March 31, 2015

Send Wolves to Seattle

“SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – Wolves are thriving in Washington, primarily on the eastern side of the Cascade Range.

That has sparked conflict because much of the support to bolster the wolf population comes from urban and liberal western Washington, but the negative impacts strike eastern Washington. One solution is for wolves to disperse across the state more quickly, wildlife officials said.

“With the densities of wolves in northeastern Washington, we would like to see the Cascades get more wolves and more wolf packs,” said Dave Ware, a wolf recovery expert with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.”<<<Read More>>>

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Buffalo as Metaphors

By James Beers

(METAPHOR, n. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable, in order to suggest a resemblance, as “A mighty fortress is our God”.)

I have just finished reading the latest federal EIS/Plan/Federal Register Notice/Request for Comments written by the US National Park Service (or is it the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or the US Forest Service, or some other federal bureaucracy – I forget) about FREE ROAMING BUFFALO IN THE YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM (my underline).

Think about that for a moment – A Federal Plan for a common critter throughout AN ECOSYSTEM! Translation; since “Ecosystem” can be whatever you choose it to be, this federal plan composed by federal (i.e. unaccountable) bureaucrats, and buffalo being the critters they are, these central government “planners” are outlining what they will do – 1) in Yellowstone Park, 2) on the federal lands beyond Yellowstone Park boundaries, 3) on private property surrounding Yellowstone Park, and 4) on all the public and private property surrounding all the public and private property that surrounds Yellowstone National Park. Shades of Soviet Central Planners creating Stalin’s “Plan” to starve millions of Ukrainians to kill all the farmers that thought they still owned their land and replace them with the Soviet Collective Farms that, like this buffalo lunacy, will be a harmful and dismal failure, except in the halls of government where bureaucrats will slap each other on the back like the Soviets did for 60 years while giving each other bonuses as people, families and their communities disappeared.

There is NO authority or jurisdiction for federal bureaucrats to consider, much less delineate, where buffalo will occur or under what conditions they will be tolerated and who will pay for it OUTSIDE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone National Park is unique in this character that it shares with only the District of Columbia. State governments have jurisdiction under the Constitution over the plants and animals in or about to be in their state regardless of who (federal, non-profit, private, etc.) owns it.

Consider:

– Buffalo are not “endangered”.

– Buffalo are among the most dangerous animals encountered by visitors to the various U.S. and Canadian National Parks and will attack humans if provoked. They appear slow because of their lethargic movements but can easily outrun humans—bison have been observed running as fast as 40 miles per hour (64 km/h). This fact is studiously either avoided or downplayed in the federal “plans”.

– Between 1980 and 1999, more than three times as many people in Yellowstone National Park were injured by buffalo than by bears. During this period, buffalo charged and injured 79 people, with injuries ranging from goring puncture wounds and broken bones to bruises and abrasions. Bears injured 24 people during the same time frame. Three people died from the injuries inflicted—one person by buffalo in 1983, and two people by bears in 1984 and 1986.

– Romance Biology accounts of the “massacre” of buffalo by “hunters” in the 1800’s never mention how towns, roads, farms and ranches could have ever been established, much less co-existed, with free-roaming buffalo.

– Romance biology accounts of the disappearance of buffalo also mention frequently that “livestock diseases decimated buffalo”; federal planners today downplay and ignore the threat that free-roaming buffalo would present to livestock such as brucellosis, hoof-and-mouth, BSE (Mad Cow) and Anthrax.

– Buffalo are cantankerous; a point I thought about as I hunted pheasants in Montana prairie hill country slated for a free-roaming buffalo referendum that was soundly rejected soon after my visit. (There was a BIG sign by the church entrance on Sunday morning that read, “NO BUFFALO IN MALTA!”) Imagine some guys on foot with shotguns behind dogs coming on a band of buffalo that get irritated by the dog’s, miles from anything but grass, pheasants and sharptails. Where do the dogs go? Why to YOU. Who storms after the dogs? Why the buffalo. What do you do? Why you either die or suffer injuries that YOU will be blamed for causing by some sort of regulatory violation based on some Romance Biology Professor’s nostrum paid for by government.

– Imagine living where buffalo knock down fences (commonly); where buffalo wander through crops and destroy them routinely; where buffalo (they are dark and heavy like moose) standing in country roads are struck by vehicles causing death, injuries, and property destruction to local men, women and kids; and where buffalo attacks on livestock are common.

But I digress: in what way you may ask are buffalo, metaphors? Let me count the ways.

