Cranbrook, British Columbia

13 April 2019

Comments and Observations Concerning Predators, Prey & Modernity A Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three States

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

South Dakota (Cougars)

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

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

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

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

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

Minnesota (Wolves)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia (Deer)

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

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

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

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

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

The Solution

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

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

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

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

How It Would Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Beers

Given @ the Cranbrook, British Columbia Big Game Symposium

13 April 2019

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

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

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

Share

Environmentalism’s Wildlife Management Voodoo Science

Here is a fine example of the utter nonsense being drummed into the heads of wildlife biologists and managers around the country…and probably the world. Similar statements are cropping up on a regular basis in many state wildlife management departments (example found here) in a perverted example of the Romance Biology and Voodoo Science that has gripped these agencies courtesy of Environmentalism’s evil hand.

I read this trash in a Vermont Online publication about how it no longer really matters how many animals are part of any state’s wildlife management programs: “It’s natural to be curious about how many moose or bald eagles exist in a given place at a given time, but is it necessary information? For most species, the answer is no. The overarching goal of state wildlife management programs is to maintain healthy, stable wildlife populations — to keep common species common, to help declining species recover, and to do so within the practical confines of a never-enough budget. Marchand described this part of his work as “determining what information we need to know in order to make effective conservation decisions. The more info you need, the more it costs.”

“In the end, we’ll never know precisely how many moose or bald eagles there are in the Granite State. What we do know, from trend data, is that wood turtles are vulnerable, moose are in decline and eagles, thankfully, are recovering. When it comes to managing wildlife, that’s enough.”

All this Voodoo Science accomplishes is it provides an escape goat for incompetent wildlife managers who want to operate their agencies as agents of Environmentalism; an operation that excludes consumptive use and provides “rights” and protection for all animals. So long as the waters can forever be muddied with garbage such as this, the easier it is to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to responsibly manage any wildlife species without a relative assurance as to the numbers that exist within a population. To state otherwise is utter nonsense. To believe otherwise is insanity.

The only way anyone can claim that recognizing “trends” is enough when it comes to wildlife management, is that their long-term goals are to eliminate the North American Model of Wildlife Management and be done with hunting, fishing, and trapping as a proven management tool.

But don’t go look!

Share

Fascism We Call Shaping the Future

The other day I was led to a report from Maine prepared by a new legislative, mandated formation of The Land Conservation Task Force. Not surprisingly, the title of this report comes to you as: “Shaping the Next Generation of Land Conservation in Maine.”

What could possibly be wrong with this? I doubt most know.

When any government mandates the formation of a “task force” whose mandate it is to find ways to SHAPE the next generation for any reason, should either run and hide or prepare for oppression. Unfortunately, most choose to run and hide and/or just bury their heads.

I don’t have the time nor the ambition to walk you through this work of fascism, disguised as good community (commune, communism) service…all for the good of all as “shaped” by someone else’s political idealism. I would, however, like to focus on just one part of this communist manifesto.

On Page 20 we find: “Recommendation #5: Target land conservation efforts to effectively protect critical natural resources and help Maine combat and adapt to a changing climate.”

The ignorance that exists within this task force must be for the greater good. As representatives of a brainwashed society, hand picked to serve due to their admiration of “Bread and Circuses,” each member has been thoroughly consumed with the myth of man-caused global warming (they choose to be more comfortable by calling it Climate Change) from the perspective that by living an existence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, we are causing the earth to warm and all the fake aftereffects.

I suppose we should congratulate the purveyors of such nonsense; those who have profited richly from taking advantage of ignorant taxpayers, the blind and delusional, for successfully perpetuating the taxable lie about a warming climate caused by farting cows and you driving to work to you can pay the way of those who refuse to work – while they trek about in gas-guzzling jets.

However, there is NO hope that the pEOPLE are soon to shed their delusions and do what they should know as the right thing. You either buy into the scam behind this form of Climate Change (yes, capital “Cs”) or you see it for what it really is. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind. But I can try.

Maybe then, you’ll see the authoritarian actions being thrust upon us by eager autocrats who know not what they do. This group of totalitarians have taken it upon themselves, by order of the centralized fascist legislature, to decide what is best for you, your land, the economy of the state, the environment, the climate, and what and how our natural resources should be used or not. They make recommendations which lands, whether yours or theirs, you can access and what you can do with them – and this all from a group’s perspective of how my and your life should be run.

Do you like that?

Bear in mind that these recommendations of what THEY want and how THEY think you and I should live, are partly based on THEIR notion of what they have been brainwashed to believe about Climate Change. This is what they tell us: “Already change has manifest itself through shifting seasons, increased precipitation, introduction of nonnative species and rising sea level. Noticeable impacts include shorter maple tapping seasons, an abundance of ticks and associated diseases, increased coastal erosion and green crabs and other pests that have compromised otherwise robust natural-resource based economies.”

It takes quite the imagination to blame everything they have listed on their “Schindler’s List” as a result of Climate Change. What is a “shifting season?” Is that when Spring is followed by Winter and Summer follows Fall?

I find it laughable that Climate Change causes “introduction of nonnative species.” How does that happen exactly?

Much of this cannot pass a straight face test. Nothing suggested here that the group believes is having “negative” affects on THEIR state, can be proven. It is nothing more than propaganda being passed on to the populace as fact. It is far from true facts and fully supported as false facts.

