April 25, 2015

Rep. Newhouse Introduces Legislation to Remove Gray Wolf from Endangered Species Act List

April 23, 2015 Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) introduced H.R. 1985, the Pacific Northwest Gray Wolf Management Act of 2015 to remove the gray wolf from the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and return management authority for the species back to the individual Pacific Northwest states. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) joined Rep. Newhouse to introduce this legislation as original co-sponsors:

“This is a commonsense bill that would allow states to provide a more flexible management program and move forward with the implementation of the gray wolf delisting efforts, which are long overdue,” said Rep. Newhouse. “States are fully qualified to manage gray wolf populations responsibly and are better equipped to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock, and wildlife populations. Delisting the gray wolf under ESA would allow state wildlife officials to manage wolf populations more effectively.”

For the text of the legislation, click here.

BACKGROUND:

On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) released a proposed rule that would have removed the gray wolf from the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” This determination was made after FWS “evaluated the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act of 1973” and found the “best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act,” according to the proposed rule.

The statutory purpose of Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered “endangered” or “threatened.” The gray wolf is currently found in nearly fifty countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of “least concern” globally for risk of extinction by the Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN). Ample populations in the United States and Canada have already led to the delisting of the gray wolf from ESA in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Western Great Lakes region.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

People Who Want Wolves Are From Where?

This was sent to me by a man fighting the Feds on Endangered Species Act law violations of illegally introduced red wolves in North Caroline. The screen shot (below) shows from where signatories of a petition to keep red wolves in North Carolina, hail from. Nice.

WolfPetitionSigners

Fed’s Canada Lynx Review Excuses

PORTLAND, Maine — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is applying a new threat assessment for federally protected Canada lynx from Maine to Washington State, delaying completion of the first five-year review.

The structured threat assessment will involve several other agencies, at least 15 states and more than 20 Native American tribes. The resulting assessment will serve as the basis of a streamlined five-year review, and a recovery plan if one is necessary, said Jim Zelenak of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Montana.<<<Read More>>>

Perhaps it is time for some kind of accountability within the ranks of the Federal Government. In the Private Sector, if anyone performed as ineptly and corruptly as these clowns, they would have been fired a long time ago.

By law, before any species can be officially listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the guise of the Endangered Species Act, a statement of what the environmental impact will be must be drafted, finalized and published in the Federal Register. In order to list a species as “threatened” or “endangered,” by law it is required to present a Recovery Plan (before the listing) – after all, if a species is in trouble there must be a plan to save and recover the species. That plan for Canada lynx was never done, but that didn’t stop the Feds, under pressure from corrupt, environmental groups, to list the lynx anyway.

Five years later, we are now hearing that the Feds need more time to complete their required-by-law assessment while stating, “The resulting assessment will serve as the basis of a streamlined five-year review, and a recovery plan if one is necessary.”

Are you kidding me? If one is necessary? How did the Feds get away with listing the lynx as a threatened species to begin with?

But does it really matter?

In those states where the Canada lynx is illegally listed as a species in trouble, people will never see this critter removed from federal protection. It was never intended that way and it will never happen. Oh, the Feds may put on a dog and pony show to convince enough people that they are doing all that they can – the most being enabling the pocketing of millions of dollars by environmental crooks.

On a project that should have been done BEFORE listing, the Feds “hope” to have a five-year recovery plan in place by this coming December. How thoughtful of them.

If you read the article, linked to above, you will read the Fed’s planned-out excuse of why Canada lynx will not be removed from Federal protection:

In Maine, the lynx population’s fate is tied to the snowshoe hares upon which they feed, and the populations of both are believed to be declining because of lack of suitable habitat for the hares. The end of clear-cutting forestry practices in Maine has allowed forests to fill in, taking away the habitat preferred by hares.

Try to understand this statement, if you can. The attempt here is, as any good environmentally biased group or person would do, to demonize the forest industry because they destroyed habit that is affecting the Canada lynx. But, notice the article unknowingly states that the only way the Canada lynx can remain at artificially high levels is due to the presence of the snowshoe hare, which flourished due to clear cutting – clear cutting, by the way, that was done to mitigate the devastation from the spruce bud worm.

Also take note, that in the permitting process for Maine to obtain an Incidental Take Permit for Canada lynx, the state had to agree to clear-cut hundreds of acres of public land in order to artificially create lynx habitat. Does this at all make sense? The same environmental, mental midgets who demand that forests be left in their “natural” state, also demand that forests be clear-cut in order to artificially grow Canada lynx.

Imagine that the spruce bud worm attack never happened. There wouldn’t be the extent of clear-cut forests and because of that, there would have been fewer snowshoe hares, thus fewer Canada lynx. Therefore, the current conditions that caused the Canada lynx to be in large numbers, as they are at present – and now predicted to shrink – were all caused artificially – GASP! by man.

