July 7, 2015

Endangered Species Act: Reviewing the Nexus of Science and Policy

Purpose

On October 13, 2011, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing on the nexus of science and policy related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1. The purpose of the hearing is to highlight the combination of science and policy decisions that are made under the ESA. Numerous judicial disputes over
ESA-related actions highlight the challenges in weighing best available science against other policy considerations, often under short deadlines. Congress has frequently considered changes to the ESA as a whole, and has also enacted species-specific ESA legislation, most recently with 2011 legislation concerning the grey
wolf. 2

Although the ESA is designed to protect species, its application is most visible when federally imposed plans to protect and recover a species restrict the actions of private citizens and other entities. For example, landowners may not be able to use their property in a manner they had planned and farmers may not be able to use as much of a river’s water as they need. Since takings claims are rarely successful, the science used to make ESA decisions is critical. <<<Read and Download Entire Report>>>

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

RMEF Grant Assists Idaho Wolf Management

*Editor’s Note* – The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is entitled to give their money in any way, shape or fashion. It is quite unfortunate the the RMEF and the State of Idaho are being extorted for funds and manpower in order to “manage” GI wolves that were forced onto Idaho landscapes with the collaboration of illegal acts by members of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, by circumventing the Legislature.

Now, the RMEF states they have given $350,000.00 in extortion payoffs for the “management” of a nasty animal that only brings death and destruction to the landscapes they inhabit. Because Idaho and surrounding states had NO options, after the fact, but to pay the extortion payments, the states now wrongly believe that at the end of the ESA 5-year period of wolf management assessment, things will actually change. How wrong they are. Nothing will change and so long as Idaho, and other states, enabled by donations from groups like the RMEF, continue to play into the hands of the Feds and their-one-of-a-kind environmentalists, protecting GI Wolves, elk will be destroyed down to scarce levels; all for protection of a nasty, disease-infested wild dog.

Insanity!

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) accepted a $50,000 grant from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to help firm up the state’s ability to maintain management of its wolf population.

“This is the fifth and final year of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s five-year monitoring period to evaluate the status of Idaho’s wolf population,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “The RMEF grant is designed to ensure wolves remain delisted so Idaho can continue to monitor the population and implement effective state-based management practices.”

The grant funding will be used to target two primary activities. The first is to hire a wolf tracking expert to assist in locating non-documented wolf packs while also assisting in collaring those packs in conjunction with a helicopter capture operation. The second activity is to document mid-winter pack composition through aerial tracking and remote camera work.

Idaho wildlife managers documented a minimum of 770 wolves in 2014 which is more than 400 percent above minimum recovery levels. The total includes 104 packs with an additional 23 border packs counted by Montana, Wyoming and Washington that established territories overlapping the Idaho state boundary. IDFG suspects there are even more packs but did not include them in the 2014 count due to lack of documentation.

“As per requirements under the Endangered Species Act, Idaho will continue to manage its wolf population under federal oversight until May 2016. We also know that wolves and other predators have a significant impact on elk in some parts of Idaho. Funding for this project allows the state to better address predator populations by maintaining state control of wolf management,” added Allen.

In the last three-plus years, RMEF awarded approximately $350,000 in grants specifically for wolf management, including $50,000 for Montana earlier this month.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Announces Finding on Gray Wolf Petition

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that a petition to reclassify all gray wolves in the conterminous United States, except for the Mexican wolf in the Southwest, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not present substantial information indicating that reclassification may be warranted. As a result, the Service will take no further action on the petition, which was submitted by The Humane Society of the United States and 22 other petitioners in January.

The Service’s review concluded that the petition did not provide information to indicate that the population petitioned for listing, which does not correspond to any currently listed gray wolf population, may qualify as a listable entity under the ESA.

The Service also found that the petition failed to provide substantial information indicating these wolves may meet the definition of a threatened species, specifically are likely to be in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

This finding will appear in a 90-day batched notice with 30 other petition findings,

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0072

The notice will publish in the Federal Register on July 1, 2015, and also will be available at www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2015 Notices link under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Information can be submitted on species for which a status review is being initiated, using the specified docket number, beginning upon publication in the Federal Register, for 60 days until August 31, 2015.

For more information on the gray wolf, visit: http://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/.

Preventing Fascist Rule

FascismThere exists at least two intellectual concepts about the United States Constitution. One is that the charter was crafted for the Rulers, the Posterity, in order to protect themselves and their Interests for the future. The more popular approach, as it was taught us, has always been, right or wrong, that the Constitution was written for the people (small “p”), a government of the people and by the people.

Regardless of which way one opts to regard this document, history tells us that for more than two centuries, man has been taught that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was their guarantee against tyrannical rule, assurance for small government and in support of a man’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since the beginning, powers have been systematically dismantling those teachings and bringing about a form of fascist rule, the end result showing deliberate signs of totalitarian socialism.