This is just part of the nonsense being swallowed by an entire culture. But it’s not just this list of made-up fantasies used to promote a lie. It’s the Second Grade level psycho-babble they use in an attempt to sell an idealism that carries worthless meaning. We read: “Maine’s forested landscape provides an important means to lessen the impacts through the sequestration of carbon both in the forest and in products derived from the forest.”

Doesn’t that just make you feel fuzzy all over? Do you know what it is suggesting? It means we must stop cutting trees. Cut down trees can’t “sequester” carbon. GASP!

“Moreover, certain areas and ecosystems have been identified as critical to future adaptation to a changing climate in Maine such as the undeveloped corridor running along Maine’s Western Mountains up through the Allagash and St. John River Valleys and coastal wetlands subject to rising sea levels.”

Oh my! I guess this means we’re all gonna die! What should we do? If we follow their recommendations, we need to take control over and shut down all access to the land that runs from Western Maine, to the Allagash, and through the St. John River Valley. HANDS OFF you carbon causing criminals. That land belongs to the KING…or at least the fascist government who appoints the totalitarians, strongly deluded, members to their fascist task force.

And here’s some more nonsense: “A landscape fragmented by roads, energy infrastructure, dams, and development presents a barrier to many species whose range may shift.”

When it is convenient, these environmentalists claim that species are dying because they are incapable of adapting (shifting) to another “range” or habit. But, when they choose to invoke a claim about species deciding to “shift ranges” then all progress must stop in order to allow such an event. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s much like hunting causes extermination of species and at the same time hunting causes the expansion of species. How is that possible?

“Maintaining landscape-scale connectivity and conserving a network of ecological reserves within a matrix of undeveloped land (including working forests) offers the best chance of retaining a diverse variety of plants and animals.”

I emboldened all the key phrases that I’m sure came right out of the book of radical Environmentalism. PUKE!

This horse manure continues with no end in sight. It’s sustainable development, it’s Agenda 21, it’s from UNEP, it’s Environmentalism, it’s Fascism, it’s Totalitarianism all rolled up in a nice neat wrap. Nobody takes the time to exam the words to discover the real meaning behind this overreach into our lives, having a group of unelected, government appointed socialists dictating what is best for you and I.

I can’t speak for you but I don’t need anybody telling me how I should live and what is best for me. I do my own thinking. I just wish more of you would give it a try and tell these well-intentioned, dictatorial, oppressive, tyrants to back off.

Go SHAPE your own lifestyle and leave mine alone. I don’t want nor do I need any of your “help.” Especially this kind.

Share

Recruiting Hunters and Fighting Antis: It’s Just a Little Too Late

Reading two articles this morning, I am reminded of the old saying, “A day late and dollar short.”

The first article is in response to the latest U.S.F.W.S.’s survey of hunting and fishing which shows a decline in the number of hunting licenses sold. The article goes on to tell of what we can do to reverse that trend…ha, ha.

Recruitment, retention, and reactivation, they label it, is what is needed they say. Isn’t it just a long time overdue and far too late? Retention and reactivation are near impossible in some locations for several reasons but who wants to hunt when the hunting sucks. Places in the country, more than many want to talk about, are void of game animals to hunt and/or land to hunt on. Much of that game is locked up on private posted land. Overprotection of large predators has caused a rapid and permanent decline in deer and moose. This trend won’t end until something is done to control large predators – all part of the problem.

This brings us to part of a bigger problem that also effects why recruitment is near impossible.

A second article deals with the so-called antis who want to stop hunting. The article reads: “Their [antis] zealous drive to ban sensible wildlife management will never be derailed by facts or science because they refuse to consider facts or science. The flame of compassion burns hot in the antis, fanned by the fear-monger zealots and financial bottom lines of the PETA’s and Disney’s of the world.”

And why are these zealots this way? Simple. It began at their childhood when media, schools, etc. began a systematic propaganda campaign that involved two very prominent aspects of today’s post-normal culture – a perverse perspective on animals and an aggressive “boot to the throat” approach toward forcing the “non believers” to assimilate or else.

How do you fight that now?

One article talks of programs that have been tried – some proven to work they say – but in reality any success seen in this form of recruitment is only based on passing fads, i.e. it’s cool to want to eat “natural” food. The real damage was done decades ago and continues with extreme pressure today. While a passing fad might temporarily convince a few to take up the sport, it cannot be disregarded that these same people came out of that brainwashed existence of hands-off wildlife management and protect all animals at any cost.

Perhaps efforts in play now can slow the demise down but until such time as the entire systematic approach to change the way wildlife management is viewed and talked about, whose change has permeated every level of wildlife management, no real changes will be made. Hunting must, once again, become an overwhelmingly accepted part, a tradition, a heritage, of American life.

With the brainwashing that has taken place, there is no longer any such thing as sensible and rational discourse in resolving problems. The attitude is I am right and you will change to my way…end of discussion.

In the article about the antis, the author laments that they: “…refuse to consider facts or science.” Isn’t that the description of just about everyone in this exceptionally screwed up world? Scientism, which is the fake governing source of everything related to the world of science, dictates that ideological theories that support political agendas is the only “science” that matters. Scientism is the act of creating theories for the purpose of influencing public opinion – outcome driven.