Buffalo and their enablers are like:

Federal Wolf Planners that bear no responsibility for the lies and mayhem they create for their own benefit and the continued reelection and sponsorship of their political patrons.

State Wolf Planners that do federal bidding and spend scarce hunting and fishing revenue money on federal schemes designed to ultimately destroy hunting and fishing.

State Bureaucrats that express only contempt and disdain for residents of their state and Local governments in their State that object to wolves, grizzlies and protected mountain lions in their communities.

Wolves that spread disease, kill domestic animals like dogs and livestock, kill or compete with more desirable (to sportsmen and local communities) game animals, and present clear and present dangers to humans forced to coexist with them.

Wolf Enablers in that they (their majority) live elsewhere; do not raise livestock; do not hunt, fish or trap; and do not rely for effective local government representation on County governments and their revenue streams.

Grizzly Bear Advocates that spread and protect these very dangerous and very destructive animals based on lies and denials of deaths, destruction and injuries. Grizzly bears, like wolves, no more belong in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States than elephants, tigers or Nile Crocodiles belong here in this day and age.

Anti-Hunting/Animal Rights Radicals that promise to compensate losses from these animals but never do: that deny the truths right before their eyes with widespread propaganda in enthusiastic newspapers, TV, and school classrooms; and all the while forcing (through lawsuits) state fish and wildlife agencies to drain their funds for wildlife management on these programs to destroy hunting and rural American life.

Environmentalists and their hidden agendas to vacate rural America by a combination of government land purchase; federally-financed and coordinated surrogate purchases of key easements and land options; closure of roads; closure of public lands to management, use, grazing, logging, hunting by contrived claims of “importance”, Wilderness, Roadless, Sanctuaries and other bureaucratic creations; and the elimination of Local governments while simultaneously co-opting state bureaucracies.

Central Government and World Government Activists that envision a world THEY RULE where there are no such things as Constitutional guarantees, Congressional oversight, Judicial Review, private property, or the opportunity for local communities to live in peace and prosperity, free from outside influences that only take from them for the benefit of others.

Progressive (choose your own term here) Activists that believe that ANYTHING you can generate a majority, or influential, or rich, segment of the population to support should be imposed by any means on the minority or less powerful NO MATTER THEIR OBJECTIONS.

HHHMMMM, roll all the above together, put all their little hidden agendas and activities in one pot, and what do you have? Whatever you want to call IT; IT is a metaphor all its own. IT is like:

– Islamist “Planners” outlining and incrementally forcing their worldview on the rest of the world, NO MATTER WHAT THEY THINK regardless of civilized standards of behavior or any moral considerations.

– Soviet “Planners” taking advantage of every incremental opportunity to expand the Soviet Empire by whatever means from lies and invasion to forcible occupation. Never forget that the “Soviet” or “Russian” nuclear plant at Chernobyl was in Ukraine, surrounded by Ukrainians and not in Russia.

– Mao’s “Planners” destroying the cities and intelligentsia inside China while gobbling up Tibet and the South China Sea’s resources outside China.

– Nazi “Planners” lying about their plans for outside Germany until resistance was impossible and then swiftly invading and establishing concentration camps and slave labor with the intent of killing “sub-humans”, enslaving “inferior races”, and restoring a Romance History Fairyland populated by “Pre-Roman” plants and animals, “super-men” and the estates of Nazi overlords.

– Margaret Sanger Population Control “Planners” justifying the mass murder of millions of fellow human beings by abortion and the sterilization of others by government mandates (China) with government funding based on racist beliefs and disregard for the intrinsic value of each human life.

– Same-Sex Activists that appeal for “equal treatment” and then proceed to destroy the legal concept of marriage and parenthood and then destroy businesses, individuals and now churches and Chaplains that object to what they represent.

– Gun Control Advocates that get politicians to do anything, no matter its Constitutionality, to ban ammunition, restrict “only certain” guns, negotiate and secretly write UN agreements to subvert the 2nd Amendment, and smuggle guns to Mexican killers as justification to restrict guns in the US; while protesting how they “hunt” and “don’t want to restrict all guns” and how they “respect” the 2nd Amendment.

– Current American Society with its government secrecy; erosion of checks and balances; vilification of police; flag bans on campuses; government sex and race preferences; loss of local government; debilitating debt; and growing disparate justice standards based on wealth, government standing, and the political party of the judge’s appointing sponsor.