We live in and attempt to operate our day to day within a rigged system. Power brokers are operating at frantic speed to steal from you and me our rights, or as the case may be, our perceived rights – what we have been taught from birth.

What should be obvious to most, is how issues discussed and presented for discussion, have changed. This is not happenstance, but deliberate manipulation of the citizenry to achieve necessary (to the Global Power Structure) rule, and thus control, mostly by regulation.

It begins with “Change Agents,” those trained by totalitarian socialists, who devise new ways in which long-standing culture, heritage and rights, even self-evident, God-given rights, are viewed and discussed. Void of any honest scientific research, and/or Biblical Truth, the new paradigms are often referred to as “post-normal” or “post scientific.” The talking points driving this form of fascist rule are based upon the belief that you and I are incapable of making the best decisions for ourselves, and that of what is known as “precautionary principle” – the act of regulation based on the belief that some act might cause public harm. This tactic has worked well over the years. One such instance is by invoking the Commerce Clause. Witness the destruction of the intent of the Endangered Species Act by implementation of the Commerce Clause. This act, as that of precautionary principle, paves the way for illegal “takings” by regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency practices the same fascist rule.

A great example of illegal takings by regulation is the gray wolf, where landowners and livestock growers, among others, are hamstrung by regulation, driven by both a hijacked Endangered Species Act and the precautionary principle, which is propped up through fake, or post-normal, science – outcome based within a rigged system. The effort results in loss of private property rights and illegal takings by the state and federal governments. Note here that all of this would be most difficult to achieve if not for the “useful idiots” who, blindly, seek their own slavery and ultimate destruction.

A late example is now being played out in the form of a Water Compact in Montana between the parties of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), the State of Montana and the U.S. Federal Government. If the U.S. Congress passes this compact, it effectively places the power and control of water in the lap of the federal government. Not only does this action cause an ever increasing government overreach of power, but also results in loss of property rights along with illegal takings, among other events.

The Fifth Amendment states that: “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because we operate within a rigged system, this compensation clause has little definitive meaning. We think President Ronald Reagan helped us out with Executive Order 12630 by better defining and placing guidelines on decisions concerning private property takings. Reagan stated that: “Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights.” Upon further examination of EO 12630, we discover so much legalese and gray areas, how can a citizen rely upon the compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment as some means of protecting their private property? Power brokers, i.e. politicians and government agencies, controlled by higher powers, use this method to gain control over people and their property. This is their well-designed goal.

In an article published by the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, of which attorney Lawrence Kogan is heavily involved, says that American citizens’, “…exclusive tangible and intangible private property, and by extension, their guaranteed constitutional rights, are slowly being eroded, controlled, diminished in value, restricted in use and converted into public property.”

We can debate the actual ownership of property, but as taxpayers we should be entitled to certain rights, one of which is a reasonable guarantee that any government cannot simply run roughshod over a property tax payer for something that government deems in the best interest of all. The educating of Americans has told us that government cannot “take” our property without just compensation and yet only the courts can decide when it is proper to do that. What kind of right is that?

Whether we are discussing the forcing of large predator wolves into human-occupied landscapes, including gray wolves of the Northern Rockies, red wolves of the Southeast, Mexican wolves of the southwest, Delta smelts, Canada lynx, desert turtles, climate change, sustainable development and more, the only real hope citizens have is to loudly push back against this kind of tyrannical, fascist rule.

While Americans sit idly by, Policy rules the day. The Constitution is but a moment in history. Executive action, combined with Court-recognized implementation of Policy, has led us into slavery. If by only the threat to a politician or a group of such crooked lawmakers, the loss of your vote for their future gravy train and golden parachute, appears the only presage to a cushy future, the active opposition to continued fascist rule must be undertaken.

For our future, we cannot allow government to control every aspect of our lives.

USFWS Lies, Cheats and Steals to Get Frankenwolf

*Editor’s Note* – Below is part 7 of a 7 part email series about the corruption and bastardized fake science concocted in order to create a mixed-breed wild mutt, call it a red wolf and manipulate the data in order to introduce their Frankenwolf into the forest. I find it all extremely perverted and disgusting.

Please read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part VI here.

How and Why USFWS Falsely Manipulated the Red Wolf’s Historic Range

Director Ashe,

On March 24th I presented you with this 1972 USFWS commissioned Red Wolf Range map:

RangeMapOriginal

Survey

Special Scientific Report–Wildlife No. 162
Washington, D. C. 1972

Introduction

Distribution

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077581356;view=1up;seq=1

I then made the following Freedom Of Information Act request:

“Please provide specific and detailed evidence that the “red wolf” that was a “human construct” and was “selectively bred” in a zoo in Tacoma, Washington using hybridized coywolves from the State of Texas was ever present in the North Carolina counties of Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington, and Beaufort as explicitly stated and added in 9(i) of the 50 CFR Part 17 1995 Rules revisions for the red wolf program in NC.”