If the proponents of the R3, recruitment, retention, reactivation, really want to become effective, they must return to the beginning. This involves finding enough “deep pockets” to properly fund an all out effort to infiltrate the schools and the media to propagandize this country about the benefits of hunting, etc. Once that has been accomplished, a lot will change. Not only will there be a return to the activity of hunting, but it will, once again, be supported by millions more. This change in attitude will take care of just about all the rest of the hunting community’s problems, including a disappearance of brainwashed wildlife managers who don’t know what they are doing and are operating under the smoke and mirrors of the environmentalists who taught them and placed them in their jobs.

The disease is much bigger than finding a cure by generating a recruitable interest. Stop kidding yourselves.

Share

Advice and Suggestions to the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife

A reader sent me a copy of the Maine Sportsman, specifically George Smith’s article about his “advise” to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). After reading it, I thought perhaps I would offer something similar. Sometimes I am accused of being only critical of the MDIFW seldom offering constructive criticism or even suggestions on better or different ways in which to do things.

Smith writes of the need to “unlock that door” that prohibits visitors access to the commissioner of the MDFIW. I understand the concept and how convenient it would be to just “drop in” someday and chat with the commissioner. I would like to think that the real situation playing at the offices of the MDIFW has more to do with security than a want to lock themselves up and separate them from the public. I might be wrong. We do live in a strange time in which most people are always aware and subjected to enhanced security measures.

TURKEYS

George writes about what he would do about turkey management and the role that hunting plays in that management. For the most part I think he brings up some good points, i.e. too many turkeys, too few hunters, and the barrier of license fees that prohibit more people from trying or getting involved in turkey hunting and harvesting a turkey that would aide the MDIFW with their management goals.

Originally, I had thought that Smith’s idea of including turkey hunting as part of a Big Game Hunting License wouldn’t fly because the MDIFW would not be willing to give up that revenue from turkey license fees. Is there a trade-off here? Will somehow opening up the turkey season to reduced cost (and loss of fees to MDIFW) be made up in other ways? Perhaps.

I think that consensus must be reached as to whether there are too many turkeys and how critical it is that turkey populations be reduced. If, more people gained interest in turkey hunting, perhaps down the road, as populations came more in line with management goals, turkey license fees could be levied again. If a reduction in the number of turkeys is urgently needed, and I think if we haven’t gotten there yet we soon will, then the MDIFW must do what is expedient to make the reductions in numbers necessary to be responsible for the healthy management of these game birds.

FISHERIES

Fisheries is far from my strong point and knowledge base. I am not at all that qualified to offer the MDIFW advice on how to specifically manage the fisheries in the State of Maine. How fortunate for some.

MOOSE

Odd isn’t it, in many ways, that some are opposed to the reduction of moose populations to mitigate the winter ticks’ destruction of the moose herd but think nothing about advocating the complete destruction of a herd of deer to get rid of Lyme disease. Perhaps if more evidence pointed a finger at the health risk to humans from the winter tick, mindsets might change.

I have written extensively on Maine’s moose and what I believe to be the need to bring the moose population in Maine to levels that seriously reduce the presence and perpetuation of winter ticks that are inhumanely and unnecessarily causing moose to suffer and die during long and cold winters.

Smith laments about the loss of businesses associated with moose watching now that Mother Nature took over where wildlife management failed. During the heyday of the overgrown moose populations, some scrambled and took advantage, as any good entrepreneur might do, looking for ways to exploit the abundant moose for profit. It might have been fun while it lasted but the lesson that should be learned here might be at what price do we exploit any wildlife animal for lucre? As grown adults we should see that having enough moose around that many got into the business of moose watching tours was but a flash in that pan. Time to move on. We have learned that attempting to grow moose in numbers for capitalistic enterprises is a terrible thing to do to the animal – part of the downside of attempting to manage any species while being driven by social demands.

More recent studies are suggesting what some of us knew a long time ago – that too many moose was the cause of the aggressive expanse of winter ticks resulting in high mortality rates on the large beast.

The MDIFW should move quickly to determine at what population Maine’s moose will be most healthy while still providing opportunities for Maine residents to harvest a moose and fill their freezers.

I suggest that the MDIFW, once establishing moose populations, based on sound science and not social demands, issue enough permits or a long enough season to bring the population under a control that reduces the tick infestation. Once that is accomplished, permit for the future can be issued accordingly. Letting Mother Nature do the job is not only irresponsible but is a waste of a terrific natural resource.

DEER

Smith tells readers that the MDIFW stopped managing deer in northern Maine and only “manages” moose. I don’t know if this is actually an official position taken by the MDIFW, but it appears there is at least quite a bit of evidence to support that statement.

Smith claims that because Maine failed to protect winter habitat in Northern and Western Maine, the deer herd “was lost.” I concur the deer herd was lost but I think it had other influences than just a loss of habitat. A lot of things have changed over the years, one thing being the behavior of the deer. While deer are learning how to adapt to that loss of winter habitat, we humans remain locked in our unadaptable behavior of insisting on things being the way they were when our fathers hunted the whitetails.

Each time I have listened to the worn out excuse that deer have disappeared because of loss of winter habitat, I have always asked why, if that is true, thousands of acres of old winter habitat, still in winter habitat condition, is void of deer? Never an answer.

Loss of winter habitat in the classical sense, can and does have an effect on the deer population. Attempting to somehow “manage” deer to return to unwanted winter habitat, is an example of managers failing to learn and adjust to changes of the deer population and their habits. When we see this failure, one can’t help but wonder how much we can rely on the deer managers “estimate” of deer populations and other management shortcomings.