In the study of Logic you quickly encounter the Syllogism. A syllogism is a verifiable argument wherein two verifiable (i.e. true) premises explain, or lead to, a verifiable conclusion. For instance:

Premise #1-

Buffalo are a current tool of a coalition of extremist agendas that aim to destroy American Constitutional governance.

Premise #2-

Current American Society’s Constitutional governance is eroding at an accelerating rate.

CONCLUSION-

Buffalo are contributing to the erosion of Constitutional governance in America Society.

Come to think of it; buffalo are far more than just a metaphor for our times. They are but one of the destructive forces we face and must overcome.

Jim Beers
17 March 2015

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

To Kill Minnesota Wolves Killing Livestock

More damned insanity! We spend gobs of money on efforts to protect an animal that doesn’t need protecting, and then we spend gobs of money to kill an animal that’s killing livestock. This makes about as much sense as everything that the damned government creates. Maybe the solution would be to make government extinct!

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., announced a cooperative effort Wednesday between the U.S. and Minnesota ag departments to fund an effort to help livestock producers in northern Minnesota who have been losing sheep and cattle to wolves.

The predator-control program has often run out of money over the years. Under the effort, the federal government carries out the trappings and provides technical expertise through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Grand Rapids.

The trappings will take place in problem areas where farmers or ranchers have been losing their livestock.<<<Read More>>>

The Barbarity of Protecting Killer Wolves Over Human Interests

Below is an article by James Beers in reference to a letter written by a rancher and published in a local Oregon newspaper.

Déjà vu, All Over Again

It is a great sadness to receive e-mails and copies of small town newspaper articles like the following, almost every day. The feelings of helplessness and anger when Big City newspapers either ignore these incidents or even worse, deny and ridicule those being harmed must be what it was like after WWII to reflect back on all the lies and disinformation from news accounts and politicians about the German wonderland Hitler was forming and how misunderstood Stalin and his henchmen were as they were forming a “worker’s paradise” that the American press published during the 1930’s.

Who speaks for and defends the ranchers, farmers, businessmen and families of rural America as they are pillaged like this by politicians and bureaucrats working in league with coalitions of wealthy interest groups that prance about and dress like secular missionaries imposing their hateful ideology of lies and nature worship?

The article below is from the Wallowa County Chieftain newspaper in Enterprise, Oregon (in the NE corner of Oregon). They won’t read it in Portland or Eugene where the state politicians and their bureaucrats are “breakfasting” as I write. You won’t see it in the San Francisco paper or the Chicago paper or even the vaunted Washington, DC paper read by our impotent Congressmen, our self-serving federal bureaucrats, and all the despot-wannabees that would make Mao proud.

* I could send it to my Minnesota big city paper but they would simply snicker as they dismissed it wondering why anyone was so stupid as to send them something like this.

* I could send it to my “Department of Natural Resources” but they would just tell everyone to ignore it because Oregonians just don’t know how to “live with wolves” like we do here in Minnesota. Our Governor Dayton might see this as a chance to “work with” fellow progressive for votes here at home; he might send out a Minnesota DNR delegation that could “advise” the Oregon “Wildlife” agency and in the meantime they could swap information about federal job opportunities and after-retirement opportunities with the “Unlimiteds’, “Forevers”, and “Defenders”.

* I could send it to the University of Minnesota and if they said anything about the problem at all it would be on the order of it probably being the result of insufficient leash laws for dogs and that the calving problems are some sort of new infectious malady for which Oregonians should fork over millions to the University to “conduct research” and “develop recommendations”.

* I could mention it to acquaintances but after listening they would shrug and say it is interesting but what can they do as they look at me with that look of, “what a funny guy”.

* I could send it to the US Fish and Wildlife Service but they would send me form letter #46 that begins. “Thank you for your recent letter…” and ends after a bafflement of BS, “Thank you for writing”.

* I could send it to my Congressman (a good guy) but some young staffer would smile as he came up with a polite letter telling me that while Congressman Kline understands the gravity of the situation, it is not a matter that occurs in his District but he will forward my letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that enforces the Endangered Species Act, oh and thank you for writing.

*I could send a copy to my two US Senators (Franken and Klobuchar) who are elected by; supported (financially, publicity-wise, and vote-wise) by; and beholden to a coalition of urban, progressive environmentalists that want the government to put more wolves and grizzly bears, buy more and more land, and declare more and more “wildernesses” “Out There”. My letter to them would evoke no more than, “I didn’t know there were any people like this left in Minnesota?”