Your office promptly sent to me hundreds of pages of USFWS statements, Defenders of Wildlife statements, Ron Nowak statements, Ron Nowak dissertations, Ron Nowak maps, magazine articles, etc. It is humorous but problematic that I never received the only USFWS commissioned study and resulting range map as shown above. It is disturbing that private landowners were able to easily find this map, but your staff and your WMI consultants could not.

I spent a great deal of time reviewing each and every page that was sent to me, looking for any fossil evidence or any direct evidence that a red wolf ever existed in the State of North Carolina.

I have been somewhat perplexed as to how to prove a negative.

I can unequivocally state that there was not one shred of direct, indirect, specific or any physical evidence that a red wolf of any type ever existed in the State of North Carolina, much less the “red wolf” that USFWS invented. If you don’t believe me, read it all yourself. Have your attorneys read it. USFWS could not provide to me any evidence that a red wolf ever existed in the State of North Carolina.

Suffice it to say, your biologists just repeatedly made false statements and manipulated maps and words enough that a trusting general public believed them. The situation reminds a lot me of how your recovery program, to be managed on 250,000 acres of federal refuge land, quickly morphed into a 1.7 million acre government land grab for your invented wolf simply because your biologists needed the land.

It appears to me that USFWS dumped their own commissioned red wolf range map in favor of a Ron Nowak invented map, which shows fossil evidence that matches exactly the 1972 USFWS commissioned home range map with one major exception. With the stroke of a pen, Nowak conveniently drew a fictitious line on the map to include the State of North Carolina. This certainly suited the needs of USFWS just fine.

I believe I have read every wolf “novel” USFWS Ron Nowak ever wrote. Some of the few times North Carolina was specifically mentioned by Nowak was in his article The Mysterious Wolf of the South:

CivilWarWolves

And again here in his article The Validity of the Red Wolf, where he confirms the construction of his invented wolf with his now invented range map:

Breeding

Let’s now look at Nowak’s map and the manipulation of the drawing in spite of no evidence in NC, which certainly fit the needs of USFWS:
NewDistributionMap

Validity of the Red Wolf: Response to Roy et al.
R. M. Nowak; N. E. Federoff
Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, No. 3. (Jun., 1998), pp. 722-725.

Now, take the time to compare the above Nowak map to the USFWS commissioned red wolf historic range map:

Pretty remarkable isn’t it? USFWS is certainly not one to let the truth and facts stand in their way. The manipulation of data happened and the truth was ignored.

Let’s now fast forward to 1998.

NowakMap

Even in 1998, Nowak is still at a loss for any evidence of a red wolf in the State of North Carolina, yet USFWS has so much money tied up in this farce now that they proceed on in spite of the facts. Just as they continue to do today.

This should not surprise you as USFWS at this time was also ignoring the then available DNA evidence which proved this wolf was not even a unique species. Furthermore by 2011, Dr. Roland Kays in the “most detailed genomic study of any wild vertebrate species” declared the transplanted “red wolf in North Carolina was only 24% wolf and 76% coyote”. USFWS chose to ignore this fact also.

This concludes how the range map was invented.

I know this is getting long but bear with me, the story only gets better.

Why the invented/constructed wolf needed an invented/constructed range map:

Now why did USFWS dump their very own commissioned map by their very own red wolf recovery team and adopt a map based on theories presented by Ron Nowak in his PHD dissertation for the University of Kansas?

In the mid to late 1970’s, with the Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma, Washington full of newly constructed wolves, USFWS was scrambling hard to find a suitable place to turn their new toys loose.

The Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky and Tennessee was selected and targeted for a release site, as this fit the critical historic range requirement for a 10 (j) nonessential experimental species. However in 1984 this project was abandoned due to lack of public and state support. Read between the lines here, these guys were not duped by false USFWS claims about this so called wolf and what it would mean to their State.

This was no problem for an agency full of over zealous biologists. It was at this time that USFWS acquired the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge in eastern North Carolina.

On the surface things looked good for the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge location, but there was one major problem. The Endangered Species Act 10(J) rule specifically states that a nonessential experimental population of wolves may only be released within their historical range.

This was certainly not an obstacle for such a creative group of USFWS biologists who had invented a new species. They would just deliberately scuttle and hide from the world their own USFWS funded and commissioned range map based on fossil evidence.

USFWS only needed to invent a new map that would fit their needs. USFWS then conveniently changed their very own range map based upon fossil remains in favor of convoluted statements, hypotheses and surmises from a dissertation done by a student from the University of Kansas in order to make the newly acquired Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge fit their legal requirements of the 10(j) rule under the ESA.