So, according to the perverted reasoning of the Feds and the environmental groups they love to crawl in bed with, the only way we can hope to save and perpetuate more lynx so more cars and trucks kill them on the highways, and more will die of diseases, and more will kill more threatened white-tail deer, and more lynx get incidentally caught in traps, and more romantics can dream about one day having a lynx of their own to love and coddle, is to pray for another severe outbreak of spruce bud worm.

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

North Carolina’s Criminal Red Wolf and Wildlife Activities

Editor’s Note: All of this information was contained in an email sent to me from a concerned resident of North Carolina. I have taken the liberty to attempt to place this information in a chronological order. I hope I have done it justice.

Officer Wayne,

I would like to report the following alleged wildlife violations in your region.

1. 31 counts of sterilization of coyotes without a permit.
This activity apparently involves USFWS biologists and the veterinary clinics that performed the sterilizations.

Evidence:

From USFWS January – March 2013 Quarterly Report –

http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/Images/20130416_RedWolf_QtrReport_FY13-02.pdf

“Thirty-one coyotes were captured and released during the quarter, 29 of which were first-time captures. All captured coyotes were sterilized before being radio-collared and released, and consisted of eight males and 23 females.”

USFWS had no sterilization permit during this time period.

It is my strong belief that this activity was repeated again from January through May of 2014. The USFWS reports for this period have not been published. USFWS keeps a “canid book” which will have the information you need.

There was no sterilization permit in place for this period either.

In addition, I believe USFWS has been sterilizing coyotes in our State for almost 15 years. Please cross-reference the trapping and sterilization documentation in their quarterly reports with the issuance of the required permits during this time period. There are likely hundreds of violations.

2. Trapping out of season without a permit.

Evidence:

See the above referenced evidence.

Additionally, this USFWS presentation documents their trapping schedule is daily September through April.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4hb-L8j0UYebzNkdFFPakRWSXM/edit

“•? Trapping (Sept-April) •? Daily”

3. Trapping on the land of another without written permission.

Evidence:

I have requested information regarding this activity from USFWS and have not yet received it. Since 90% of the red wolf packs and the vast majority of coyotes occur on private land, I suspect this activity to be rampant. Again, the USFWS “canid book” information and lack of written permission from landowners should suffice as evidence. I have additional first hand information if you need it.

4. Releasing coyotes on the land of another without permission.

Evidence:
“FWS biologists have also tried bringing in sterilized coyotes to the area. The idea is those sterile animals will keep other coyotes out of the wolf territory and lower the risk of hybridization.”

http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/nc-north-carolina-red-wolf-also-subject-of-conservation-controversy/

I suspect coyotes were trapped, sterilized and released on my farm in Tyrrell Co. in the Spring and Summer of 2013 by USFWS biologists. I never granted permission for anyone to release coyotes on my property. USFWS while at the office of the NCWRC Director was specifically directed by me to euthanize any trapped coyotes on my property. The USFWS should have this data. Again, the “canid book” should have this data.

It is well documented that USFWS regularly purchases coyotes from trappers. I can only assume these purchased coyotes are later released and likely released on private property without permission.

5. Purchase of live coyotes, entrapment, misrepresentation.

In the State of NC, it is illegal for wildlife to be bought and sold. One exception is that a coyote or fox may be sold only to a fox pen. Now, if special conditions that I am unaware of allow USFWS to purchase wildlife, will you confirm that these conditions were fully met at all times. It will be a real shame if local trappers (selling live coyotes to non fox pen buyer) and veterinarians (sterilization of wildlife) have jeopardized their livelihoods because they were led to believe that they were participating in a legal activity as it was represented to them by the USFWS. I will also copy Roy Cooper, as if my suspicions are correct, he will need to get involved in this matter.

Evidence:

“This year, we had 8 trappers participate and we paid out $5,200 for 32 coyotes and 10 red wolves.” 4/4/13 letter USFWS to RWC
I can provide this letter when necessary.

Officer Wayne, I take these alleged violations seriously and request to be updated regularly on their status.

Also, are you comfortable that the deer used to feed the wolves in the acclimation pens and also the deer that are laced with medications and wormers for the “wild” wolves are taken legally (all required permits and landowner permissions)? Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

http://www.nchuntandfish.com/forums/showthread.php?103801-USFWS-Red-Wolf-Recovery-Team-Reported-for-Alleged-Wildlife-Violations-by-Jett-Ferebee

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

Mr. Ferebee,
Thank you for your referral. The Service takes all allegations of misconduct very seriously. On March 26, 2015, this office initiated an investigation into allegations made by another concerned party into the Red Wolf Program. The case number for this matter is FWS-2015-24. I would ask your patience as we look into this sizable program. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the below numbers. -Keith

_________________________
K. A. Toomey, #640
Special Agent in Charge
Professional Responsibility Unit
US Fish & Wildlife Service

ESA Section 7 Violations by USFWS – Red Wolf Program

Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 2:18 pm
Attachment
Secretary Jewell, Director Ashe, and Ms. Harvey,

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires US Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct intra-agency consultation for its own actions that may impact listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitat. In 1986, USFWS filed the attached ESA Intra-agency Section 7 Consultation regarding the red wolf introduction into North Carolina. Please note 3 of the 4 evaluators stated the intended action “may affect” the red wolf population.