I can only send this article to you and tell you it is only one of many that I receive. The only solution is to abolish any and all authority for the federal government to impose the will of these radicals on one rural community after another. Simply put, the Endangered Species Act must be abolished and its detritus throughout Rural America removed. Then begin rolling back federal land ownership and federal land non-management and non-use from Wilderness Declarations and Roadless Areas to restoration of wildlife, forest and range management for people.

You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly and naturally Local government authority, Local government revenue, and Local control of local matters will increase and how, neither as quickly nor as naturally but inevitably, your state wildlife agencies once again manage the natural resources of your state for the benefit of your state and all those that live in it.

Two things must be done first, but that is something I hope to speak about next month if arrangements come through. I hope to circulate that talk and share it with you after I give it.

Jim Beers

19 March 2015

Wolf attack a cow man’s nightmare

Wolves attacked and stampeded 250 head of very pregnant cows (calving start date March 1) on the Birkmaier private land on Crow Creek pass Feb. 12, 2015. The cows were wintering on the open bunch grass range receiving one-half feed of alfalfa hay. This 1,700-acre piece of land is about 10 miles northeast of Joseph. These cows were to be moved to the Birkmaier home ranch at the mouth of Crow Creek the last of February (the ranch is about 20 miles north).

With no warning from agency people, who normally warn producers of wolves in the area, the wolves attacked in the night. The herd split into three groups. One group of about 70 cows went east, running in total panic, obliterating several barb wire fences. These cows ran about two miles to the Zumwalt road, then south and west about five miles down the OK Gulch road to the Wallowa Valley, then north to the Birkmaier ranch land, about three miles, then reversed and ran about three miles south where they were stopped. These cattle were wet from the condensation of cold air on their overheated bodies. Their tongues were out gasping for air.

Another bunch went north through several fences to the Krebs ranch, about four miles, then back and were going in a large circle still running when they were stopped. A third bunch stayed in the pasture but were in a high state of panic. The cattle could not be fed for two days. They ran away from hay and the pickup trying to feed them. None were killed, no broken legs or stifled joints; some cuts from barbed wire, not serious. We thought we were lucky. The rest of the story, we feared, would be told at calving time and maybe before. By the way, the attacking wolves, from the Umatilla Pack, were at Dug Bar on the Snake River the next day (32 air miles away and over a mile climbing and descending).

Now about fladry and why it wasn’t used. Fladry was not an option under these conditions on a large area with cattle grazing out in the winter time. Fladry is an electric wire with strips of colored plastic attached. Wolf cheerleaders, both local and everywhere, claim this cure-all is the answer to end all wolf depredations. Our experience: It may have a place on small acreages; we find it hard to keep it electrified. Wet snow will take it to the ground, wind blows tumbleweeds and mustard plants into it and if you use existing fences to put it on, wind blows it into the wires of existing fence and shorts it out. To use it on larger acreages requires a separate fence and many electric fence controllers and it’s just impractical.

In the early days of the wolf debate, fladry was offered as a tool by the agencies and enviro groups to suck stock producers in to thinking they could use this to protect their animals. If it was practical it probably wouldn’t be stacked up in the courthouse. Talking to other ranches in other states confirms our belief that most ranchers know it doesn’t work, and so does the wolf.

As I write this on the 11th day of March, 50 cows have calved. Our worst fears are coming true: one aborted a few days after the attack; three backwards hind feet first; one upside down and backwards (the hind leg of this calf penetrated both the virginal and rectal walls); one more upside down and backwards; one tail first (breech); two with legs turned back; one with head turned back. Several vaginal prolapses probably caused by improperly positioned calves. Is this indirect loss or what?

My son Tom and his wife Kelly have had to deal with this horrible task night and day, 31 miles from vet clinics and assistance. What kind of people support turning the terrorist of the animal kingdom loose on these defenseless animals and inflicting this kind of pain and loss? When I think of my family out in the barn trying their best to save these poor animals — it takes hours with good luck to straighten and get them out — I get damn mad. Who do I blame? After devoting about 10 years of my life to fighting this invasion of wolves from neighboring states through the political system, attending numerous ODFW hearings and workshops all over the state and participating in the largest “no wolf” hearing in the state of Oregon at Enterprise, and losing it all when we were slam-dunked by the ODFW commission in Troutdale (who, by the way, didn’t have guts enough to attend the Enterprise hearing) yea, I’m bitter.