And who was the student whose dissertation was used in lieu of a USFWS commissioned study and map? You guessed it, Ron Nowak of “if the red wolf did not exist we would need to invent it”. Pretty fitting isn’t it?

Mr. Nowak later resigned from USFWS in 1997 saying:

“My primary reason for seeking this opportunity to retire is that this agency is no longer adequately supporting the function for which I was hired, the classification and protection of wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and indeed, often is working against this function”

So let’s be clear about things at this point.

USFWS constructs a so called red wolf in a Zoo in Washington State by breeding hybrid coywolfs from Texas.

Since the animal never existed, USFWS had to invent the species by ignoring modern DNA analysis funded by USFWS.

When Kentucky and Tennessee said absolutely “NO” to the idea of releasing this new “wolf” in their Land between the Lakes refuge, USFWS conveniently changed their very own commissioned range map based upon fossil remains in order to meet the ESA 10(j) rules.

USFWS then proceeded to release over 100 of the invented red wolves with no ESA Section 7 authorization of which 64 were illegally released on private land.

USFWS has thus far made no attempt to remove these illegally released wolves as requested by the NCWRC in the same manner as they have ignored the private landowner’s removal requests for almost 30 years.

And now Part 7 of this series, confirms USFWS has willfully and intentionally released 132 non-native invasive canines in the State of North Carolina in direct violation of The Endangered Species Act 10(J) rule, which specifically states that a nonessential experimental population of wolves may only be released within their historical range.

Note that these wolves bred from hybrid coywolves trapped over 1,400 miles away in the State of Texas and were manufactured in the State of Washington, over 3,000 miles away from North Carolina.

There is a very good reason for this critical historic range provision in the ESA. 30 years and over $30,000,000 later a defunct program with only 3 more breeding pairs of wolves than the project started with but with countless hybrids produced, is all the proof that anyone needs that it simply does not pay to break the rules and ignore the facts.

This remains true even today with a looming decision regarding the fate of this USFWS program built upon lies, deceit, arrogance, manipulation of data and unlawful activities.

As Director of USFWS,

– after you comply with, our NCWRC request for removal of the 64 wolves and their offspring that were illegally released on private land,

– and then you retrieve the 100 or so wolves and their offspring that USFWS released with no Section 7 authority,

– and then comply with the recent request for removal of wolves from over 514 landowners,

will you then please pick up any remaining wolves in our State and their resulting offspring, as they are a non-native invasive species to our State and were illegally released in violation of the ESA historic range provision by your biologists.

I hope you have a great day.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

PS. I almost forgot. Are you still unable to identify the canine species pictured below?

Mongrel

The Invention of “Frankenwolf” in North Carolina

*Editor’s Note* – While readers await Part VII, of the 7-part email series about the corruption and incompetence of introducing so-called red wolves into North Carolina, consider the evidence presented as to how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service invented a wild dog species to protect under the Endangered Species Act at an overwhelming cost to the American Public. Job security I would guess. After all, isn’t this simply a reflection of all things GOVERNMENT?

Director Ashe,

I know these comments from a rather heated meeting of USFWS biologists in1989 are rather technical, so I have put in bold letters the key and shocking revelations regarding the cover up of the red wolf invention. Keep this quote from USFWS Zoologist/Biologist Ron Nowak in mind as you read.

InventingRedWolf

?
The USFWS’s $30,000,000.00 “Invention”

“In 1979, US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Ronald Nowak carefully compared the skulls of grey wolves, and coyotes and noticed that the size and shape of the red wolf skull fell midway between that of the coyote and the grey wolf. Nowak’s interpretation of the fossil record further suggested to him that intermediate skulls like that of the red wolf skull first appeared in North America more than a million years ago, well before the first wolves or coyotes.” “Nowak concluded that the red wolf was not only a unique species but also the ancient ancestor of both the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Nowak’s compelling idea one that persisted almost unchallenged for 10 years, throughout the early years of the Red Wolf Recovery Program.”

“But David Mech had a different theory about red wolves.” “In a 1970 book , Mech had proposed that the red wolf was neither species nor subspecies but a hybrid produced by interbreeding between the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Into this heated conflict stepped David Mech, one of the world leading wolf experts. In 1989, at an Atlanta meeting of experts on wolf biology, Mech challenged his fellow researches to tell him how they could justify spending so much money rescuing the red wolf when it might not even be a species.”

“In 1989, two University of California biologist, Robert Wayne (of UCLA) and Susan Jenks (of UC Berkley), approached the US Fish and Wildlife Service and offered to settle the matter once and for all.” “Like Nowak, Wayne was an expert on the morphology and taxonomy of wolves and other canids.”

“The government agreed to fund the study, and the two biologist began examining DNA from red wolves, grey wolves and coyotes.”

