August 24, 2019

Frog Jumping Over and Around the Endangered Species Act

A sensible person – there are so few left in this world – can see that the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is ancient, outdated, ineffective, and draconian – if you are of the rare breed of man who thinks man’s existence is at least a tick above that of an animal.

But it matters not how many people scream and yell and how often that something needs to be done about the Endangered Species Act (ESA), nothing ever gets done, except perhaps a bit of window dressing as the Trump Administration has been trying to do; also often referred to as smoke and mirrors.

Nothing will change with the ESA because man’s social and cultural demise in this country is so deeply embedded that animals, wild or domestic, deserve much more protection than the existence and well-being of man. This might be shown to us in a Patriot Post opinion piece written by Terence Jeffrey.

He suggests that San Francisco, California should consider declaring portions of the downtown as critical habitat for the grizzly bear. Why?

Because the mindset of the perverted culture of the U.S. citizen is that of favoritism to the animal and disdain for the people. According to some man’s history lesson, grizzly bears once “lived almost everywhere in California.” With today’s thinking, that is reason enough to force all people to learn to “coexist” with grizzly bears and because they once “lived almost everywhere” they should live there once again regardless of the practicality or even that habitat any longer exists to support such a creature. This is one of the stupid results of a bastardized, outdated, and a fascist/totalitarian administration of a law designed specifically for that purpose (but don’t go look).

In this same opinion piece, we read of what is taking place in Louisiana, where the U.S. Supreme Court might soon decide whether the ESA can rule over the welfare of mankind for the purposes of attempting to protect and restore a species that is biologically impossible to exist in habitat that no longer is supportive of the species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) intends to protect.

The USFWS declared nearly 5,000 acres as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, even though those acres will no longer support the existence of the frog.

It seems Weyerhaeuser owns some of that land yanked away from them by the ESA’s designation of “critical habitat.” Weyerhaeuser has had to stop their logging operations because of the designation, which shows us how the ESA is used in the destruction of private enterprise, particularly logging and ranching. Weyerhaeuser has sued the USFWS.

In addition to Weyerhaeuser’s logging operations, some of this same land is being earmarked for development of housing to get people out of the path of destructive hurricanes when they blow ashore. Should any animal take precedence over men? Should any animal be given ESA protection and critical habitat designation when such habitat will never support the appointed species? And even if the habitat is supportive, at what lengths will the government go to halt the existence and pursuit of happiness of private citizens?

That’s perhaps what the Supreme Court will decide. In arguments concerning the frog, it has been brought out that the elements needed in a habitat to support the frog no longer exist. Why then is the USFWS extending their fascist reach to shut down Weyerhaeuser and stop the protection of the human species?

Maybe, there is a light of some interest in this matter when the U.S. Supreme Court heard this case (no decision has been rendered yet). According to Jeffrey, Justice Roberts was quoted as saying, “…if you have ephemeral ponds in Alaska, you could build a giant greenhouse and plant the longleaf pines and the frog could live there.”

The system we are forced to operate in is a rigged system. All facets of the U.S. Government operate in unison with this rigged system – that’s one reason it is rigged. If it is decided that the real purpose of the ESA is to be used to shut down private enterprise and take over land regardless of its purposes for a man, then that’s the way it shall be. From time to time, the government positions their smoke and mirrors in attempts to mislead the insane public into thinking they really give a shit. This could be one of those cases, but…

The government doesn’t care. I look for a ruling from the SCOTUS that their hands are tied because the ESA gives the Federal Government the authority to administer the Act and that the Service is granted their deference based on “Best Available Science.”

Business as usual.

Share

Help for Helpless Victims of Government Wolves

By James Beers:

A Canadian colleague and I recently received the following email from a concerned friend in the State of Washington. I have eliminated names so that what I say will not cause them any needless difficulty.

I have interjected some comments in the request and the reportage about wolves from Oregon.  The situation, intrigue and government perfidy about wolves could just as easily come from Arizona or Minnesota or North Carolina.

My attempted response to his inquiry follows and is forwarded for the edification of readers on all sides of this contentious and destructive issue…  Jim Beers

———————————————————————————

The Request –

To: Jim Beers <jimbeers7@comcast.net>; YYYYY
Subject: Fwd: Wolves kill guard dog in SW Oregon

 Jim and YYYYY,

I’m going hunting next week about 10 miles from——— Ranch.  Can you please read the article below and advise me as to how I should coach the rancher?  Thanks, XXXXX

Begin forwarded message (with several inserted comments by me, Jim Beers):

 Subject: Wolves kill guard dog in SW Oregon

Date: October 2, 2018

 Wolves kill guard dog in S.W., Oregon

——- had already lost three calves to wolves from the Rogue pack in southwest Oregon back in January.

 On Sept. 24, wolves returned and killed one of the guard dogs —– brought in to protect his herd.

——-, who owns the —– Ranch south of ——-in —– County, said he was awakened early in the morning to the sound of his dog, an adult Tibetan Mastiff, being attacked in a fenced pasture 600 yards from the house.

By the time —— got up, jumped into his boots, grabbed a headlamp and rifle and ran out onto the front porch, he said the wolves were gone, though he did find the dog limping along slowly with blood on its backside. It died later in the day.

Wildlife investigators shaved the dog, finding injuries consistent with wolf bites. —– said the animal’s back end “was like grape jelly.”

The investigation also turned up wolf tracks on the property, which together was enough for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm the (insert your favorite “cutesy” name here.  Jim Beers) pack was responsible for the attack.

“There’s no escaping them,” —-  said. “It seems like they’re getting pretty brazen.”

Problems with the (naming wolves, besides being disgusting is simply propaganda to fill urban kids and soccer Moms heads with.  Jim Beers) pack at —- Ranch began in January, when wolves killed three calves in a span of eight days, prompting  —- and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ramp up non-lethal deterrents  (“ramping up non-lethal wolf control” is like an urban high school teacher facing fights and gunfire in her classroom saying she will raise her voice if they don’t stop!  Jim Beers) at the property.