We failed to learn quickly enough that attempting to manage moose populations at high enough levels that tourism benefitted, the moose herd suffered terribly due to exposure and anemia from blood sucking winter ticks. Deer populations are suffering but perhaps in different ways because the ecosystem in which they have traditionally comfortably inhabited have and are changing. The deer are adapting as best they can but our management tactics are not. Evidently the preference is to give up.

Too many moose compete with deer. Too many large predators kill deer and fawns and this is challenging the stability of the deer population and in some places we are witnessing the unsustainability of a deer herd. Are we to just blame it on loss of winter habitat and Climate Change or should we be responsible stewards of our wild game animals?

If we are to mitigate the cause for the lack of deer in portions of Northern and Western Maine, isn’t the responsible thing to do is to reduce the bear and coyote populations to give the deer a chance? If we simply stop deer management because loss of habitat and Climate Change is the excuse, what then can we expect of all of our game and wildlife species going forward?

Managers have a responsibility to care for all of these game species. Giving up on one species in certain areas, tells me that there is lack of knowledge and poor management skills involved. The epitome of wildlife management failures is giving in to some man’s fictitious notion that the globe is warming and the northern border of the whitetail deer’s habitat is moving south, while our neighbors to the north continue to work at managing their deer. If Climate Change is causing such chaos that is forcing the destruction of habitat for deer, then it makes sense that other more northern species are migrating south according to the changes. Is this happening? No. A warming climate, as claimed, should be reducing the affects of severe winters. Is that happening? No.

There’s little more that managers can do to stop the perceived reduction of winter habit and deer habitat in general short of demanding more totalitarian tactics to take property and property rights away from people and corporations. It’s easy, from afar, to stand in judgement over landowners, demanding they relinquish their rights as property owners in order to enhance the habitat of any wild animal. The tough part to deer management is maximizing what is left and working in earnest to make the best of what we have. Even if deer densities in Northern and Western Maine aren’t at ideal levels, is that reason enough to simply walk away and say, we tried?

There is no need to kill off all the coyotes/wolves in Maine or reduce bear populations to levels that give us more deer than are needed to balance a very valuable resource. All that is stopping this effort is the MDIFW’s insistence on caving to social demands. I suppose to them in the short term it is easier to cave in than to stand up to those demands supported by strong scientific evidence. And that may be the actual problem. Does the MDIFW have or want the strong scientific evidence?

BEAR

The MDIFW has a very good bear study program. Some claim that program is the envy of all other fish and wildlife departments. Only radical animal rights groups or individuals would argue that there are too many bear. The MDIFW publicly admits they need to reduce the bear population, but so far, have done little to solve that problem. Perhaps they are moving at a speed that only politics and social demands allow them. Time for change.

Having too many bears presents several problems – public safety and a disruption of population goals of other species such as deer and moose. Fortunately, bear hibernate, otherwise God only knows what kind of destruction they would wreak on weakened deer in deer wintering areas.

Some studies suggest that the presence of bear has more negative impact on deer than do coyotes/wolves. Maybe the current studies that the MDIFW are conducting on moose and deer will help us gain better understanding on this concept.

Regardless, it appears Maine must reduce bear populations. But how? One problem that jumps out immediately is the power of the guides and outfitters placing demands on the MDIFW to manage bears according to their wishes that would best maximize their business profits. While it is understandable that this is important to the private enterprises, should the MDIFW continue to allow increased public safety concerns and actual reductions in deer populations, and perhaps even moose, simply to appease these groups? Of course not, but when will the MDIFW move to do anything about it? Perhaps the time is now.

Like with turkey hunting, Maine needs to find easier and less expensive ways to encourage more hunters to take up the challenge. Hunters that have little interest in bear hunting might change their mind if hunting bear were part of a Big Game License all the time during open season on bear.

Bag limits should be raised. The late summer bear hunt should have a minimum of a two-bear limit – perhaps three in some areas. If that doesn’t do the trick, then a Spring bear hunt may be necessary. Regulations can be employed to mitigate the killing of cubs as has been proven in other places that have Spring bear hunts.

The MIDFW has done a respectable job of working to ward off the radical animal rights groups bent on closing down bear hunting. They should increase and improve this effort to include everything they do with wildlife management. Two bear referendums have proven that maintaining a passive posture and making management decisions based on social demands is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous, almost childish. If wildlife managers and their administration don’t have or believe the science necessary to responsibly managed their wildlife, they should be out of a job. There should be little room given to social demands when it comes to scientifically managing game.

OPERATIONS

There are certain aspects of running a fish and game department that should be within the control of the commissioner, who, of course, answers to the governor. Open and closed seasons should be within the control of the commissioner. That person, along with the managers and biologists in the department, are the ones who should know what is going on and what is needed, not the Humane Society of the United States, other animal rights groups, or even the Legislature. Such social and political powers spoil any scientific approach at wildlife management. It may take an act of the Legislature to effect such changes.

We live in a time where these powerful animal rights and environmentalists have gained control over our factories of higher indoctrination. The result of this is now showing up in our fish and game departments where the concerns are more about the “rights” of animals and away from a consumptive, use of a natural resources approach to wildlife management.

Scientifically, it has been proven that the North American Model of Wildlife Management works. Those opposed to this form of wildlife management know this and have been working tireless to “change the way wildlife management is discussed.” Along with this has come the social demands to place equal rights and protections on animals as are given to humans.