“The two biologist tentatively and somewhat reluctantly concluded that the red wolf was most likely a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Nowak and the other biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service could not believe what they were being told.” “Maybe, argued the government biologist, Wayne and Jenks had simply missed the DNA sequences that distinguished the red wolf.” Maybe they had not looked at enough DNA.”

“To put to rest any linger doubts, Wayne and other colleagues turned to special receptive regions of the DNA in the nucleus, called micro satellites.” “The results were the same, neither the samples of blood from living red wolves nor the samples from the skins of pre-1930s red wolves showed any unique sequences.” “By 1994, Wayne had found no evidence that the red wolf had ever been reproductively isolated from either grey wolves or coyotes.”

“The red wolf had to be a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Wayne’s genetic data proved to be an embarrassment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which had poured millions of dollars into the reintroduction program in the belief that the red wolf was a unique and endangered species.” “Yet the agency had acted in good faith.” “Until Wayne and his colleagues finished their research, the US Fish and Wildlife Service had no way of knowing that the red wolf was not a species.”

“Now the government agency was faced with a terrible dilemma.” “Wayne’s resulting threaten to discredit the wolf recovery program, strip the red wolf of its endangered status, and further undermine the increasingly battered public image of the federal Endangered Species Act.”

*** “To protect the red wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began pressuring Wayne to avoid the word “Hybrid” in his research papers and to substitute the term “intergrade species” and other similar phrases.”

“In 1995, the US Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion that said that hybrids would be protected under the Endangered Species Act if Morphological evidence showed that the hybrids ere similar to the endangered “Pure” form.”

“In essence, if they looked like red wolves, they would be protected.”

“But the genetic data did not support that idea that a “Pure” form of the red wolf had ever existed, certainly not in the last 100 years.”

“In issuing this opinion, the agency excluded all the genetic evidence regarding the red wolf’s species status.” The only question was whether the red wolf looked different from the coyote and the grey wolf.”

“It did, and, therefore, until such time as the government acknowledges the genetic data, the red wolf will be considered a species.”

https://books.google.com/books?id=cjgdW4SjoJcC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=ronald+nowak+red+wolf+map&source=bl&ots=rxq05Z

Director Ashe, the red wolf did not exist so it was “invented” by USFWS through omission of your own Government funded current science.

Ponder this over the weekend, as it is heavily tied into Part 7 due out on Monday.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

Leaked Information Leads to Death Threats by Wolf Perverts

An email from Jet Ferebee:

Director Ashe,

You should be ashamed.

Last year a private landowner with several small children was inundated with your wolves and asked to have the wolves removed.

He did not however trust USFWS on his land due to his prior experiences with USFWS personnel in the area. This gentleman asked if he could hire an outside trapper to trap your wolves. He was told yes and the trapping costs would be reimbursed.

This activity proved futile as when the wolves were trapped and returned to USFWS, USFWS simply turned the wolves back loose on the adjoining farm (the same tactics used on me). The wolves obviously returned. To rub salt in the wound, USFWS has been unable to reimburse him for his trapping costs as promised.

With USFWS creating a revolving door to this farm for the wolves and non-reimbursed trapping expenses becoming cost prohibitive, he resorted to securing a take permit.

This farmer recently reluctantly exercised his take permit. I know this man personally and he took no pleasure in his removal actions, but they were necessary. The wolves had continued to encroach upon the area where his children played.

USFWS personnel, maybe even you, intentionally leaked the take information to the Animal Welfare Institute and likely the Defenders of Wildlife and Red Wolf Coalition who then released a worldwide press release. The internet and social media are now littered with death threats from across the world for this man.

The actions of USFWS are a violation of the Privacy Act and have now placed this NC man and his family in eminent danger.

You and USFWS should be ashamed.

This serves as a formal FOIA request for all USFWS correspondence related to this take permit. This includes all correspondence. Your staff, your assistants and your correspondence are included as well as all personal cell phone texts and emails.

This bogus program, built on lies and deceit, is doomed for failure in our State specifically because of repeated actions coordinated between USFWS and wolf activist groups.

Special Agent Hast,

I am formally asking that this violation of the Privacy Act by USFWS that has placed a man and his family in jeopardy be added to your current investigation of the USFWS agency.

Leaders and Representatives,

It is time for this program to be permanently removed from our State. The wolf program has had their chance to operate this program within the law and repeatedly fails. USFWS is so inundated with activists that they can no longer be a trusted partner for the benefit of wildlife in our State. I am asking for your help.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

The Mongrel Mutt Was Illegally Dumped onto Private Land – Part 6 or 7

*Editor’s Note* – Continuing with the 7-part email series from Jet Ferebee in North Carolina, the below email to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director, Dan Ashe, states that although promises were made to only maintain “red wolves” on Federal Land, USFWS biologists willfully and intentionally introduced red wolves on private land and continued to do so after being called out on the issue. It is this kind of irresponsible, illegal and corrupt actions that must be halted, in addition to creating “Frankenstein” mongrel mutts and calling them red wolves.