As part of the effort, —- was given two Tibetan Mastiffs from a family in—–, Ore., on the other side of the county.

“I do believe they’ve been a deterrent,” —— said. “Any time the wolves have been in the vicinity, they just carry on like crazy.”

 John Stephenson, wolf biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon, said the ranch is within the pack’s territory, not far from where the wolves den.

 It is common for wolves to act aggressively toward dogs, Stephenson added, viewing them as competition. (How profound!  Jim Beers)

 “If they have the number on the dogs, they can behave pretty aggressively,” Stephenson said. (Even more profound!  Where do these “experts” learn all this?  Jim Beers)

 The —– pack was started by Oregon’s famous (as in “infamous” if you are trying to make a living where they choose to roam and reveal themselves.  Jim Beers) wandering wolf, OR-7, and his mate in 2014. In 2017, the pack had seven known animals, including two new pups that survived through the end of the year.

 Unlike wolves in Eastern Oregon, the species is still federally listed as endangered west of U.S. highways 395, 78 and 95. (Let that sort of bureaucratic BS sink in!  Jim Beers)

 —- said he is working with the USFWS to once again surround his 276-acre property with electrified fladry — lines of rope with flags that flap in the wind to spook wolves from entering the pasture — and set up additional flashing lights to scare away the predators.  (Fladry was developed and used by Russian wolf controllers to funnel driven wolves through woodlands to passages where shooters lay in wait.  It was and remains effective for that purpose.  Setting it up in a static situation is about as challenging for wolves to circumvent upon watching it is similar to expecting a human baby to avoid it in the living room while Mama cooks supper.  Electrification of real fences or these gossamer threads in the open is merely something wolves quickly learn to avoid like my golden retriever [and he wore a collar] did with his electric fence when a deer ran through the yard.  Dogs and wolves and coyotes are not horses in a pasture that will avoid electrified things.  Wolves, dogs and coyotes treat them as just one more thing to learn to circumvent quickly and with a minimum of inconvenience or pain!  Jim Beers)

 Stephenson said the fladry was an effective tool earlier this year and hopes it will be effective again.  (It couldn’t have been any other reason or reasons for variable predation?  No, No; wolves are supposed to be like Russians retaking Stalingrad in WW II in that they persist 24/7 until they kill all the livestock or die in the attempt?  Remember we pay these do-nothing bureaucrats to bamboozle us and put these ranchers out of business.  Is this a great country or what?  Jim Beers)

 But —– said he is becoming increasingly frustrated, dealing with the anxiety of wolf attacks at the ranch.

 “I need to have some way to protect my livelihood and not have to stress out about this, day in and day out,” he said.

 The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill Sept. 26 by a vote of 19-15 that would remove gray wolves from the federal endangered species list in the lower 48 states.  (That will be reversed in court when Trump is gone and in the meanwhile we will turn wolves over to a state wildlife agency corrupted by federal overseers, federal money, and state bureaucrats ridden with the radical philosophies if the environmental/animal rights crowd!  What could go wrong?  Jim Beers)

 The legislation has drawn sharp rebukes from environmental and conservation organizations, with Jason Rylander, senior staff attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, saying science — not politics — should decide when to delist species.  (Whose “science”: mine or yours?  There is no longer any “TRUTH” in the US; only “my” view, “your” view, and who has the most “power!  See the Kavanaugh Senate “Hearings” for confirmation.  Jim Beers)

 “Gray wolf recovery is well underway, but the work is not done,” Rylander said in a statement.  (It will never be done until ranching, farming, hunting, fishing, eating meat, animal ownership and management, private property, the 2nd Amendment and rural prosperity for families and communities are all eliminated.  Jim Beers)

 If Congress really is committed to preserving and protecting wildlife, they would spend their time finding the funding needed to recover species, not attacking the process.” (Sure!  You are already spending billions to destroy Rural America under the guise of a “process” to “recover species”.  Now with the nation over 20 TRILLION in debt you need more?  This entire sham should be cut 90% and sent packing!  Jim Beers)

Oregon currently has at least 124 wolves living across the state, according to the 2017 ODFW annual wolf report.

My, somewhat labored, Response:

On 2018-10-03 10:15 AM, jimbeers7@comcast.net wrote:

XXXXX,

 I honestly don’t know what to say.  If that sounds like I’m a phony or a liar, it is only because what I have seen over the past thirty years does not suggest anything that IS ALLOWED to work.

 Put simply:

Wolves have to eat, and they will eat whatever is readily and easily available.  Where moose, elk and cattle/sheep are available they will feed on them whenever they can.  Livestock are the most vulnerable and available prey; additionally, supplying a large meal of prime meat.

Wolves habituate readily in settled landscapes.  The more people, roads, homes and the detritus of civilization are available, the sooner wolves will habituate and their destructive impacts will multiply along with their populations and densities.

Wolves that are neither shot at, trapped, poisoned nor snared will habituate more quickly as surviving wolves will become even less reluctant to go near human activities, habitations or structures.

Wolves, like dogs and coyotes, get “used to” and “figure out how to” avoid and “get around” FLADRY, ELECTRIC FENCES, HIGH FENCES TO GROUND LEVEL, GUARD DOGS (in addition to eventually killing or outwitting them, the wolves will take advantage of bitches “in heat” and inseminate them), “RANGE RIDERS”, NOISE MAKERS, ETC.

Wolves, despite not thinking ahead like we do, live and learn both from their parents and from what they learn from other pack member’s experience.  The live day in and day out (including nights) doing nothing more than “learning” how to get the most food with the least effort.  There has never been, throughout world history, a way to reduce undesirable wolf impacts other than reducing their numbers year after year to minimize their impacts or killing (“exterminating” or as the Wisconsin DNR says about dogs killed by wolves, “they were ‘depredated’”) as was once done in The Lower 48 States, Europe and the British Isles where the Irish Wolfhound breed was developed exclusively for that purpose when they had the wherewithal and determination to exterminate them in settled landscapes and civilized society.

