September 2, 2014

American enslavement to the Endangered Species Act in violation of Equal Protection and 13th Amendment

Antebellum USA: With slavery, we did the plantation owners’ bidding for nothing.
If we did not, we were punished.

21st Century USA: With the Endangered Species Act, we do the bureaucrats’ bidding for nothing.
If we do not, we are punished.

And we get to pick neither our plantation owners nor our bureaucrats.

And they both ignore our wishes, desires, dreams and rights.

Habitatism* is the priority of the habitat (the Marxist commune) over sacred individual Constitutional rights to be free from slavery. It’s a bad idea to get fatalistic and idly wait around to find out if modern slaves to habitatism can withstand $10,000 per day fines any better than 10 lashes per day for not doing the overseers’ bidding.

The time to reign in the Neo-Nazi Progressive Administrative State is now by changing a number of statutes in order to impose an effective two-strikes-and-you’re-out-of-a-government-job-for-life rule. No disbarment from the practice of law for administrative law judges whose decisions are overruled on constitutional grounds. If the judge is incapable of following the conceptually simple oath of office, then it’s time to find a private sector job.

Ayn Rand warned that the concept of the common good leads to enslavement. Now I see how.

*Habitatism is not a word right now, but we’ve been living under this concept for the past 40 years since the 1973 passage of the Endangered Species Act. Even in biblical times, 40 years is a long time. It’s time to find our way out of the wilderness.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Discussion of Habitatism refined

To some, the stupid nonsense of the 1973 Endangered Species Act claims to elevate the habitat needs of the subhuman to the same level of human needs. But experience proves that compromise is not possible, that one or the other wins the irreconcilable conflict, and for the past 40 years the needs of the subhuman win out over the needs of some 315 million Americans.

For example, any one of the some 315 million Americans could own preference grazing rights in Nevada. And a Nevada rancher’s preference grazing rights were superior to any competing grazing rights of all other humans on the face of the earth. But under the ESA, the human rancher’s preference grazing rights were not superior to the needs of the subhuman tortoise in Nevada. In such dehumanizing struggles, it is instructive to note that the victims of the holocaust were also denied their property rights, their dignity, their human rights. While Marx described property as theft, our Founders described property rights as human rights.

Under the ESA, the concept of habitat for subhumans is indistinguishable from the dominance of the greater good of the fascist Communist commune over sacred individual human rights set out in the US Constitution. Those sacred individual rights include the strict forbiddance of the taking of private property without just compensation. A time may well return when bureaucrats who use regulation to violate the law will be held personally liable for conduct deemed unlawful. Such personal liability may well extend also to those who aid, abet, encourage and contribute to causes that promote the dehumanization of the American public. When one person’s rights are trumped by militaristic bureaucratic centralized control, the bell tolls for all 315 million of us.

Readings from “The Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers”, Scott, 1902, make clear that the fundamental law of our Constitutional form of government is based on a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to legislatively alter. Congress has no authority to fundamentally change humans-first public policy either by expressly setting out radically new public policy as it purports to do in the Endangered Species Act any more than it has the authority to put fascist Nationalism, the Communist commune, the environment, Mother Earth, Gaia, Martians or mythical characters in priority over our human civil rights.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

What is the magic of individualism vs. other -isms? Habitatism?

To begin with, adding -ism to the end of the word can denote the priority of the something.

To the non-law trained person, just exactly what is the expression of individualism of the American revolution referred to in an earlier writing that cited the encyclopedic reference to Hegel? Individualism is the priority of the individual. It is not dangerous egoism or anarchy as Vladimir Putin and his ilk would have you believe.

In fact, consider the peaceful society that we live in pursuant to the Constitution which sets out the individual right to free speech, the individual right to travel, the individual right to worship, the individual right to a jury trial, the individual right to cross-examine our accusers, the individual right to be paid just compensation for property taken for government purposes, the individual right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the individual right to be free from the quartering of troops in our homes, the individual right to assemble and so forth.