Outdoor advocates, hunters, trappers, fishermen, as well as all those who understand and believe in the necessity of consumptive use to best manage and control wildlife, should demand that the commissioner be more selective and demanding of those that are hired as biologists and wildlife managers. Candidates should be screened as to their idealism and positions on animal rights and hunting, fishing, and trapping. To responsibly utilize hunting and fishing as part of the overall plans for wildlife management, cannot have room for animal rights advocates or those opposed to this system.

Some have called for money from general taxation to support the MDIFW. It is my opinion this would be a very big mistake. First of all, before any MORE money is dumped in the lap of this department, a complete audit should be undertaken so that all will know exactly what every penny is spent on and where every penny comes from to run the department. If more money is needed, then that has to come from fee increases and not from general taxation. Here’s why.

With money sent to the MDIFW from general taxation, along with it will be demands from the general taxpayer for bigger representation. This opens the door even further for more infiltration by environmentalists who want to “change the way we discuss wildlife management.”

We have seen this already. Where once the MDIFW used to be the department of fish and game, other states have gotten rid of their fish and game names completely, replaced with departments of natural resources.

With a weakening of the managerial understanding and knowledge of how wildlife management should run, further expedites the dreaded end to responsible wildlife management, replaced by VooDoo Science and Romance Biology.

The only way the MDIFW can survive as a bonafide fish and game department is if it remains out of the control of Environmentalism.

The MDIFW does many things well. Some things they have little control over. Certainly there is room for improvement and if others, like me, realize that if we don’t do something to change those things that are sending us in the wrong direction and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the good that we enjoy now will soon be lost. Let’s not let that happen.

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Gets it Mostly Right

Below is a copy of a letter Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), David Trahan, included in his latest report. According to the letter, SAM has rescinded its support of Central Maine Power Company’s plans to cut another power line through Northwestern Maine in order to provide additional power sources from Canada to Massachusetts.

According to Trahan, SAM polled its members and “an overwhelming percentage of our members are opposed to the NECEC Corridor extension.”  He further goes on to write that of the remainder of the members polled, “most are undecided and only a small percentage support the effort.”

Having said that, it is a bit puzzling to me why the executive director then continues to tell CMP, “…we will now take a more neutral, neither for nor against, posture.”

While it is no question SAM is eating some crow, can anyone with a straight face rescind support by assuming a position of neither for nor against and be carrying out the wishes of the “overwhelming” majority of SAM members?

I think I understand the difficult position of SAM’s “humility” in this announcement, of which many are grateful for, while extolling the support of CMP allowing access to their many power lines, but has SAM now actually spoken and spoken honestly for its members by gleaning their survey results for overwhelming opposition to the project while attempting to somehow remain neutral?

Hmmmm.

Share

Wolf Mushroom Cloud Is a U.N.E.P. Intentional Disaster

Central Idaho elk and deer herds have suffered the same negative results from the wolf paradigm as described herein..

Share

Anti-Hunting Mental Drool

Along with the time of year when there is much activity with hunting and trapping, we all regularly are subjected to the mental drool of those who don’t like any of the activities. Maybe if they just said I don’t like hunting and trapping and left it at that, some of us wouldn’t bother to single them out to expose their limited mental capacities while disparaging a worthwhile, long-standing, cultural heritage that has unlimited benefits to both man and wildlife – hunting.

A letter scribbler in the Bangor Daily News called hunting and trapping “incivil” – evidently meaning that any reporting in the news about hunting and trapping is offensive, rude, or impolite. The writer also called hunting and trapping an unworthy event and unsportsmanlike and said hunting was no longer “fair chase.”

Here’s a couple of things to ponder. Most of these terms – fair chase, sportsmanlike, etc. – have been crafted by men over the years perhaps as a means of pulling the wool over someone’s eyes about hunting and trapping. They are man-made terms much the same as when some mental midget declares hunting is an act to “prove one’s manhood.”

Fair chase is really nothing but abiding by the laws crafted by men for men to hunt and trap animals for consumptive use. All rules and regulations for hunting and trapping are grounded in species management and public safety – nothing more. I never thought of hunting as a “sport” therefore sportsmanship had nothing to do with the act. I see hunting as something I enjoy doing that occasionally (emphasis on occasionally) rewards me with a few good meals of healthy meat.

So give it a rest already. Take your “fair chase” and “sportsmanship” to the athletic field, where these days everyone gets a “trophy.” Hunting and trapping are a well developed scientific necessity to responsibly manage and maintain a healthy and sustainable game population.

The other issue is one in which I’ve never quite understood. Obvious this whiner takes offense – finds incivility – in news reports about hunting and trapping, and yet in order to find offense, the person must be reading the reports.

As this writer mentions, they find politicians offensive and rude, as do I. I find the solution sensible. Stop reading the articles and looking at the pictures. Any moron should understand that basic concept, but evidently, that is above the capacity of some who would rather whine, bitch, and complain about something they know nothing about.

 

Share

RMEF Honored for Public Access and Habitat Stewardship

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation received the Public Lands Foundation’s (PLF) 2018 Landscape Stewardship Award at a ceremony here Tuesday for its leadership in conserving wildlife habitat and improving access on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

“The RMEF has been a long-time leader in working with the BLM, state and federal agencies, private landowners and other partners to conserve wildlife and enhance access to public lands for hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy,” said Ed Shepard, PLF president. “RMEF’s unique niche as a grassroots, member-driven organization has made a measureable impact as a passionate and effective advocate, working from the ground up to champion access and habitat improvement projects across the country.”