The wolves you are dealing with are not there for any “scientific” or “environmental” benefit.  They are there because of the political influence of powerful and rich Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s) that use their introduction, protection, spread, and the lies spread in the media and schools to implement a range of hidden agendas from eliminating ranching, farming and rural American life in general to taking control of rural America as other Socialist (I do not apologize for being political about a political matter here) agenda items from gun control to overall societal control are implemented nation-wide.  In this effort they are enabled by unjust federal laws like the ESA; a federal workforce of Socialism-advocates writing the regulations they enforce; and state governments and state wildlife agencies in particular that are no more than federal subcontractors begging for federal money and jobs like the University professors and the NGO’s.

Nothing has been done to change anything other than make it worse since the ESA gave legitimacy to the illegitimate imposition of wolves in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States.  They are NOT Endangered, Threatened, or in danger of anything except eventually being subsumed into the domestic dog gene pool somewhere down the road.  All of the “Court Decisions”; “Secretaries’ Orders”; and Congressional promises of “Amendment”, “Reform” and “Change” were and are smoke and mirrors.  Unless the ESA law is changed wherein the USFWS has no power to take private property without compensation, and the federal role vis viz resident non-treaty wildlife is returned to State Jurisdiction as provided in the US Constitution…..  What can I say?

You can’t shoot them.

There is no proven or consistent non-lethal control or protection for livestock out of a barn.

The State government that is supposed to protect you is no more than NGO-advocates disguised in state uniforms working as federal deputies under federal overlords that are salivating to make “examples” of any peasant that dares to try to “obstruct” or “resist” them.  Between their satellite collars, supportive tinker belle courts, and enforcement techniques developed over time from Al Capone to Islamic Terror Operations, one need only remember the recent Bundy Operation in Nevada and the rancher killed in the Oregon snow with his hands in the air to understand what you are up against.

I wish I could give you some help, but other than prayer, I know of no nostrum.  If you see one, let me know and I will do all I can to tell others there is an answer to this positively awful situation.

Jim Beers

3 October 2018

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

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

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

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

Share

Slate of ESA Amendment Bill Proposals to Pass Out of House Committee

Here’s a list of bills that passed through the House Committee on Natural resources that would, if passed by Congress, amend the Endangered Species Act. Whether any of these amendments are worthy of much of anything, I’ll leave up to you.

I will provide a Summary of the proposal and a link at the end where you can view the entire bill proposal.

HR 3608 – Summary

H.R. 3608 amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) to require public availability on the Internet of the best scientific and commercial data available, which is the basis of each decision to list a species for protection under the ESA. It requires the federal government to disclose scientific information used in making listing or critical habitat decisions to States, tribes, and local governments and ensures the inclusion of data submitted by those governments as part of the best available scientific and commercial data.

Further, this bill requires U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to report funds expended by the federal government in response to ESA litigation, full time employees tasked with ESA litigation, and attorneys’ fees associated with ESA litigation and settlements. This annual report will be submitted to the House Natural Resources Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Lastly, to protect taxpayer dollars, this bill caps the attorney fees for ESA litigation and settlements at $125 per hour, consistent with the Equal Access to Justice Act. <<<Read More>>>

HR 6345 – Summary

H.R. 6345, the “EMPOWERS Act,” introduced by Rep. Steve Pearce (R-AZ-02) on July 12, 2018, amends the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to gives States and local governments the ability to provide meaningful feedback and information concerning major ESA decisions that affect their communities. The ESA currently provides opportunities for States to provide input, but imposes no special requirement to consult with States. This bill ameliorates this omission by requiring federal agencies to consult with States before making decisions on ESA petitions and to provide an explanation when their decisions diverge from the findings or advice of States.<<<Read More>>>

HR 6346 – Summary

H.R. 6346, the Weigh Habitats Offsetting Locational Effects, or “the WHOLE Act,” is a bipartisan bill that requires that the totality of conservation measures and planned conservation measures be considered before taking federal actions that impact species. This legislation will reduce costs associated with consultation, allow important projects to move forward while safeguarding listed species, and incentivize private conservation efforts to benefit endangered and threatened species.<<<Read More>>>

HR 6355 – Summary

H.R. 6355, introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR-04) on July 12, 2018, amends the Endangered Species Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to declare a petition backlog when frivolous petitions overburden the scientific review and evaluation process. It also ensures all necessary protections for legitimate species listing requests, which contain sufficient duly collected scientific information, remain in place. Finally, this legislation would create a public database of listing petitions and accompanying information.<<<Read More>>>

 

Share

The Heresy Destroying Western Civilization

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

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

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

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

Article by James Beers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two suggested takeaways –

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

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

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

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

Jim Beers

26 Sep. 2018

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

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

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

Share

Marbled Murrelets

By James Beers

I recently received the following email request and attached paper on Marbled Murrelets, a seabird that occurs along the NW US coast Northward to the Alaskan Peninsula and the Eastern edge of the Aleutian Islands.

Marbled Murrelets are neither migratory nor colonial nesters but generally remain resident in the coastal waters frequented by their parents.  Their nesting habits remained a mystery for over a century and what little is known about that reveals a bird that nests on the ground or in tree tops far inland and on bare rocks near the coast.  In many localities they are the most abundant seabird.  Despite the paucity of such information or of comparable reliable counts over a vast water area of solitary birds or nesting birds that disappear periodically annually for all practical purposes and while frequenting the waters of their parents came and go over large water spaces – the Marbled Murrelet is Federally listed under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species in Washington, Oregon and California, and State-listed as endangered in California and as threatened in Oregon and Washington.