Consider also that our public officials swear an oath to God to defend (an active verb) our Constitution.

J. Roberts elegantly described the freedom of speech as having benefits to the citizens that outweigh the burden on government in 559 US 460.

Now consider one of the opposite political philosophies, fascist nationalism for example, in which the nation comes first, usually in the form of the greater common good (the same thing that Texas’ own Office of Public Interest Council claims to represent).

The UN was quoted as saying regionalism must precede globalism. Think now of Texas’ own regional planning commissions planning our private property groundwater rights away.

If fascist nationalism is the priority of the nation, communism the commune, environmentalism the environment, then habitatism is the priority of the habitat over individual rights. In other words, habitatism rejects our sacred individual human rights. Those rights to privately control property make America the exception to the claimed inevitability of world-wide Communism.

Habitatism is functionally indistinguishable from regionalism, globalism, environmentalism, communism, fascist nationalism in that all of these -isms lead to the use of militaristic actions we saw in the 1980′s in Poland and in 2014 in the Nevada Ranch standoff.

If not for our watered-down constitutional law education, lawyers would have figured this out long ago. If not for my further self-education after law school I would not know that our Founders considered our individualism, our individual rights, to be sacred, and to be from our Maker, thereby establishing in the US Constitution a humans-first public policy that Congress has no authority to alter through the Endangered Species Act for as the Texas Supreme Court similarly found in 1943 in 173 S.W.2d 1022, 1024, “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.”

Habitatism attempts to create through extralegal, supra legal and in an unlimited way through the increasingly questioned Administrative State, encumbrances that unlawfully subordinate all manner of legal rights including without limitation first lien mortgages (Deeds of Trust) on privately owned land otherwise held in fee simple title in Texas according to, and governed exclusively, by ancient land title law.

In my opinion, by approving the Endangered Species Act, President Nixon capitulated more than Vietnam to the cancer of Communist ideology in 1973.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Feds Weigh Moving Grizzlies Into Washington

“It marks the potential turning point in the decades-long decline of the last grizzly bears remaining on the U.S. West Coast,” Joe Scott, international conservation director of Conservation Northwest, said in a written statement. “Without recovery efforts, these bears may soon be gone forever.”<<<Read More>>>

Should You Fear the Pizzly Bear?

*Editor’s Note* – Everyone should consider reading this and then giving it some thought. As Dr. Valerius Geist worded it, in reference to this article: “Excellent article ! It takes something like this to shake us out of our
stupor. In North America the big and the little wolf are melting into one, and it’s only a matter of time before it will happen in the west. Be glad that you knew coyotes and wolves! Your great-grand children will not. The best thing that happened in the 20th century to wolves were 60,000 trappers in Canada and Alaska, encouraged by bounties, killing every wolf they could get by fair means or by foul. It kept wolves and coyotes pure, it contained hydatid disease, it kept wolves out of agricultural and where predator control officers were waiting for them anyway, and it relegated wolf attacks on humans to a myth – by their absence.

The worst enemy of woodland caribou, so argues Tom Bergerud, are environmentalists. Ditto for wolves?

“The animal comes from an area above the Great Lakes, where wolves and coyotes live — and sometimes breed — together. At one end of this canid continuum, there are wolves with coyote genes in their makeup; at the other, there are coyotes with wolf genes. Another source of genetic ingredients comes from farther north, where the gray wolf, a migrant species originally from Eurasia, resides. “We call it canis soup,” says Bradley White, a scientist at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, referring to the wolf-coyote hybrid population.”<<<Read More>>>

“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

I am reading law Prof. Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” and he makes the case that administrative law is not new rather it is the old King’s absolute prerogative reborn, the same prerogative that the Framers sought to prevent with the Constitution’s system of divided government.

He sets out how administrative law is extra-legal (outside the law), supra-legal (above the law) and, because it is not limited by the Constitution, it is unlimited in power. That is, it is no different than the unlimited power of the King.