Please read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V at the corresponding links.

Director Ashe,

From initial ESA Section 7 documents, several Federal Rules, to countless public documents regarding the release of “red wolves” in our State, USFWS biologists willfully and intentionally chose not to disclose the very salient fact that wolves were being released onto private land. In fact USFWS declared just the opposite, the wolves would be released and maintained only on Federal lands. At the very same time USFWS was actively and aggressively releasing wolves onto private land.

It was not until my FOIA request last year that USFWS was forced to admit to the citizens of NC that wolves in fact were being unlawfully released onto private land by USFWS biologists. Documents further revealed the USFWS Red Wolf coordinator unlawfully declined to remove wolves from private property when requests were made and further denied take permits as also required by law. This practice is still occurring today. Yes today!

In just the last few months over 514 private landowners as well as the NCWRC have demanded the wolves to be removed from private land as promised by law. Even as I write this very letter, you and USFWS continue to arrogantly thumb your nose to these lawful requests. I assure you, USFWS is not above the law.

94% of all suspected illegal red wolf deaths (60 of 64) have occurred on private land, where the citizens of our State were promised the wolves would not be.

As Director of USFWS, do you believe the USFWS, their biologists and program managers who willfully and intentionally chose to violate the ESA Federal Rules and ESA Section 7 consultations should be held criminally responsible for their actions which ultimately resulted in the take of over 60 endangered “wolves”?

What is most angering to me is the fact that USFWS biologists willfully violated laws by intentionally releasing wolves onto private land and then refusing to remove the wolves as promised and required by law; only to then pursue criminal actions against the citizens of NC when a wolf was shot on private land.

As Director of USFWS, do you believe the above willful and intentional actions by USFWS constitute entrapment and should USFWS and its personnel be held criminally responsible?

Director Ashe, you may not like the law, but it is the law.

Remove your non-native, invented, mixed breed mutts and remove them now.

Jett Ferebee

Inventing the “Mixed Breed Coywolf” – Part 5 of 7 Part Series

*Editor’s Note* – Below is Part 5 of a 7-part email series distributed by Jet Ferebee of North Carolina. Please view Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV, by following these links.

It is extremely important for readers to understand a very significant issue that is being discussed here – particularly in this the 5th part. The issue is cross-breeding of canine species or as some prefer to call it, hybridization. Ferebee is accusing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of deliberately concocting a hybrid wild dog. There is strong and ample evidence to support his claim. With a basic understanding of dog breeding and cross breeding, if it is true that government officials created a “Frankenstein” wolf and named it a “red wolf,” not only is the result of their scientific experiment a biological disaster on several levels but, in my opinion, it is a criminal act and those responsible should be held accountable. At the very least those involved are not qualified to be messing around with this scientific, and I use that term very loosely, endeavor.

It is astounding to me that while on the surface it appears that there is a group of people that seems bent on the population of wolves of all mixes and breeds, forced into every American’s back yard, promoted by the claims of protecting and recovering the _______ wolf – you fill in the blank. Yet, nearly every action they are undertaking is an act to destroy the wolf. Are they that stupid or simply completely blinded?

In a recent email exchange with Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus University of Calagary, in reference to the 7-part email exchange that I have been posting, he expresses his dismay and concern for what is taking place and tells me that it is imperative that those of us who are most concerned about the actual preservation of “pure” wolves, educate people on what is taking place. Geist says:

…the absolute failure in wildlife conservation as illustrated by the flowing together of the genomes of gray wolves, eastern wolves, coyotes and dogs into the “eastern coyote” – a misnomer, for that’s no coyote! it’s worthless mongrel, worthless for conservation and of little worth to science. Worse still are the red-wolf, Mexican wolf and release of wolves in the west antics as they set up conditions by which the genetics of both wolves and of coyotes will be destroyed. USFWS policies now insure that we will loose both the “big wolf” and the “little wolf” – the latter a true American with long evolutionary history on this continent. A travesty as far as i am concerned.

Geist ends his email to me by saying:

Isn’t it ironical that we are fighting to keep wolves as wolves, while our opposition is bound and determined to destroy wolves and coyotes as evolved, genetic entities?

*Note* – By “we” in Geist’s statement, he refers to those of us who understand real science and wish to educate others of the need to control and properly management canine predators, keeping each species geographically separate in order to protect the purity of the genetic construct of each animal. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? If the concern was for actual protection of a wolf species, surely the goal should be to ensure that any cross breeding in the wild be minimized. Forcing hundreds of thousands of “wolves” into human-settle landscapes is a recipe for disaster.