We lost eight calves this summer, we were compensated for one. If we aren’t compensated for indirect loss from wolves, our ranch and all others are in serious jeopardy.

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

Beware the Peer Review

ExposeCorruptionFor several years now, Roxanne Quimby, founder of Burt’s Bees, has tried to get Maine to buy into the idea of creating, yet another, national park in the Baxter State Park region. Quimby sits on the board of directors for the National Park Service and recently turned the idea of the park over to her son Lucas St. Clair.

At a recent meeting in the Millinocket area, proponents and opponents met to exchange barbs and attempt to discredit each other. Nothing new.

According to the Bangor Daily News, St. Clair said:

…he could not count the number of wrong facts and figures in the presentations, but that it was vast. As an example, he said, the economic studies done on the park’s effect were peer reviewed, and approved, by the state’s former economist and a University of Maine forest products professor.

I cannot address specifically the economic studies referred to in this piece because I have not read them. Therefore, my following comments are based upon general facts and information that all U.S. citizens should be educated about concerning the dreaded “peer review” of scientific data.

We all cherry pick when it comes to selecting information to support our causes. Often those that do don’t realize that for each document you produce to support your claim, there may be just as many to disprove it. So, which documents are right and which ones are wrong?

Well, I cannot answer that question honestly and herein lies the rub. The system of peer review is seriously flawed. It’s down right broken.

To those willing to not bury their heads in the sand and pretend things are just ducky, we have known for some time that peer review is a worthless instrument. Yes, and unfortunately that is the truth. Corruption and greed have destroyed what may have been a good system of checks and balances….or at least a better one.

With all the complaining that has gone on, perhaps we are now beginning to hear some noise about this peer review process.

All decisions are based upon “best available science.” Best available science is a vague term, with no conditions or parameters set in order to maintain a truthful method of checks and balances. For that reason, peer review, which once was necessary if you ever had any hope of being heard, is mostly worthless. Anybody, with money and connections can obtain peer review. The trick is to keep the available peers contained within a specialized group to ensure no opposition is heard or considered – stacking the deck or rigging the system.

We saw this play out nicely in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the reintroduction of wolves to the Greater Yellowstone area. While the fake and rigged process allows for anyone to submit information, studies, data, concerns and yes, peer reviewed documents, there’s no control over which ones get serious attention and which ones don’t. Never mind the rules. It’s a free for all.

Back in December of 2014, the House Natural Resources Committee released a report about the concerns over whether or not “best available science” was using independent peer review and in general the report actually questions the quality of the so-called “science” being used.

The ESA requires that decisions on whether to list a species as threatened or endangered must be based on the “best scientific and commercial data available.” As one of the chief agencies responsible for implementing the ESA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) has issued policies and guidance concerning the use of the best available science.

A review by the Committee’s Majority oversight staff of the FWS’ recent ESA listing decisions has found:

* The FWS’ peer review process, information quality policies, and guidance documents are used to justify the FWS’ listing decisions under the ESA. However, the policies are ambiguous as to what constitutes “independent” peer review. This has led to inconsistency in how FWS Regional offices conduct peer review.

* The FWS regularly recruits scientists to peer review its listing decisions who are well-known experts on the specific species at issue. In fact, the FWS routinely bases its listing decisions on science that has been developed by the same people who have been recruited by the FWS to serve as peer reviewers. Rather than providing a fresh perspective on how the science was conducted or whether the listing decision is supported by science, the peer reviewers are in effect being asked to review how the FWS has characterized their studies and research.

* The FWS does not have clear or consistent procedures in place across all FWS Regional offices to ensure that potential peer reviewers undergo a screening to identify possible conflicts of interest or impartiality. In many cases, those who have received grants or financial assistance from the Department of the Interior (“Department”) and its bureaus or other federal agencies to study the species at issue or who have known biases, positions, or affiliations with groups that have advocated for conservation of the species under the ESA are allowed to serve as peer reviewers.

* The FWS does not consistently disclose to the American public information about who serves as peer reviewers for ESA listing decisions, the instructions they are given, the substance of their comments, or how their comments are addressed by the FWS. Peer reviewer identities are often withheld, and their comments are not clearly identified or made publicly available in the course of the listing decisions.

While this report of the House Committee on Natural Resources is specifically addressing science involved with Endangered Species Act, surely the same problems exist concerning peer review for any document. The short of it is, no longer can peer review be trusted.