Notwithstanding a few cases that attempt to rein in the administrative state, there seems to be in Texas a conscious and clever effort at the legislative and administrative code level to protect the unlimited power of the administrative state from constitutional limitations.

In this first example, in order to test some of this thinking, let’s take a very extreme and hopefully very unlikely example. Assume that the administrative code says that anyone who fails to pay an administrative fine by the 10th day after issuance by the agent shall be lined up and shot by firing squad. (If you think this is too far out, consider Obama’s man who used Roman crucifixion of Christians as a parable to guide the mind set for those involved in environmental enforcement.)

At this point in our jurisprudence most can readily state that such a code provision violates Constitutional guarantees of substantive due process that protect our human right to life. But if today’s Administrative Code set out such a punishment, where would such an issue be litigated? Apparently, Travis County, Texas, in the administrative court system.

In this second example, let’s assume something more regular, for example, where the administrative code says that the owner of property shall submit to a central control of private property regulation of some sort or pay a daily fine of $10,000.00. One can argue that this administrative process creates its own ad hoc condemnation process whereby the rights of groundwater owners are denied for the “greater common good”, an argument that is made by the Office of Public (Government Ownership) Interest Counsel in administrative hearings.

Others might pick a better suited example.

[Please note that enforcement agents might well be violating an old common law prohibition against the combination of the duties of the Sheriff with the duties of the Judge. Such administrative law provisions destroy the ancient safeguard of the impartiality of the Judge who is supposed to hold the Sheriff to a burden of proof and to determine the innocence or the guilt and punishment. Today's administrative law judges are there to simply rubber stamp the regularity of the combined actions of the enforcement agent.]

With regard to this second example, some argue that administrative central control of private property is not a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against takings without just compensation. Balderdash. Central control abolishes private property. In 1958 J. Edgar Hoover said that our exceptionalism is America’s exception from Communism. The exceptionalism that provides our great wealth comes from private control of property. Karl Marx wrote of the central control of private property and the modes of production similarly. Last two pages Chap. Two Communist Manifesto, 1848.

I suspect that 60 years ago or so an extreme example of administrative law would be what we are seeing today, the illegitimate supplanting of an administrative process for the Condemnation process. So, let’s jump to an example that might seem extreme today: violation of the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I’ve had the passing thought, and I am not the only one who has noticed, that the fervor of the environmentalists and some adherents to Gaia as Mother Earth resembles a religion. Some might argue that we have already reached the point of an established de facto state religion in the environment (which is conceptually indistinguishable from Marx’ eschatological concept of the utopian commune), that is, earth and animal liberation and their derivatives embodied in legislation such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act together with corresponding overreaching administrative provisions.

If the power of the Administrative State is truly unlimited, then how many other provisions can be violated?

And where will those issues be litigated?

And, how much longer can the judicial branch safely ignore the holding in Jones v. Ross that states: “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” 173 S.W. 2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943).

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Wolf Meeting and Talking Points Expanded Boundary

All content comes from an email source:

Wolf meeting tomorrow, 8-13-14 at the TorC civic center. Public input meeting at 6 PM; information session from fish nd wildlife service at 2 PM. [This is]About the new proposed draft rule and Environmental Impact Statement the rule is based on. Please come and speak if you can. Map and short zone explanation attached. Talking points attached.

Designate three wolf management zones with a larger Zone 1 within the expanded MWEPA:
• Zone 1 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to occupy and where wolves may be initially released or translocated. Zone 1 would include all of the Apache and Gila National Forests (the existing BRWRA) and any or all of the Sitgreaves National Forests; the Payson, Pleasant Valley, andTonto Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest; and the Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest.
• Zone 2 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy and where wolves may be translocated. In Zone 2 initial releases of wolves on Federal land would be limited to pups less than five months old. Pups less than five months old, juvenile wolves and adult wolves could also be initially released on private land under Service and state approved management agreements with private landowners and on tribal land under Service approved management agreements with tribal governments.Zone 2 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone 1or 3 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico
• Zone 3 is an area where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy but where neither initial releases nor translocations would occur. Zone 3 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone1 or 2 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico.