Ferebee’s Email – Part V

Director Ashe,

Today I would like to focus on the non-native invasive canine that USFWS needed to invent, hired a Zoo in Washington State to construct, dumped outside of it’s historical range, and now 30 years and over $30,000,000 later modern DNA has proven is just a mix breed coywolf.

Was the below pictured canine “invented” as USFWS Zoologist/Biologist and “wolf specialist” Ron Nowak suggested it should be? Remember, Nowak conveniently altered the historic range map so as to make it possible to release these non-native canines in NC because it was a coyote free area. More on this later…

NowakStatement

Or, was it humanly constructed and selectively bred from hybrid coywolves in a Zoo in Washington State as former USFWS Red Wolf Coordinator Mike Phillips admitted to your WMI consultants, that you recently had to hire to figure out what in the world your biologists were doing in our great State?
MikePhillips

Or finally, is this canine just a hybrid coywolf that current DNA analysis now proves is 76% coyote / 24% wolf and thus not protected by the ESA? The below recent 2011 study involving 15 national and international scientists was the “most detailed genomic study of any wild vertebrate species” using “unprecedented genetic technology”. No wonder your invented and humanly constructed “wolf” so readily hybridizes with coyotes.
As Director of USFWS, do you believe the ESA was hijacked by overzealous USFWS biologists to invent, construct, transplant and promote a hybrid coywolf in our State?

As Director of USFWS, can you tell me exactly what percent coyote/wolf this animal on my farm should be considered? The percents, and resulting penalties if it is killed, matter greatly. Unless of course it happens to die from heartworms.

Mongrel

Director Ashe, I once again ask that you prudently take this opportunity in time to admit that this ill conceived and unlawfully executed Federal experiment has failed and can not succeed in NC . Cut your losses and end the charade now please. USFWS has done enough damage to eastern NC and its true native wildlife.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

For the entire Federal scandal:
http://www.nchuntandfish.com/forums/showthread.php?95624-quot-Red-Wolf-quot-restoration-scandal

Ronald Reagan: Executive Order 12630

Executive Order 12630–Governmental actions and interference with constitutionally protected property rights

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12630 of Mar. 15, 1988, appear at 53 FR 8859, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 554, unless otherwise noted.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that government actions are undertaken on a well-reasoned basis with due regard for fiscal accountability, for the financial impact of the obligations imposed on the Federal government by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and for the Constitution, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. (a) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Government historically has used the formal exercise of the power of eminent domain, which provides orderly processes for paying just compensation, to acquire private property for public use. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, in reaffirming the fundamental protection of private property rights provided by the Fifth Amendment and in assessing the nature of governmental actions that have an impact on constitutionally protected property rights, have also reaffirmed that governmental actions that do not formally invoke the condemnation power, including regulations, may result in a taking for which just compensation is required.

(b) Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights. Executive departments and agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings and should account in decision-making for those takings that are necessitated by statutory mandate.

(c) The purpose of this Order is to assist Federal departments and agencies in undertaking such reviews and in proposing, planning, and implementing actions with due regard for the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth Amendment and to reduce the risk of undue or inadvertent burdens on the public fisc resulting from lawful governmental action. In furtherance of the purpose of this Order, the Attorney General shall, consistent with the principles stated herein and in consultation with the Executive departments and agencies, promulgate Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings to which each Executive department or agency shall refer in making the evaluations required by this Order or in otherwise taking any action that is the subject of this Order. The Guidelines shall be promulgated no later than May 1, 1988, and shall be disseminated to all units of each Executive department and agency no later than July 1, 1988. The Attorney General shall, as necessary, update these guidelines to reflect fundamental changes in takings law occurring as a result of Supreme Court decisions.

Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order: (a) “Policies that have takings implications” refers to Federal regulations, proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, or other Federal policy statements that, if implemented or enacted, could effect a taking, such as rules and regulations that propose or implement licensing, permitting, or other condition requirements or limitations on private property use, or that require dedications or exactions from owners of private property. “Policies that have takings implications” does not include:

(1) Actions abolishing regulations, discontinuing governmental programs, or modifying regulations in a manner that lessens interference with the use of private property;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder) but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.

(b) Private property refers to all property protected by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(c) “Actions” refers to proposed Federal regulations, proposed Federal legislation, comments on proposed Federal legislation, applications of Federal regulations to specific property, or Federal governmental actions physically invading or occupying private property, or other policy statements or actions related to Federal regulation or direct physical invasion or occupancy, but does not include:

(1) Actions in which the power of eminent domain is formally exercised;
(2) Actions taken with respect to properties held in trust by the United States or in preparation for or during treaty negotiations with foreign nations;
(3) Law enforcement actions involving seizure, for violations of law, of property for forfeiture or as evidence in criminal proceedings;
(4) Studies or similar efforts or planning activities;
(5) Communications between Federal agencies or departments and State or local land-use planning agencies regarding planned or proposed State or local actions regulating private property regardless of whether such communications are initiated by a Federal agency or department or are undertaken in response to an invitation by the State or local authority;
(6) The placement of military facilities or military activities involving the use of Federal property alone; or
(7) Any military or foreign affairs functions (including procurement functions thereunder), but not including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program.
Sec. 3. General Principles. In formulating or implementing policies that have takings implications, each Executive department and agency shall be guided by the following general principles:

(a) Governmental officials should be sensitive to, anticipate, and account for, the obligations imposed by the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment in planning and carrying out governmental actions so that they do not result in the imposition of unanticipated or undue additional burdens on the public fisc.