Recently the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) released a working paper addressing many of these same problems. In the Executive Summary, page x, it states:

Fueled by decades of ineffective oversight, federal agencies’ respect for science and the scientific process has severely diminished. For that reason, one can easily foresee many potential applications of the enforcement framework offered in this paper.

Clearly we are seeing more and more concerns about important decisions being made based on what more and more people are seeing as biased, unsubstantiated, politically and monetarily driven trumped up “science.”

In 2000, Congress passed the Information Quality Act, (IQA) supposedly for the purpose of making sure crap wasn’t brought into decision making processes. WLF writes:

The law requires federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the scientific, technical, and statistical information that federal agencies adopt and disseminate to the public.

Fifteen years after passage of the IQA, and what we are hearing from places like the House Committee on Natural Resources, is that it’s still “crap in and crap out.”

Evidently the Office of Management and Budget is responsible for implementing the 2000 IQA law. The OMB’s guidelines were supposed to set minimum standards.

OMB’s IQA Guidelines required that each federal agency develop and adhere to their own IQA guidelines, and set out minimum criteria for scientific peer review of agency-drafted and third-party studies and scientific assessments, as well as criteria for the selection of peer reviewers. OMB dictated that these peer-review standards be especially rigorous for “highly influential scientific assessments.” Federal agencies must also provide an administrative review mechanism that will allow affected entities to seek correction of agency-disseminated information that was not adequately validated. Agencies routinely carry out this mandate by addressing requests for correction as part of their responses to public comments in a final regulation—an approach, the paper argues, that does not afford sufficient due process to stakeholders.

Sounds nice but obviously it’s not working. To be honest, with this sort of self-regulation within a corrupt government and rigged process, I have just about zero amount of faith that there can ever be reliable science-based documentation done with valid, quality peer review. There’s just too much money involved. Best Available Science therefore becomes a travesty.

It’s a crying shame for the science industry. We live in a post normal scientific era. People are crying out for honest and reliable scientific processes and information. Yet, nothing and no one can be trusted. Agendas run too deeply. People must understand that peer review is garbage. Do not accept it and do not rely on it – even when it involves stuff you want to hear. You are being used.

Whether Maine buys into the sales pitch to accept 150,000 acres of land for the purpose of a national park, that is up to the people in the state of Maine. As far as the rest of are concerned, we should make sure that we let the National Park Service and our congressional representatives know how we feel about another park and this idea of peer reviewed science.

However, Maine residents need to tread lightly over claims that any data necessary to make these major decisions is “peer reviewed science.” It may be valid or it may not. It’s up to you, because nobody else can be trusted, to find out.

And we know that will not happen. Good luck!

Obama Says Kill Wolves?

The 2016 presidential election, which also combines with elections in Congress, is not that far away… that is if you watch the array of idiots vying for a hand-up on the others for the nomination. For this reason it is probably why the Obama Administration, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is saying that they are in agreement with Michigan and Wisconsin that hunters should be able to “sport hunt” wolves. Sport hunt, eh?

A citified and Obama-appointed federal district judge in the District of Columbia, created her own interpretation of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) (nothing new here) and ordered that wolves in the Great Lakes Region (Distinct Population Segment) be returned to protection under the ESA. The USFWS is contemplating whether to appeal that decision, but don’t hold your breath. They won’t appeal it. They don’t WANT to appeal it. Their buddies in the several environmental regimes, which are nothing more a branch of their own corrupt form of totalitarian rule, accomplished what the USFWS and thus, the Obama Administration, really wanted. With those assurances in place, frees up the Obama Administration to make statements that they support the hunters. Absolute BS! BUT DON’T GO LOOK! (This tactic is as old as the hills. It is much like the Vatican stating they oppose abortion and yet behind the scenes they are responsible for the perpetuation of the act.)

While this dog and pony show goes on, Kabuki Theater is being staged somewhere in the halls of Congress to vote on a bill that would force the USFWS to reinstate the Final Rule for wolf delisting, while at the same time prohibiting Howell and others from “judicial review”. (Do you have a definition for that?)

TIME OUT: Judicial Rule – The principle by which courts can declare acts of either the executive branch or the legislative branch unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has exercised this power, for example, to revoke state laws that denied civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Rep. Ribble’s bill, H.R. 884, states that the Final Rule will be reissued and “Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.”

So, does that mean environmental groups cannot file suit to stop the delisting? Or is this meaning to prevent environmental groups from challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 884?

TIME IN:

However, the Obama Administration, according to the article linked to above, thinks that, “The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region.” Technically, this isn’t exactly what Howell said in her ruling. So pay attention.