ZoningMap

Mexican wolf Draft EIS and Rule Change

Talking points for Agriculture

1. Any population change in the wolf recovery program must be based on a recovery plan that has been published in the federal register and vetted by the public . The most recent recovery plan in place meeting those requirements is the 1982 plan. None of the ongoing attempts at recent planning have been subject to peer review in accordance with 59 Fed. Reg. 34207 July 1 1994

2. Recovery planning needs a defined number of wolves to allow the public to understand clearly the objectives of the recovery of Mexican wolves in the SW.

3. Livestock on federally administered grazing allotments are private property legally occupying the range to disallow take of wolves attacking livestock is wrong. Ranchers should be allowed to defend and protect their domestic animals regardless of land ownership, without having to beg for a permit.

4. FWS isn’t using best available science or information in the DEIS. Nowhere is there a requirement that county data and reports must be peer reviewed to be used by the agency in rulemaking. Thus far FWS has cited no data to support the finding of no significant impact to livestock community by this program, nor the harm that has been documented to the human element particularly the children in areas where wolves are present.

5. FWS failed to mitigate livestock depredation and ranch sales due to wolf depredation in wolf occupied areas. nothing in their draft suggests they will do so this time.

6. FWS has failed to mitigate the impacts to children in wolf populated areas, in fact have largely ignored the habituation problem of these wolves. There is very little in the DEIS and Draft Rule that allows for mitigation of these significant problems.

7. FWS has failed to consider cumulative effect of economic losses and social impacts when this program is coupled with all the other environmental planning that is going on in our state.

8. FWS has failed to address catastrophic affects on wolf habitat.

9. Cooperative agreements with private landowners to host wolves on private land can and likely will have significant impact on neighboring ranches domestic animals and the human element on adjacent private lands, this should not be available.

10. FWS must stay within the bounds of the DEIS and draft Rule, during the last rulemaking process, David Parsons significantly changed the draft rule and EIS and there was no public vetting of his teams decision-making. This DEIS cannot be significantly altered other than to incorporate ongoing comments in the current commenting cycle. Parsons now works for an environmental organization devoted to preserving predators.

Remember, DOW CBD WEG Sierra Club and all the other environmental and animal rights organizations, will be bussing in people to speak, crowding the comment session and complicating this meeting with public grandstandings perhaps even a howl in like they did in Albuquerque last year. It got them a cover on the Albuquerque Journal. If you are up to a little public grandstanding to ensure the media gets our side of the story feel free to do so, I have protest signs and we can stage a protest ourselves if necessary.

Public comment session, stick to realistic points similar to but not limited to those above, and the injustice and unfairness behind the management of the program.

There is no, No Wolves alternative, this program is far far beyond that issue the reality is, the courts have ruled this is legitimate. Even if there was a No Wolves alternative, and it was chosen, the population explosion we have now would allow the agency to immediately re-list this animal with full ESA status critical habitat and a no take policy under the ESA and there would be wolves out here forever with NO removals for problem animals and private property curtailment due to the critical habitat status.

Within the past year our association Gila Livestock Growers Assn. has tried to fulfill some basic scientific testing that would have allowed us the basis for petitioning for de-listing of this animal along with the de-listing of the northern population, our access to historic samples fell through and our time has run out to do it before the new rule is in place. We will have to undergo the rulemaking process and try to find historic samples for testing at a later date.

At this meeting, we have to show the agency they will not and cannot get away with pretending there is no significant impact to our communities and industries whether it’s tourism, ranching or outfitting. pick a subject stay on point ignore the hecklers. Prepare for bizarre and really bad behavior from the wolf support activists.

When I was in Albuquerque last November for the preliminary meetings someone sat next to me and handed me the prayer attached here. Please print it and take it with you if you need to.