(b) Actions undertaken by governmental officials that result in a physical invasion or occupancy of private property, and regulations imposed on private property that substantially affect its value or use, may constitute a taking of property. Further, governmental action may amount to a taking even though the action results in less than a complete deprivation of all use or value, or of all separate and distinct interests in the same private property and even if the action constituting a taking is temporary in nature.

(c) Government officials whose actions are taken specifically for purposes of protecting public health and safety are ordinarily given broader latitude by courts before their actions are considered to be takings. However, the mere assertion of a public health and safety purpose is insufficient to avoid a taking. Actions to which this Order applies asserted to be for the protection of public health and safety, therefore, should be undertaken only in response to real and substantial threats to public health and safety, be designed to advance significantly the health and safety purpose, and be no greater than is necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose.

(d) While normal governmental processes do not ordinarily effect takings, undue delays in decision-making during which private property use if interfered with carry a risk of being held to be takings. Additionally, a delay in processing may increase significantly the size of compensation due if a taking is later found to have occurred.

(e) The Just Compensation Clause is self-actuating, requiring that compensation be paid whenever governmental action results in a taking of private property regardless of whether the underlying authority for the action contemplated a taking or authorized the payment of compensation. Accordingly, governmental actions that may have a significant impact on the use or value of private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens on the public fisc.

Sec. 4. Department and Agency Action. In addition to the fundamental principles set forth in Section 3, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when implementing policies that have takings implications:
(a) When an Executive department or agency requires a private party to obtain a permit in order to undertake a specific use of, or action with respect to, private property, any conditions imposed on the granting of a permit shall:
(1) Serve the same purpose that would have been served by a prohibition of the use or action; and
(2) Substantially advance that purpose.

(b) When a proposed action would place a restriction on a use of private property, the restriction imposed on the use shall not be disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall problem that the restriction is imposed to redress.

(c) When a proposed action involves a permitting process or any other decision-making process that will interfere with, or otherwise prohibit, the use of private property pending the completion of the process, the duration of the process shall be kept to the minimum necessary.

(d) Before undertaking any proposed action regulating private property use for the protection of public health or safety, the Executive department or agency involved shall, in internal deliberative documents and any submissions to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget that are required:
(1) Identify clearly, with as much specificity as possible, the public health or safety risk created by the private property use that is the subject of the proposed action;
(2) Establish that such proposed action substantially advances the purpose of protecting public health and safety against the specifically identified risk;
(3) Establish to the extent possible that the restrictions imposed on the private property are not disproportionate to the extent to which the use contributes to the overall risk; and
(4) Estimate, to the extent possible, the potential cost to the government in the event that a court later determines that the action constituted a taking.

In instances in which there is an immediate threat to health and safety that constitutes an emergency requiring immediate response, this analysis may be done upon completion of the emergency action.

Sec. 5. Executive Department and Agency Implementation. (a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Order with respect to the actions of that department or agency
.
(b) Executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions and address the merits of those actions in light of the identified takings implications, if any, in all required submissions made to the Office of Management and Budget. Significant takings implications should also be identified and discussed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress, stating the departments’ and agencies’ conclusions on the takings issues.

(c) Executive departments and agencies shall identify each existing Federal rule and regulation against which a takings award has been made or against which a takings claim is pending including the amount of each claim or award. A “takings” award has been made or a “takings” claim pending if the award was made, or the pending claim brought, pursuant to the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. An itemized compilation of all such awards made in Fiscal Years 1985, 1986, and 1987 and all such pending claims shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, on or before May 16, 1988.

(d) Each Executive department and agency shall submit annually to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and to the Attorney General an itemized compilation of all awards of just compensation entered against the United States for takings, including awards of interest as well as monies paid pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 4601.

(e)(1) The Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Attorney General shall each, to the extent permitted by law, take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in Sections 1 through 5 of this Order, and the Office of Management and Budget shall take action to ensure that all takings awards levied against agencies are properly accounted for in agency budget submissions.

(2) In addition to the guidelines required by Section 1 of this Order, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with each Executive department and agency to which this Order applies, promulgate such supplemental guidelines as may be appropriate to the specific obligations of that department or agency.

Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.