Why, you might be asking yourself if you live in Arizona, Minnesota or South Carolina should I be concerned about this bird?  The answer is that this small bird about which little is known can be, and is, claimed to be in trees (that cannot then be cut over vast swaths) in woodlands far from the coasts but all over a vast area (how do you deny or disprove a government declaration that your property or the government holding nearby is said to be “important” to this bird?)  How can you question the “trend” in this bird’s population when there is no definitive data?  How can you show the government has invented or expanded questionable data (or no data)?  What can a fair person divine from actual historical data about what certain lands were like before Columbus and thereby get a notion of this bird’s historic status and abundance as required by the ESA?

In other words, the Marbled Murrelet is a quintessential example of the overreach of the ESA and the misuse of wildlife “science” for hidden agendas and significant societal changes far beyond a discussion of a fascinating seabird that most folks living near or vacationing near Marbled Murrelet habitat neither see nor look for.  It is not ironic, but a fact, that the less that is known about any species the more power the government can exert and the less power the individual or community has in the process they must endure, and the broader the claimed implications of and need for government intervention will be.

The following consists of three (short) parts:

  1. Dr. Zybach’s email to me about his paper.
  2. The paper – an attachment you can open.
  3. My response to Dr. Zybach.

 

  1. Dr Zybach’s email

Jim:

I am very curious about what you think of the attached article draft. Supposed to be published in early October, but please feel free to share with your readers or others you feel may have an opinion on this.

Keep up the good work!

Bob Zybach

  1. The paper– [follows below]

  1. 3.My response

Bob,

While living in the middle Aleutians for almost two years (1965-’66) as a Naval Courier Officer with little supervision I was fascinated with many things, not least of which was walking beaches and climbing rocky outcropping looking at and learning about seabirds like puffins, murres, guillemots and murrelets, not to say killer whales, seals, etc.  I remember looking for and finding Ancient’ and Kittlitzes’ Murrelets while looking for but never finding Marbled Murrelets.

In my readings in those days I was impressed by the nesting mystery about Marbled Murrelets.  It reminded me as an old duck hunter of how up to the early 1900’s the nesting grounds of Black Brant was a mystery of the “Far North”.  Years later I was told by a jokester that 1500 years ago the nesting grounds of the Barnacle goose (mainly Greenland) was unknown but the birds received the name “Barnacle” geese when they wintered in Ireland and Scotland from Catholic priests that assumed (or made up) that they actually arose from barnacles in the sea and only returned to land in the fall and winter.  I was then asked if I knew what was so significant about that name?  When I said, I didn’t know, he told me that, “since they arose from barnacles they were seafood and therefore could be eaten on Friday”.

When I first saw this business about “Listing” Marbled Murrelets I smelled a Rattus norvegicus.  The Marbled Murrelets are not colonial nesters and they were spread out in real estate coveted by the federal bureaucrats and their environmentalist gangs.  Reading your paper and noting the lack of or inability to establish even any tree-nesting preferences and then to make WAGS about populations or their trends; claiming to see a “trend” is specious and merely propaganda to say the least.  To read that in SE Alaska they nest on bare rocks is hilarious considering they also nest to the top of high conifers (and what in between?) and then establish population levels and trends based on the “word” of do-gooders with an agenda from eliminating private property (think spotted owls) to reducing all the land outside the cities into government collective management units (think planted GI government-issued wolves, grizzlies, buffalo, etc.) like the old Soviet Union.

I am grateful that you took the time and effort to stress the variety and history of plant communities supporting murrelet nesting from the “pristine”, “virgin”, “untouched” fantasies of native American burning, disturbance, and plant succession to European settlement logging and grazing down to the destruction of logging and ranches by modern environmentalists thus creating the catastrophic and immensely costly forest fires of today.  The more that appears in print, the greater the chance of brainwashed environmental munchkins questioning the apparent differences all around them between grazing/logging condemnation; eliminating hunting; introducing and protecting  large predators; the imaginary propaganda fantasies they are taught in school about “native ecosystems”; the “benign” nature of deadly, dangerous and destructive predators – and the freedoms, prosperity and benefits of an environment composed of wildlife to strong families harmonized by renewable natural resource management by the people that live there.  These government bureaucrats and their cronies are the exact opposite of those mythical Catholic priests of long ago who contrived a “scientific name” for a good purpose – to allow poor families to enjoy some meat while it was available.  They name, rename (think Killer Whale to Orca or Old Squaw to “long-tailed duck) and invent “science” to take away the rights and freedoms of those same people for no more than their own benefit.

“Listing” these “Australian bumble bees” (an old name for Marbled Murrelets I remember once reading) is an even worse example of the perfidy of selective and wish-based “science” used to manipulate the nation and selectively eliminate our culture, traditions and rights for much broader hidden agendas than I imagined all those years ago while toiling away in the “vineyards of Washington” in ways I have come to understand and regret as I age.  Thanks for making the effort to describe it so well and so succinctly…

Jim Beers

24 September 2018 

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

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

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

 

Oregon Coast Range Old-Growth: Part III. Marbled Murrelet Habitat

September 20, 2018 DRAFT Dr. Bob Zybach

Marbled murrelets are relatively small seabirds that can fly 60 or 90 miles an hour when traveling, but spend most of their time floating in the ocean and diving for small fish and shrimp. Their population extends from southern Alaska, where they lay their eggs on shoreline rocks, to Canada, Washington, Oregon, and California, where they have been documented nesting in the upper reaches of old-growth conifer trees.

These birds are important because they have had a profound impact on rural Oregon Coast Range forests, economics, infrastructure, wildfire risks, recreational opportunities, wildlife populations, and aesthetics during the past 25 years.

Marbled murrelets are in the auk family and very closely related to long-billed murrelets and to Kittlitz’s murrelets. In fact, until 1998 long-billed murrelets were considered to be the same species as their marbled cousins. Kittlitz’s murrelets tend to live in Alaska and Siberia and long-billed murrelets are found in Korea and Japan, although members of this species have also been recorded in the south and along the east coast in the US, and in Europe.