Prayer

Impact on Ranchers by Wolves in New Mexico

What you will see in this video is a clear representation of the results of a perversion of ideals and a major screw-up of priorities. It should be viewed as a mental illness in order that some damned animal takes priority over human pursuit of happiness and the ability to protect property and run a business. It goes beyond perversion and enters the realm of criminal that mentally perverse sub-humans would issue death threats against others for protecting what is rightfully theirs.

And now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. Please contact your government representative and tell them to stop dumping these mongrel, nasty, disease-carrying, killing machines into the landscapes of Arizona and New Mexico.

Have You Been Injured By The USFWS’s Listing of The Lesser Prairie Chicken?

DEPA Executive Director

As you know, one prong of our multi-tiered vigorous defense is in the legal arena.

We are actively collecting background stories from DEPA Investors who have been injured because of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent decision to list the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Your specific description of injury will support our efforts to convince the court the Fish and Wildlife Service never should have listed the species as threatened, and it will spotlight devastating effects of the decision.<<<Read More>>>

American Life without The Endangered Species Act

A guest post by James Beers:

By passing The Endangered Species Act (ESA) Congress and the President (Nixon) did two things.

First they catered to the 5-year orgy of environmental hyperbole (much like the current global warming/cooling/climate change extravaganzas) that generated political support and energized the radical environmentalism and animal rights’ organizations and their agendas during the turbulence of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Second, Congress and the President, cleverly like Pontius Pilate washing his hands after sentencing Jesus, gave the responsibility and authority for whatever happened to federal bureaucracies, especially the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the “scientists” they would employ to justify the past 40 years of:

- Taking private property without compensation.
- Shrinking the timber, ranching, and farming economic sectors.
- Shrinking Local governments, their jurisdictional authority; and their revenue sources from shrinking rural economies.
- Stopping road projects and demanding the removal of dams used for power and irrigation.
- Subverting any State authority and jurisdiction over any plant or animal UNIT concocted by federal bureaucrats and their radical supporters to impede rural American prosperity and the “general Welfare” (per the Constitution) of rural communities and the rural families that compose them.
- The unjustified and unauthorized creation by bureaucrats of evil (the right word) “powers” to leap from saving “endangered” animals to a federal mission to “restore” the (imagined) “native ecosystem”; and the never-ending thread of absolute authority that even after “returning management of Listed endangered ‘species’ to the state” federal bureaucrats can set mandated conditions (that must be met at State and Local expense) or federal authority will be re-instituted by force.
- Creating Federal bureaucratic discretionary power to justify the elimination of highly desirable “non-native” or “out-of-(i.e. “native”)place plants and animals; steadily eliminate the management and use of renewable natural resources on and near Federally-controlled lands; and the unquestioned power to introduce and protect, or eliminate plants and animals at locations that serve other agendas from political pandering to current power structures to hidden agendas to achieve other goals from closing access and stopping new developments to further restriction of stressed rural communities that are subsequently purchased or eased with federal tax dollars.
- Inventing all manner of self-serving “science” from regulatory (yet legally-binding) concepts like “Distinct population segments” to arbitrary establishment of DNA definitions for Species, Subspecies, etc. distinctions that serve current and future bureaucratic agendas.
- Establishing an aura of “science says” that befuddles any honest judge and trumps any hope for an appeal by a citizen “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” as guaranteed in the 5th Amendment.

I often remark in talks I give and in what I write that the ESA must be repealed or at a minimum drastically amended. Aside from snickers and smiles this recommendation is frequently used to demean what else I say as the ravings of an idiot. When I was asked by a young lady reporter a few months ago if I thought the ESA did any good at all, I was taken aback and after a minute or so I had to admit that I saw no good from the ESA in the past 40 years that could not have been achieved with far less harmful consequences without the ESA.

So what does “American life without the ESA” mean? I have taken this tack, no doubt, after reflecting on the movie “America” that my wife and I saw last week. While one, i.e. “life without America”, would be a great sadness and loss to the entire world: the other, i.e. “American life without the ESA” would be a great boon to all Americans by restoring the rule of law to invigorating the national economy by putting rural Americans back in charge of their own destinies and the natural resources that abound all around them.