The Montana/Dakotas BLM nominated RMEF for the prestigious award and highlighted RMEF’s successful Cow Island Trail acquisition in north-central Montana immediately prior to the 2015 hunting season. The 93-acre project improved access to approximately 6,000 acres of public land in the scenic Upper Missouri Breaks that were extremely difficult to reach.

“We have worked side-by-side with our BLM partners for more than 34 years and appreciate receiving this honor and recognition,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “It is a reflection of our commitment to our mission and especially is an indicator of the support we receive from our volunteers, members and other conservation partners who support us in all that we do together.”

Over the past 20 years in the Montana/Dakotas region alone, RMEF spearheaded five lands projects conveying 14,015 acres to BLM, opening or improving access to more than 56,000 acres of public lands.

“The Elk Foundation is leaving an indelible mark on the ability of current and future generations to use and enjoy our nation’s public lands,” said Jon Raby, BLM Montana State Director. “RMEF’s ability to work closely with willing landowners to develop strategic access improvement projects is a tremendous asset for BLM and the public.”

The most recent RMEF-BLM Montana effort is the Little Sheep Creek access project in southwest Montana that, when completed, will permanently protect nearly 1,000 acres of wildlife habitat and improve access to 2,600 acres of adjacent public lands.

RMEF and BLM Montana have partnered on more than 60 habitat stewardship projects that directly benefited more than 80,000 acres of habitat for elk and a diverse array of other species. Nationally, the BLM and RMEF have completed more than 1,082 projects with a joint conservation portfolio valued in excess of $143 million dollars.

Photo information (left to right):  BLM/RMEF National Liaison Linda Cardenas, BLM Western District Manager Rick Hotaling, Kemp Conn, retired BLM Deputy Assistant Director, Lands and Resources, RMEF President/CEO Kyle Weaver, RMEF Director of Lands Jennifer Doherty, RMEF Senior Lands Program Manager Mike Mueller

Share

The Heresy Destroying Western Civilization

*Editor’s Note* – As I have continuously pointed out, all guest articles are the intellectual work and opinions of the author. This article contains many excellent points to consider. However, I feel it imperative to point out my own difficulty in accepting any philosophical renderings from a Jesuit trained at the Jesuit Georgetown University.

It is a known fact that many of the accusations made by the Jesuit author referenced below are, in fact, part of the existing Hegelian Dialectic – crisis, embellishment of reactions, presentation of a solution – constructed by the very Vatican institution of which any Jesuit is sworn to loyalty. Because it is known that the Vatican is behind and controls this “environmental” movement and the “ecological theory” discussed in this article, it becomes difficult to accept at face value the philosophical embellishments of this problem in which the end game is to construct a solution, which includes obtaining the power presented as a negative political object below.

Perhaps the real takeaway from this is that if you want to do something to stop this “ecological theory” or “Heresy Destroying Western Civilization” then we need to go back to the roots of where it all began, understand the evil that exists there, and refuse to be a part of it.

But that will never happen. It is too big and too powerful and thus, as this article states, man’s purpose becomes service to the Cosmos.

Article by James Beers:

Civilization, n. 1. An advanced state of human society, in which a high level of art, science, religion and government has been reached.

Civilized, adj. 1. Having an advanced culture, society, etc.

Civilize, v.t.  1. To make civil; bring out of a savage state; elevate in social and individual life; enlighten; refine.

Civil, adj.  1Of or consisting of citizenscivil life, civil society, civil law.  2. Of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or the ordinary life and affairs of citizens.  3. Of the citizen as an individual, Civil Liberty.

Heresy, n. 1Opinion or doctrine at variance with orthodox or accepted doctrine.  2. The maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.

Europe and North America are often described as “Advanced”, “First World” or “Western” Civilization.  They think of themselves as “Leaders” in everything from UN/One-World Government movements to seeing and striving toward a future where science and a handful of very “enlightened” individuals will organize and rule the rest of us.  Their hubris in this regard knows no bounds.

Over the past century, and particularly in the last 50 years, social turbulence throughout Western Civilization has spread to every corner of society. Rural communities, natural resource management and use, and wild plants and animals (my own areas of interest) have experienced a growing and dramatic societal reversal of centuries-old norms and values. Government politicians and bureaucrats in league with numberless, wealthy Non-Government Organizations purporting to “represent’ and advocate for everything from deadly animals that kill people and imagined animal and plant communities to replace human-settled landscapes; to civil laws stripping individual citizens of their liberties and rights in the name of “native” (actually “preferred”) animals and plants.  Every manifestation of maintaining or further advancing the “civilizing” of human communities’ welfare and beneficial traditions, utilizing science and historic experience, from tree-cutting, hunting, animal husbandry, fishing and energy development to power generation, national defense, policing, immigration, incarceration, and education is either under attack or has been so restricted or eliminated as to be forgotten and unrecognizable in another decade.

In a very real sense, our civilized society is like our lifetime savings.  If we fail to protect it both physically and value-wise; we and our children not only become poor, we lose all ability to control our own destinies.  Unless we remove the robbers that stole our civilization or prevent the inflation of our rights by government decrees that make them worthless; we cannot work to replace our rights and traditions or their value because they will simply disappear again.  Our civilized society depends on many things from just laws to agreements among ourselves on common values and virtues.  When laws are passed (think Endangered Species Act, Race and Sex Preferences and Gun Possession and Travel Restrictions) that pervert our Constitutional guarantees and change our cultural, historic and traditional norms from religious practices to the education of our children and how we live our lives: the forces driving such change can fairly be described as heretical attacks, or a heresy, aimed at our civilization and our individual civil liberties.