The attached Section 7 Consultation document explicitly states that USFWS will remove 10 (but up to 12 animals) from the captive red wolf population for release onto the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge with an estimated incidental take of only 2 animals.

USFWS, over the next five years removed 43 (not 10 or even 12) animals from the captive population. 14 of these 43 wolves were released onto private land outside of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge without legal authorization or the protections offered by the refuge system.

22 of the 43 animals (not 2), removed from the captive population died within 5 years of their release. (See the 1992 ARNWR report: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/anr-ar-pi-1992.pdf and the attached FOIA wolf release document)

To date USFWS has now removed 132 wolves out of the captive population of which 64 were illegally released onto private land. 60 out of 64 (93.75%) of all suspected illegal takes have occurred on private land. Internal USFWS policy is to discourage removal of wolves from private land.

The 1986 Section 7 Consultation document states:

“If during the course of the action the amount of extent of incidental taking previously specified is exceeded, the refuge manager and the field supervisor must reinitiate consultation immediately.”

Ms. Sharneka,

Please provide the required Section 7 Consultation for the removal of an additional 120 “red wolves” (132 – 12 approved) from the captive breeding population.

Please provide the required Section 7 Consultation to sustain an incidental take beyond the 2 estimated animals as required in the 1986 Section 7 Consultation.

Please provide the Section 7 Consultation to release wolves on private land and to not remove wolves from private land where the wolves are less protected.

Please provide the Section 7 Consultation providing for the released of red wolves outside of their historic range. (see attached USFWS Red Wolf Historic Range map)

Secretary Jewell and Director Ashe,

It is important to note that the Red Wolf Recovery plan sets the needed captive population at 330 animals. After more than 30 years, this captive population only has 197 very closely related individuals. The entire red wolf population is highly susceptible to inbreeding as it was started with only 14 so called “red wolves”. Now, only six of these founder wolves are represented in the wild.

Has the unauthorized “take” of 120 red wolves from the captive breeding population by USFWS personnel now jeopardized the existence of the red wolf species, if indeed it is a species?

Has the unauthorized “take” of 120 red wolves by USFWS irreparably harmed the red wolf “species” by further causing an inbred population both in the wild and in captivity?

Has the unauthorized release of red wolves onto private land and the failure to remove wolves from private land by USFWS resulted in “USFWS self inflicted” losses that now jeopardize and adversely impact the existence of the red wolf species, if indeed it is a species?

Has the unwillingness for USFWS personnel to abide by hardly any of the Endangered Species Act rules governing the red wolf introduction in eastern NC, now so eroded private landowner support that a successful reintroduction of the red wolf can never be achieved anywhere?

Has the release of red wolves outside of their historic range by USFWS personnel adversely impacted or jeopardized the existence of the “red wolf species”? (see attached USFWS Red Wolf Historic Range map)

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

Special Agent in Charge Keith Toomey,

Thank you so much for creating a case file and investigating the alleged NC Wildlife law violations by USFWS Red Wolf personnel.

Probably more concerning and serious is the alleged illegal “take” of 120 red wolves by USFWS Red Wolf personnel. Additionally, USFWS red wolf personnel have released a nonessential experimental population of wolves outside of it’s historical range, which is a violation of the ESA 10(j) rules.

“The PRU conducts both criminal and administrative investigations for the Service of other non-law enforcement Service employees when asked based on the seriousness of the alleged offense.”

Will the USFWS Professional Responsibility Unit please investigate the ESA Section 7 and the ESA 10(j) rules violations by the USFWS – Red Wolf Program personnel as outlined in the below email?

MapHistoricRange

PDF of All Wolf Releases

Copy of FOIA Letter re: Section 7 Consultation requirement

USSA Foundation Joins Lynx Lawsuit to Protect Maine Trappers

Columbus, OH –(Ammoland.com)- On Friday, April 3, 2015, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and the Maine Trappers Association filed to intervene in a lawsuit in Maine brought by the animal rights group, Friends of Animals.

The suit aims to strip the state of Maine of its Incidental Take Permit (ITP), which allows for a limited number of Canada lynx to be caught in traps without the state, or individual trappers, being held liable under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Without this protection, every time a lynx was accidentally caught in a legal trap, the trapper could face federal ESA penalties.

Canada lynx, which are listed as a threatened species in the U.S. due to fragmented populations, are abundant just north of the border in Canada. In fact, there are many who believe that the lynx populations should be removed from the ESA altogether.<<<Read More>>>

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>>>

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!