Howell’s ruling stated that the reason she couldn’t let the Final Rule stand was because it is her belief that wolves must be recovered throughout all the Lower 48 States. That makes it easier for Obama to state that hunters ought to be able to “sport hunt” wolves but does NOTHING to address Howell’s ruling.

And this brings me back to “sport hunting” wolves. Please, Mr. Obama, define sport hunting. Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t his government just get the hell out of the way and let the state governments decide what’s best. Isn’t this allowed in the Corporation and/or the corporation? Obama once made an effort to define “Significant Portion of it’s Range” and that amounted to nothing and never will. The Courts are in command and they will do as they are instructed to do in their rulings, mostly because nobody understands the real laws and powers that govern them.

In short, this is a work of smoke and mirrors and more than likely is driven by deception aimed at swaying public opinion and thus padding the ballot box in 2016. Don’t fall for any of it. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Getting Maine’s Lynx Population Delisted Will be a “Daunting Task”

LynxOver the weekend, I was reading an article in the newspaper of The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, written by former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologist Gerry Lavigne about how Maine needs to get the Canada lynx “unlisted” from federal protection of the Endangered Species Act. Lavigne’s claim is that it will not be as difficult a task to “unlist” vs. “delist”, claiming that the unlisting would come as the result of showing that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) made a mistake when they originally listed the Canada lynx as a threatened species. Lavigne writes: “It is time to unlist the lynx in Maine, and return management solely to DIFW. This is different from delisting, where the USFWS and anti-trapping and hunting zealots would retain their stranglehold on lynx management. We need to demonstrate that the USFWS erred in declaring that Maine lynx were threatened with extinction in the first place.”

Lavigne further explains that all that is needed is to present the already existing documentation that shows that the USFWS did not follow the rule of law to get the lynx protected in the first place. He then presents to readers what appears to be, from my perspective, an accurate accounting of what the USFWS did and recorded at the time. In short, it was a great piece of work by Lavigne and this is information that should be saved and referred to often.

However, there exists one giant roadblock of which, in my opinion, destroys any hope that “unlisting” the lynx would “not be as daunting a task as it sounds” – The Courts!

Lavigne accurately points out that the Courts forced the USFWS to list the Canada lynx in Maine as “Endangered”. In reality, it wasn’t that simple. Most people are sick and tired of beating the dead horse but in short, our corrupt government, influenced by corrupt environmental and anti hunting groups, and their deep pockets, attempted and was successful at convincing enough people that the head of the USFWS at the time was doing things illegally for political gain. The end result was The Courts forcing the USFWS to place the Canada lynx on the Endangered Species Act list of threatened and endangered species.

As Lavigne is pointing out, the USFWS did what The Courts forced them to do even if it meant fudging the data to come up with something. And so they did.

It may sound like “not as daunting a task” to go back to court and show the court the error of their ways. But aren’t we then calling upon the same corrupted and rigged system that protected the lynx illegally in the first place?

I may not fall in line with the majority of other readers and outdoor sportsmen when it comes to having faith in the court system of this country but history is history. We are witness to senseless court rulings and reversals that make absolutely no sense. Therefore, those decisions can only be considered as corrupt or carried out by incompetent persons; or a combination.

The Courts forced the USFWS to list the lynx. Are we now to believe that The Courts will say, “Ooops?” I don’t think so. Somebody might be successful enough to hand pick one judge that would rule sensibly, but The Courts are stacked because we operate within a rigged system. The roadblock will appear and in the meantime years go past while the issue is tied up in The Courts.

I have basically no faith in the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial branches of THEIR de facto government. They operate, each of them, as self-serving, entities with no ties of responsibility to “we the people” and serve only “We the People”.

The trick is to find a connected insider who is willing to play along with the corruption and get, anyway possible, a bill through Congress, that overrides The Courts and/or The Endangered Species Act. If you want to play at their level then you must use their own rules of engagement.

Then and only then, will Maine get lynx delisted or unlisted….until the corrupt bastards figure out how to trump that piece of legislation with one of their own.

And so it goes.