WITHOUT the ESA:

- Citizens concerned about a certain fish or a bird would have access to the US Congress to seek some remedy. They could make their case and request funding or a new law within the confines of Section 8 of the US Constitution that defines the “Power” the “Congress shall have”.
- Any such proposed law or funding would be subject to review and a vote in the House and in the Senate, as well as concurrence (Veto Power) by the President.
- The review of such a proposal involves a PUBLIC Hearing including statements by the proposers, comments by bureaucrats, and the pros and cons of supporters and opponents. Unlike the rigged “public hearings” sponsored and conducted by bureaucrats (like the old Soviet “show trials”) of the past 40 years that simply rubber-stamp bureaucratic ESA plans; such public hearings before Congress give Americans a fair chance before-the-fact to expose, question, and either modify or defeat the sort of hidden ESA chicanery of the past 40 years.

Consider how such public Congressional Hearings might allow for those being targeted to address Congress and the sort of questions an honest Congressman or Senator might be briefed to ask:

- “What is the position of the State government?”
- “Who will pay for this after this federal subsidy ends in X years?”
- “What effect will this have on Local government authority and revenue?”
- “Do you have any statements of support from the affected Local governments? Why not?”
- “What is the estimate of the increased danger to humans posed by these animals?”
- “What will be the effect on ranchers and farmers? What will their costs be?”
- What effect will this have on disease transmissions to humans, livestock and dogs?”
- “Who will pay for the resulting damages?”
- “How will landowners and animal owners be compensated for reduced land values and other losses of their property?”
- “How will lost power generation or lost irrigation capacity be replaced?”
- “How will lost revenues to State and Local government be mitigated?”
- “What is the Cost/Benefit Ratio for the closure of this area and these natural resource uses versus the claimed perpetual increase in animal X?”
- “Where are the statements of Veterinarians and Agriculturalists about how these proposals will modify animal and plant health and communities?”
- “How do you propose to maintain hunting and fishing revenues and programs with this project in place and considering the necessary diversion of state fish and wildlife program funds?”
- “What is the position of Rocky Mtn. Elk, or National Cattlemen’s Assoc., or Southern Timber Owners Assoc., or Pheasants Forever, or United Great Lakes Fishermen, or the residents of Timbuktu who will see their roads closed and economies hard hit?”
- “What studies confirm that this project is necessary and that this recommendation will work? What if it does not work as stated? What are the other alternatives?”
- “Under what authority can you assign a federal responsibility like livestock loss compensation to a private organization like Defenders of Wildlife who is a supporter of this bill?”
- “Where, in Federal Statutes, is there authority for the federal government to restore the native ecosystem everywhere despite opposition from state governments, Local governments, private property owners, and/or rural American residents?”
- “Why do you propose we compensate livestock owners for losses but not dog owners?”
- “If we pass this proposal and some people are killed by these animals next year or several years down the road, are we liable for placing them there? If not; why not?”
- Why does access to or recreational use of these public lands need to be restricted in conjunction with this proposal?”
- “Are you seriously requesting that we devastate the (logging, farming, ranching, power) industry and the rural American communities they support because you cannot think of any other way to maintain this (owl, smelt, wolf, bear, darter, bat, etc.)? We need people that tell us how this animal can be maintained in OUR community: not how WE must be managed to exist in theirs.”

I could go on here for pages but you get the point. Yes it would be difficult for concerned citizens and time-consuming for Congress (if they entertained much of it). Yes the vaunted bureaucrat/biologists and their fellow-“scientists” would once again serve US and not the other way around. If something is REALLY and DEMONSTRABLY important Congress could baby it along and reap the grateful votes of supporters and a solution tested by open discourse and opposition would sink or swim on its’ own.

It’s the American Way!

Jim Beers
26 July 2014

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