Murrelets are opportunistic nesters throughout their range, including rocks, bare ground near snowfields, shrublands, and forested areas of varying size, density, and age. They lay one egg at a time, typically within 30 miles of the ocean shore, and feed their young once or twice a day, usually a small fish at a time. Juveniles are strong enough to fly about four weeks after hatching, at which time they head directly to sea. There is no evidence that the birds use the same nest more than once.

It was estimated in 1992 by Steven Speich, a recognized expert in Pacific coast seabird biology, that less than one percent of all North American marbled murrelets nest in California; less than one percent in Oregon; and “perhaps” two percent in Washington; “compared to about 13% in British Columbia and 84% in Alaska.”

During that same year, on September 22, 1992, the marbled murrelet was declared a legally “threatened” species in Oregon, Washington, and California (but not Canada or Alaska) by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Clearcut logging on coastal

 Map 1. Oregon Coast Range Indian Tribes and Nations, ca. 1770. Common spellings, language classifications, and geographical boundaries are currently being updated and revised.

Table 1.  Oregon Coast Range languages, tribes, rivers, cities, and counties, 1770-1893. Tribe Language River City County North         Clowwewalla Chinookan Willamette Oregon City Clackamas Multnomah Chinookan Willamette Portland Multnomah Skilloot Chinookan Columbia Ranier Columbia Kathlamet Chinookan Columbia Knappa Clatsop Clatsop Chinookan Youngs Astoria Clatsop Klaskani Athapaskan Clatskanie Clatskanie Columbia  Nehalem Salish Nehalem Nehalem Tillamook East         Atfalati Kalapuyan Tualatin Tualatin Washington Yamel Kalapuyan Yamhill Yamhill Yamhill Luckiamute Kalapuyan Luckiamute Dallas Polk Chepenafa Kalapuyan Marys Corvallis Benton Chelamela Kalapuyan Long Tom Monroe Benton Calapooia Kalapuyan Willamette Eugene Lane West         Killamox Salish Tillamook Tillamook Tillamook Nestucca Salish Nestucca Pacific City Tillamook Nechesne Salish Salmon Rose Lodge Lincoln Siletz Salish Siletz Siletz Lincoln Yakona Yakonan Yaquina Newport Lincoln Alsi Yakonan Alsea Waldport Lincoln Siuslaw Yakonan Siuslaw Florence Lane South         Ayankeld Kalapuyan Umpqua Yoncalla Douglas Kelawatset Yakonan Umpqua Reedsport Douglas Hanis Kusan Coos Coos Bay Coos Miluk Kusan Coquille Bandon Coos Mishikwutmetunne Athapaskan Coquille Coquille Coos

Douglas fir forests was promoted as a principal cause of a claimed reduction in these populations despite any concrete evidence that it has, or can, cause such effects. And despite any baseline data to demonstrate that bird populations were actually being reduced: only some very suspect “assumptions” and questionable arithmetic.

In 2012 the Center for Biological Diversity, Portland Audubon Society, and Cacscadia Wildlands sued Oregon Department of Forestry officials regarding the “take” of marbled murrelet habitat on State of Oregon forestlands. The regional forest industry, the national carpenters’ union, and Douglas County essentially counter-sued, saying that the US Fish & Wildlife “science” behind the listing of the bird and its “critical habitat” was biased and inconclusive.

This latter suit was dismissed without a hearing in 2013; the former ended in a 2014 “sue and settle” decision in which the environmental organizations and their lawyers were given a significant amount of money and the State agreed to halt logging on 28 different locations in rural western Oregon.

In addition to lawyer fees and court-ordered payments, the principal costs associated with these rulings were the loss of hundreds or thousands of tax-paying blue-collar jobs in rural Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Coos, and Douglas Counties, and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in timber revenues to those counties and to the Oregon Common School Fund. There is no measurement as to whether these legal rulings have had any effect on marbled murrelet populations, but there is little reason or evidence to indicate they have.

A 2016 report by the US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station concerning marbled murrelet population trends for the 1994-2013 study period showed an estimated population of 20,000 birds in 2013. That number represented an apparent decline of 4.6% in numbers for the State of Washington and no discernable change in Oregon and California populations for the 20-year period.

Background

I first heard of marbled murrelets in October, 1988, when I received a handwritten letter from an Oregon State University graduate student, Kim Nelson, who was finishing up her Master’s degree in “cavity nesting birds” and was also working under contract with the Siuslaw National Forest doing marbled murrelet surveys. She had heard that I knew a significant amount about Coast Range forest and fire history and asked if I could provide her with information in that regard. Which I did.

The information was apparently ignored. I provided Nelson with maps, eyewitness accounts, and photographic documentation showing the Siuslaw – in common with the remainder of the Coast Range – is a highly dynamic forest. It was created in 1908 in the foot print of 1849 and 1868 catastrophic wildfires (the “Yaquina Burn”) and had always had a history of floods, landslides, earthquakes, windstorms, and a significant human population that used fire and large wood products on a daily basis (see Map 1; Table 1; Figures 1-4).

Instead, in September 1991 Nelson wrote to Russell Peterson of the US Fish & Wildlife Service in support of listing the marbled murrelet as “threatened” in the State of Oregon because:

               Figure 1. Native People of the Oregon Coast Range, 1841-1885. Upper Left: Two “Salish women,” possibly Tillamooks, on a “trading trip”; Upper Right: Tattooed Chinook woman with a child in a “cradleboard” designed to flatten its head, drawn by George Catlin near Portland, Oregon, ca. 1861; Lower Left: Yakona Indians in Christian clothing and traditional headdresses and tattoos, Yaquina Bay, ca. 1877; Lower Right: Kalapuyan man near present-day Monroe, Oregon, drawn by Alfred Agate in 1841.