Final Rule ESA Protections Enacted for Great Lakes Wolves and Wyoming

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with court orders that reinstate the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes. Pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia court order dated September 23, 2014, this rule reinstates the April 2, 2009 (74 FR 15123), final rule regulating the gray wolf in the State of Wyoming as a nonessential experimental population. Gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and north-central Utah retain their delisted status and are not impacted by this final rule. In addition, pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia court order dated December 19, 2014, this rule reinstates the March 9, 1978 (43 FR 9607), final rule as it relates to gray wolves in the western Great Lakes including endangered status for gray wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, and the northwestern portion of Ohio; threatened status for gray wolves in Minnesota; critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan; and the rule promulgated under section 4(d) of the ESA for gray wolves in Minnesota.<<>>

Revitalizing The Information Quality Act as a Procedural Cure For Unsound Regulatory Science: A Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking Case Study

Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.
Introduction – Dr. John D. Graham, Indiana University
Foreword – Jim J. Tozzi, Center for Regulatory Effectiveness

Executive Summary:

Congress passed the Information Quality Act (IQA) in 2000 to implement and amend the Paperwork Reduction Act. The law requires federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the scientific, technical, and statistical information that federal agencies adopt and disseminate to the public. Although the law is nominally a procedural statute, this WORKING PAPER explains how regulated entities and other stakeholders can successfully seek judicial enforcement of the IQA when agencies rely upon flawed science for federal rules, and those rules impose paperwork, compliance, and other burdens.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for implementing the IQA. OMB’s IQA Guidelines required that each federal agency develop and adhere to their own IQA guidelines, and set out minimum criteria for scientific peer review of agency-drafted and third-party studies and scientific assessments, as well as criteria for the selection of peer reviewers. OMB dictated that these peer-review standards be especially rigorous for “highly influential scientific assessments.” Federal agencies must also provide an administrative review mechanism that will allow affected entities to seek correction of agency-disseminated information that was not adequately validated. Agencies routinely carry out this mandate by addressing requests for correction as part of their responses to public comments in a final regulation—an approach, the paper argues, that does not afford sufficient due process to stakeholders.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 greenhouse gas Endangerment Findings, and the decision-making process underlying them, offers an instructive IQA case study. A review of the extensive record and the peer review activities underlying the Findings reveals extensive violations of conflict-of-interest and other IQA-related standards. EPA also did not consider stakeholders’ challenges regarding these violations in a timely or sufficiently specialized manner. Stakeholders’ requests for reconsideration of the Findings were also rejected.

Stakeholders faced with such adverse, final agency actions would traditionally consider legal action against the responsible federal agency. As the WORKING PAPER explains, however, federal courts have been generally skeptical of regulated entities’ private causes of action to redress agencies’ noncompliance with IQA standards. Those complaints have foundered on plaintiffs’ standing to sue, as well as their assertion of a positive right to properly peer-reviewed government information.

This paper proposes an alternative approach to judicial enforcement of the IQA, one which addresses past lawsuits’ shortcomings. It explains this alternative approach in the context of a challenge to EPA’s violation of IQA during its development of the Endangerment Findings. The contemplated cause of action is based on the theory that Congress intended that the IQA, as an implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, protect the negative right of a designated class of persons not to be burdened, financially or otherwise, by poor quality science that agencies disseminate in support of major regulations. The lawsuit would formally be brought as an action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Private entities, such as regulated businesses could establish standing to sue based on the particularized economic injuries they have suffered from regulatory burdens. State governments could take advantage of U.S. Supreme Court precedents that convey standing Copyright © 2015 Washington Legal Foundation ixunder the doctrine of parens patriae when such public actors are suing in their quasi-sovereign capacity. A narrowly-pled, factually-supported challenge utilizing the APA would not only be consistent with the longstanding presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action, but it would also be sufficient to overcome some federal courts’ presumption against implied causes of action.

Fueled by decades of ineffective oversight, federal agencies’ respect for science and the scientific process has severely diminished. For that reason, one can easily foresee many potential applications of the enforcement framework offered in this paper. Other actions by EPA where stakeholders have strongly questioned the supporting science could be particularly inviting targets as well. They include: EPA’s “Waters of the United States” proposal; its social cost of carbon proposal; its proposed ozone regulations; its NEPA review of the Keystone XL pipeline; its study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing; and EPA and NOAA disapproval of state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. Another possible target could be the Fish and Wildlife Service’s threatened or endangered species designations.<<<Get Full Study>>>

H.R. 884 Disqualifies “Judicial Review” in Reinstating Final Rule on Wolves

Here is the text of the bill H.R. 884, sponsored by Rep. Reid Ribble. It is simple and to the point. It calls for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue the Final Rule that delisted gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming (separately) and that in both cases, “Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.”

This bill has been sent to the House Committee on Natural Resources and was introduced on the House Floor.