This heresy and its quasi-religious make-up came to my attention recently in a Wall Street Journal titled Back to Nature.  The author opined about “restoring” the “countryside” by converting government lands and land bought by wealthy sponsors and Non-Government Organizations “back to its savage state”.  The “movement” is named “rewilding” and it claims millions of acres from Kenya and Britain to Los Angeles, Wisconsin and Montana.  All manner of “Conservation Projects” welcome select, paying visitors to “Wolves and Wine Pairings” in Sweden, Italy and Portugal to a Kenyan “Retreat” complete with “lectures from an expert on ‘hands-on healing’”.  A Wisconsin Wilderness offers “one to four-month training to be a ‘forest monk’” “all the while inviting their own spiritual awakening”, and all for only “$10,000 per person”.

In addition to all this quasi-religious justification, I noted the recent releases and “scientific” twaddle about the latest wild animal being introduced into the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States– the buffalo. There were many very good reasons that free-roaming buffalo were eliminated on the Great Plains at great effort and expense 150+ years ago.  Total incompatibility with farming, grazing livestock, homes, roads, towns are but a few.  The recent myths about killing buffalo to starve Native people or for Sport hunting are merely propaganda about an ancillary effect meant to engender sympathy and support for the reintroduction of buffalo and “savage” landscapes while vilifying hunting and hunters, merely one of many means that effected the elimination of buffalo.

Like Government Issue wolves and grizzly bears spreading today throughout western and upper midwestern settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States under government force: buffalo will likewise cause unbearable expenses to ranchers, farmers and other rural residents.  Buffalo will multiply and roam wider and wider areas and rural people will be told to not harm them when they ruin crops and fences and gardens; when they roam into towns in winter; when they attack hunting dogs or hunters after other animals; when they (dark-coated and all 1400 lbs. of one) stand on dark roads at night as rural people drive home at night or go to work early in the morning; or when they are startled and run wildly where children and elderly resident are in harm’s way.  Buffalo introductions are actually meant to do these things, and more, in ever-widening arcs and circles around these “rewilded” locations that are not fenced or inadequately fenced (very expensive) or poorly maintained to keep these rural life decimators out of civilized, settled landscapes. Why, you might ask is this being done?  To, according to the article, “turn ranchland into prairie or farms into forest” is why!  What they call, “spiritual rewilding” is the goal.  Note that this is the opposite of the #1 definition of “civilize”, “To make civil; bring out of a savage state.”  Buffalo and large predators like wolves and grizzly bears destroy civilization; and in the process return all of us eventually into a “savage state”.

When Dutch rewilders introduced “deer and Konik horses to a 12,300-acre parcel of marshland outside Amsterdam but failed to cull the herd in winter or introduce predators, the animals began to starve, and distraught citizens found themselves pitching hay over the fence”.  Note the “need” for predators and the aversion to “culling”; just like the advocates for introduced GI wolves and grizzly bears in The Lower 48 States.  The spreading and protection of wolves, grizzly bears and cougars with the added and continual call for an end to “culling” by anyone of any animal at any time now gets a new character in this play; buffalo herds!

Driving it all is an heretical philosophy called “spiritual” rewilding that purports to have “spiritual” roots and to train “monks” to ““turn ranchland into prairie or farms into forest”.

Quite by accident, when I read the WSJ article on Back to Nature, I was in the midst of reading a book, Docilitas,by a favorite philosopher of mine, Fr. James V. Schall, a retired Jesuit from Georgetown University (not one of my favorite Universities).  He has a PhD in Political Philosophy, taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is On Islam: A Chronological Record, 2002-2018 (Ignatius Press, 2018).

I had only just read Chapter 2 of Docilitas, INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES, when this “monk”, “spiritual”, “back to its savage state”, “rewilding” business came to my attention.  The opening sentence of the Chapter began, “We are familiar with the expression ‘natural resources’.”  It went on from there for 8 pages to make some very apt and incisive observations about “man”, “why totalitarian theory is connected to ecological theory” and “the new ‘god’ (or sometimes ‘goddess’) who rules the ecological world.”  I would like to list some quotes from Chapter 2 that I believe any American, regardless of religious background, should find beneficial in understanding the true nature of this modern heresy of “ecological theory”.  The first step in opposing or supporting any such theory is to understand it.  I will follow these select quotes with one last comment regarding how this environmental movement has, is and will continue to affect; like buffalo, predators, et al; a wider area and every nook and cranny of our governance and society if not reoriented into a human-friendly and rural-supported system of wild plant and animal management in Western Civilization.

Quotes from Chapter 2 of Docilitas, by Fr. James V. Schall –

“Natural Resources” refers to the myriads of things in the universe that are simply there without any added human intervention.  The Epistle to the Hebrews uses the memorable expression, “things not made by human hands.” 

“Man, himself, is a ‘natural resource.’”

“Whenever and wherever he appears, he is already completely what he is(My Bolding. Jim B) though, unlike the rest of material creation, not always as he finally ought to be, which latter also depends on his own freedom, if not grace.”

“Our ‘second’ human creation, whereby we decide what we make ourselves to be, will depend on no one other than ourselves.”

“Human beings, who are evidently themselves ‘by nature’, can in turn ‘use’ what is there for their own purposes.  They can also think about why they are there, something nothing else in the physical cosmos can do.”