“Logging since the 1800’s has eliminated most of the mature and oldgrowth forests (suitable murrelet habitat) in western Oregon. Current estimates indicate a 60-90% decline in the forest types. Assuming that the murrelets were evenly distributed in the state in relationship to the distribution of suitable habitat, the population has been reduced 6090% and the species distribution is now limited to isolated areas along the Oregon Coast.”

The key phrase here, in addition to “suitable habitat,” is the statement, “assuming that the murrelets were evenly distributed . . .” Given the detailed maps and documentary evidence that had been provided to her, why and how had Nelson

               Figure 2. Precontact large-wood products. Upper Right: Traditional Kelawatset (“Quuiich”) cedar plank house photographed by an Army officer near mouth of Umpqua River in 1858; Upper Right: Drawing of a similar plank house near the same location, published by Harper’s Magazine, also in 1858; Lower Left: Large sea-going trade canoe found near mouth of the Salmon River in Lincoln County; Lower Right: Interior of typical Chinookan lodge along the Columbia River, drawn by Alfred Agate in 1841.

come up with this obvious deception? Where did this “assumption” come from?  Tying it to an equally fabricated Coast Range logging history (“60-90%” of the landscape, apparently) and a simplistic arithmetical equation – including an assumed and highly unlikely 1:1 correlation between her determination of “suitable habitat” and actual bird populations — has somehow become the basis of several “successful” anti-logging legal actions that have taken place in western Oregon ever since.

In 1992, leading up to the September listing of marbled murrelets as “threatened,” Nelson was lead author of a paper titled “The Marbled Murrelet in Oregon, 18991987,” in which only seven “potential [not “actual”] nesting areas” were identified in western Oregon, the small number apparently due to “current timber management practices”:

“Potential nesting areas were located in Douglas-fir (n = 6) and Sitka spruce (n = 1) forests greater than 100 years in age. The loss of mature and old-growth nesting habitat through current timber management practices must be considered a threat to populations of Marbled Murrelets in Oregon.”

Nelson’s 1991 letter concludes with warnings of a “potential extreme decline” in murrelet numbers if “all future plans for logging” on state, federal, and private lands weren’t immediately curtailed in favor of creating more “suitable habitat”:

“Listing the murrelet as endangered (or threatened) would ensure that all future plans for logging in suitable habitat (individual sales and cumulative impacts) will be scrutinized for impacts on murrelet populations . . . Timing is of the essence given the rates of habitat loss in western Oregon and the potential extreme declines in murrelet populations.”

Forest “Habitat” History

The relationship of Coast Range Indian burning practices to wildlife habitat -especially habitat for such food animals as birds, ungulates, rabbits, and squirrels -was first noted by Robert Haswell as he sailed along the southern Oregon Coast near Coos Bay in August, 1788:

“. . . this Countrey must be thickly inhabited by the many fiers we saw in the night and culloms of smoak we would see in the day time but I think they can derive but little of there subsistance from the sea but to compenciate for this the land was beautyfully diversified with forists and green veredent launs which must give shelter and forage to vast numbers of wild beasts”

During early historical time there were at least eight major and distinct languages spoken in the Oregon Coast Range and at least 26 distinct tribes. Map 1 shows the general location of these peoples, and Table 1 shows the locations in terms of modern political divisions and populations. Figures 1 and 2 depict a few of these individuals and their respective uses of large-wood products typically harvested from local forest environments. Rivers flowing from upland forests and ocean currents were also sources of large logs.

               Figure 3. Drawing of Toledo, Oregon, landscape, looking eastward toward Marys Peak, 1885.

Human families have lived in the historical range of marbled murrelets for more than 10,000 years.  The use of fire by these families for heating, cooking, hunting, recreation, vegetation management, and other purposes produced an environment dominated by fire-dependent and fire-tolerant plant and animal species. Identifiable patterns of these plants existed across most of the landscape at the time of white settlement. Accurate physical reconstructions of historical Coast Range vegetation patterns (“habitat”) require the presence of people and expert daily and seasonal uses of fire.

Based on documentary evidence, it can be shown that the landscape of the historical range of the marbled murrelet at the time of white occupation was primarily made of shifting patterns of even-aged stands of conifers –some young, some old — (mostly Douglas fir) bounded by prairies, ridgeline trails, oak savannahs, the Columbia River, and Pacific Ocean. Islands of even-aged conifers, groves of oak, meadows, ponds, balds, brakes, and berry patches further defined the environment, much of which was virtually free of underbrush, ladder fuels, coarse woody debris, snags, and other characteristics that became common to many post-1900 Pacific Northwest forests.

               Figure 4. Elkhorn Ranch, in heart of present-day Elliott State Forest, winter ca. 1894.   Warren Vaughn was a pioneer white settler along Tillamook Bay in the early 1850s, where he observed in the 1880s:

“At that time, there was not a bush or tree to be seen on all those hills, for the Indians kept it burned over every spring, but when the whites came, they stopped the fires for it destroyed the grass, and then the young spruces sprang up and grew as we now see them.”

In addition to considering the effects of thousands of people and their daily uses of fire and firewood over thousands of years, current marbled murrelet habitat has experienced some of the largest and most violent catastrophic wildfires in US history: the Yaquina (Figure 3), the Nestucca, the Coos (Figure 4), and the 6-Year Jinx Tillamook Fires of 1849, 1868, 1902, 1910, 1933, 1939, 1945, and 1951. These fires killed hundreds of thousands of acres of even-aged large, small, and old-growth Douglas fir at a time.

What effect did these vast – and sudden — “clearcuts” have on Oregon’s murrelet population? Compared to logging history? Did murrelets adapt to historical Indian burning practices, or did they migrate here after the burning was stopped?

Conclusions and Recommendations

Marbled murrelets live mostly in the ocean, have proven to be very adaptive nesters, and can fly extremely fast. “Trees die and birds fly” – to say that millions of acres of contiguous “old-growth” Douglas fir forestland is needed to “protect” these birds seems to defy both reason and common sense:

The “science” process that directly resulted in the US Fish and Wildlife Service declaring marbled murrelets as “threatened” was apparently biased against logging and active forest management from the outset. Likewise, efforts to locate nests were also biased toward “natural” old-growth conifer stands (“occupied sites were not always located in an unbiased manner”). This is not the “best” science.

Data used to promote the “critical decline” narrative regarding marbled murrelet populations was superficial, based on provably false assumptions, and dependent on questionable arithmetic to derive the “critically threatened” claims.

Native bird populations on the Oregon Coast Range must have adapted to constant disturbances by people and by occasional catastrophic forest fires and windstorms over time, or else they may have migrated to this area in recent centuries. Both possibilities should be considered.

Marbled murrelets do not seem to be threatened or endangered at this time. There is no real evidence that their populations are in “sharp decline” or that logging is/was responsible, even if they are. Rather, it appears the California, Washington, and Oregon murrelets are near the edge of their range, much as the lands in northern Canada and Alaska are sparsely populated by people. Conversely, most murrelets prefer Canada, Alaska, and Asia, where they have robust populations – rather than the “lower 48,” where they exist in apparently stable, much smaller, numbers.

In sum, if the federal government is going to continue to dictate how forests are managed in Oregon – and particularly in regard to select plant or animal species – it is important they begin with comprehensive historical information rather than inaccurate assumptions, bias, and deceptive math for planning purposes.

Share

Wolves Killing Cattle No Recourse With Rigged Government Regulations

Share

RMEF, SAF Oppose Yellowstone Grizzly Ruling

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation disagree with a judge’s decision to vacate the delisting of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ruling places the population back on the endangered species list.
“We are highly disappointed with this decision,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “Once again we see that extreme environmental groups continue to clog up the delisting process at a time when we should be celebrating the recovery of grizzlies in the region. Scientists gathered data and population numbers that show grizzlies in the region surpassed all recovery criteria and are recovered. This ruling bolsters the case for Congress to update the Endangered Species Act.”
This follows a 2007 decision by the Department of Interior (DOI) to delist Yellowstone grizzlies, a decision that was also litigated by environmental groups and overturned by the federal courts.
“Despite this ruling, the basic facts remain the same: grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area have recovered, and no longer meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA and should be rightfully returned to state management,” said Evan Heusinkveld, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation president and CEO. “This ruling is just another example of why we need comprehensive reforms to the way we manage ESA-listed species in this country. We are evaluating all of our legal options to appeal this ruling.”
The DOI announced the removal of Yellowstone area grizzlies, numbering more than 700, from the endangered species list in 2017 based on sound science and millions of hunter dollars spent on researching and studying the bears. Idaho and Wyoming later announced intentions to hold conservative management hunts in the fall of 2018. Those hunts will not take place.
Environmental groups claimed the grizzly population in the Yellowstone region would be decimated if delisted and placed under state management. They made the same claims for the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population which is 200 to 400 percent above minimum recovery goals, depending on the state.
“State-based management of wildlife is a key facet of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. That is why the most healthy and robust wildlife populations in the world are found in North America. Grizzlies, like elk, wolves, deer and all other wildlife, should be managed by the states for their overall betterment. This ruling thoroughly frustrates that process,” added Weaver.
Share

Authorities Kill Two Grizzlies Thought to Have Killed a Wyoming Guide and Wounded a Hunter

As a result of a grizzly bear attack on two men in Wyoming attending to their elk kill, authorities have killed two grizzlies in response. A necropsy might determine if they are the bears responsible.

However, the media and the animal rights advocates who control it took the opportunity to further promote lies about the grizzly bear and its history.

According to a report published by Newscentermaine that came from USA Today, an advocate for the bears states: “…to protect the last of the tens of thousands of bears who used to roam the territory between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Plains.”

There’s plenty wrong with this statement. First of all, the person quoted refers to the grizzly bears in human terms when they state “bears WHO used to roam.” Bears are not whos. They are animals. A proper usage of our language would be “bears THAT used to roam.”

I also take issue with the statement that there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears that roamed the territory from the Pacific to the Great Plains.

I don’t believe there are “tens of thousands” of bears roaming that region today, but certainly, there are thousands with advocates doing all they can to bring the grizzly population to hundreds of thousands if they could. The difference that exists today vs when, according to some, tens of thousands of bears roamed is that there are millions more people living in this area than did when supposedly tens of thousands of bears did.

But did tens of thousands of grizzly bears ever exist in this region? My reasoning and logical conclusions tell a different story. If there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears in this region as is stated when Lewis and Clark undertook their exploration, it would seem that their journals would have contained stories of bear encounters.

If my memory is correct (and it hasn’t been that long since I read the journals last) there is one incident recorded of a man in the expedition who thought he had a hand or a foot “swiped at” by a bear during the night as it hung outside of his tent.

Forcing the existence of large predators into human-settled landscapes is criminal and in certain circumstances, death and destruction of private property by these predators should be the responsibility of those promoting the growth of tens of thousands of these animals where history indicates never existed in the first place.

One more issue to discuss. This same person was quoted as saying, “Killing more bears will not prevent other bear-hunter conflicts, but it may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population around Yellowstone.”

This ignorant, heartless, and senseless statement digs at the heart of the animal protection movement. It does make sense to reason that if there are fewer bears – the result of hunting them – logically, the odds of an encounter with a bear decreases. Will it end all encounters? Of course not.

The sad part of this statement is that it clearly tells us where this person’s priorities exist. They deny a simple math problem of reducing bear numbers but even at the expense of human life, doing anything about the problem “may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population…”

Just this morning I was reading one man’s perspective on the government’s forcing of grizzlies and wolves into areas where people live, calling it “unjust and evil.”