“Probably, we can find no more obvious division of existing things than between those beings that think about things and those which are thought about”. “And because we can think about things, evidently, we can use them or relate to them to our own purposes. Most people most of the time have thought this connection of mind and things simply made sense.”

“Recent ecological theory has sought to reverse this ‘primacy of man’ relationship.  The world, it is claimed, is superior to man.  He does not transcend it.  Instead of the cosmos being ‘for man’, we now want to instruct ourselves that man is for the cosmos.  He is subordinate to it, a mere miniscule part of it.  It is greater than he.  The ‘health’ of the cosmos subsumes man into itself, not vice versa.  Or even more graphically, man is a threat to the cosmos.  Evil does not come into the world through man’s free will, as was the case in Genesis.  It comes because of his very existence in the world and his exigencies.” 

“This ‘higher’ status of the world to man, of course, is itself an idea that does not reside in the cosmos but in some human minds.  Ecology and environmentalism as they are explained become a new faith, a new system.  It is by no means obvious that the cosmos is more important than the intelligent beings within it.  Even more, theories that subordinate man to the cosmos become a new politics of control.  Such theories in fact are more political than they are scientific.  What the world or universe can ‘support’ is itself subject to theories that purport to know what the capacity of the world is.  If man is the real threat to the world, then, obviously, those who control politics in its name will control man.  This is why classical totalitarian theory is connected to ecological theory.” 

“Since man and his desires are said to be the cause of disorder, they can be reduced to order and enforced by coercion to what our theory allows.  Man, in this view, is in the universe.  He is to make as little dent on it as possible.  He has no transcendent purpose other than keeping the world in steady existence down the ages.” 

“The individual human beings who, at one time or another, inhabit the world have no significance in themselves.  Each merely keeps the species alive down the ages. The cosmos is a ‘success’ to the extent that it looks like it did before man appeared, however he appeared.”

“Since, it is said, resources are finite, every generation is responsible for distributing them to every other generation on the basis of what it estimates these resources are.  No generation is allowed to use more than its share.  Just how this ‘share’ is to be calculated becomes itself a basis of political power.” 

“Some higher inner-world entity, the cosmos itself, becomes what is superior to man.  This force is the new ‘god’ (or sometimes ‘goddess’) who rules the ecological world.  Now eternity comes to mean not the personal destiny of finite rational persons with God, but the unending cycles of keeping the earth as it was in the beginning.” 

“In any case, man must be restricted, for as long as the earth supports life, so that he does not ‘deprive’ future generations.  Thus, future generations become more important than present generations.  By this logic, we are all now deprived of what we need by the actions of billions who went before us on this earth, by what they took and did on this earth while they were here.  All of this, no doubt, assumes there have been or will be no discoveries or developments that render the worries of the parsimonious earth out of date. The ecological world is a world without the human mind except as a tool to guarantee no changes in the world.” (My Bolding, Jim B) 

“We hear complaints that the soil under the freeways and roads of this world protests its subjection to man.  But again we ask, just who is doing this protesting?  The only answer is not the stone or the soil but human beings imbued with a certain theory that wants to leave the stones in the ground and the roads unpaved.” 

“The ‘intellectual resources’ of the beings that are not God include this understanding of themselves that they are finite.  They are indeed not God.  We are open to receive what is not ourselves.  We can be taught.  This conclusion, I think, is what Goethe meant when he said: ‘Often we are not quite sure whether in the end, we are seeing, looking, thinking, remembering, fantasizing, or believing.’  What we are sure of is that we are doing one or the other of these things in our efforts to know what is. (My Bolding. Jim B) Here is the final source of all both ‘natural and intellectual resources’.” 

Two suggested takeaways –

1.We must restore the “primacy of man” in the cosmos and recognize that man has a transcendent purpose.  Today we see how treating man as just another animal in the cosmos and rejecting the understanding of an afterlife with an all-powerful Creator leads us to far more than “astray”.  I do not see how we can reject this ecological theory or heresy by simply rejecting it and those that propound it.  If we do not accept and value the traditional mores, cultures and beliefs that have underpinned millenniums of civilizing societies how can we defend them from avid proponents of this “ecological theory” or convince others to do so?  We would be like the soldier once described by GK Chesterton as fighting to the death not because of what lay before him but because of what lay behind him like his home, family and friends: except we would have nothing behind us to spur us on to fight and prevail.

2.The political power being created by this “ecological theory” and its view of man as just another animal is seeping throughout society and destroying everything it contacts like Carolina rivers after Florence.  When we accept this theory and vision of man: why is it wrong to declare disparate rights to persons based on sex or race?  Why is it wrong to prefer certain animals over humans?   Why is it wrong for government to seize control of or abolish religious practices?  Why is it wrong to protect deadly animals attacking humans?  Why is it wrong to kill humans in the womb while harshly punishing humans that kill wolf pups or manufacture or sell fur products?  Why is it wrong to steal, cheat, take property, have laws for the rich but not the poor?  Why is anything right or wrong?

The answer is, when you accept the “ecological theory” and the power it creates like some atomic reactor; you accept the totalitarian rule that such power breeds and you will have no choice but to watch it seep into everything we do and everywhere we go.

Either we restore what once inhabited all these empty churches to give us the courage to stamp out this heresy, or we will watch things get worse for our descendants in a nasty world we soon won’t recognize.

Jim Beers

26 Sep. 2018

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

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

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

Share