At the crux of protecting “endangered species” is the false “best available science” that there once roamed “tens of thousands” of grizzly bears or wolves and that they MUST be restored to those numbers regardless of the human population. That is “unjust and evil.”

The countless journals from explorers and trappers from years ago simply do not support the idealistic theory that wildlife was abundant in the tens of thousands.

Evidently, one man’s life is worth saving two bears. Unjust and evil? You bet!

 

Share

THE Wolf Syllabus

By James Beers:

The following talk was given at a Wolf Symposium by Dr. Geist, a retired Canadian environment professor.  Dr Geist is an internationally recognized scholar and consultant in the subject of predators, predation and changing ecosystems; particularly as this involves wolves. 

I am proud to say that Dr. Geist, a man for whom I have the greatest respect and highest regard, has been both an acquaintance and colleague for many years. 

This “Banquet and Wolf Symposium” was, in my opinion, a smoke screen in the latest subterfuge by uber-rich Americans, non-government organizations and federal bureaucrats to introduce and protect wolves In Colorado to complicate wolf control in Wyoming, circumvent wolf opposition in New Mexico and place wolves ever-closer to The Great Plains where they will duplicate their impacts seen to date throughout much of the West.  

Utah, reportedly, has no established wolf packs and through adept political wrangling has prevented federal bureaucrats from asserting their legal intention to introduce or protect wolves in Utah. This political maneuvering is largely due to Big Game Forever, a Utah-founded and based hunters organization that for about a decade has steered a somewhat maverick role between Washington politicians and bureaucrats, and national non-government organizations of all stripes.  

A former Ted Turner employee and Montana legislator recently kicked off a campaign to introduce wolves into Colorado.  The “usual suspects” came forth (Denver/Colorado Springs/Fort Collins” “wolves only improve the world” crowd to a hodgepodge of ranchers, hunters, rural dog owners, and shepherds that saw what lay ahead but appeared powerless to stop it.  The next step was this “Banquet and Wolf Symposium” sponsored by the Utah-based Big Game Forever to bring together “experts, scientists and decision-makers”.  Fortunately, Dr. Geist was asked to speak, and speak he did. 

I believe Dr. Geist’s talk is the best comprehensive information presentation on wolves that I have read.  It is for this reason that I am forwarding this presentation.  If you or anyone you know is involved in the wolf issue or may be involved in the future with the wolf issue, or has noticed their kids being propagandized about wolves, or that simply likes wildlife and is concerned about America’s future rural environment – Please Share This with Them. 

As to the future of wolves in Colorado, a colleague recently told me that after cutting through all the “science” and smoke: if the Democrat wins the Governor’s race in November (a likely outcome in the heavily urban population and increasingly Magnet-State for liberals fleeing high-tax western states and even high-tax Eastern states) Wolves Will Be Introduced into and Protected in Colorado. 

Luckily, Dr. Geist is Canadian and one of those all-but-extinct endangered species candidates – a professor with Integrity.  He ignores the politics and does a masterful job of saying what I am sure the majority of banqueters neither expected nor wanted to hear. 

Thank you Dr.Geist. 

Jim Beers

4 September 2018

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

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

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

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

Futility

I am here to tell you why the wolf does not belong into settled landscapes. Wolves do unbelievable damage to wildlife, they do great damage to agriculture, they pose a real threat to public health and safety, and they kill humans under now well-known circumstances. Moreover, after all the pain, suffering and deprivations that wolves inflict on people in settled landscapes, after the enormous public expenditures to maintain wolves, all the effort and costs are for naught, because in settled landscapes wolves degrade via hybridization with dogs and coyotes into worthless hybrids, that is into coydogs and feral dogs. Settled landscapers remorselessly destroy the real wolf. Wolves cannot be conserved as a species in settled landscapes. What is being done with wolves here and in Europe has nothing to do with nature conservation. What the US and the EU are doing with legislation is a very expensive, brutal and mindless way to destroy real wolves. We can do better!

Wildlife destruction

When wolves are introduced, they first destroy wildlife. When I worked in Banff National Park in the 1960’s there were present about 2,500 elk. After wolves returned in the 1970’s elk dropped to less than 300. Moreover, elk became invisible as they were not only hiding, but the bulls quit bugling during the rutting season. We have the same silent bull elk on Vancouver Island where I now live, courtesy of wolves, cougars and big black bears. After 1970 I was no longer able too observe the behaviour of elk in Banff. Also, the moose, which were readily observable in the 1960’s went extinct or invisible.

The same patter has been observed in the Yellowstone area after wolves proliferated following their introduction.  The famous northern elk herd went from 19,000 to about 4,000. Why not less? Because the park elk left the park and went onto private land where there were safe from wolves. I was informed that only some 600 or so now winter in the park. Elk not only went onto private ranches, but also into hamlets or small cities such as Gardiner, where they were also safe from wolves. And that’s exactly what elk have been doing in Canadian national parks for ages: go into towns to escape predation. Deer do that also. Currently in western Canada they are doing it on a grand scale and flee into suburbs, farms, hamlets and even into the very core of cities. Deer on Vancouver island are concentrated in human settlements and virtually missing in the vast back-country. They are not welcome in cities, but tenaciously, they hang on. In Alberta elk have left the forestry reserve, the home of wolves, and moved onto private ranches. Moose have gone even farther and moved far, far out into the prairie where they now live along watercourses and in coulees. They did not do so that when I was still living in Alberta a quarter century ago. In Yellowstone park, however, moose went extinct. Which was, of course blamed on global warming. In early fall 2006 I rode for a week from dawn to dusk through some of the finest moose habitat I have ever seen. And I have see a lot of moose habitat in Canada between the Montana/Idaho/ Washington and the Alaska boundaries. I never saw a moose or a track or a feeding sign. And that was during the moose rutting season when bulls are maximally active.

The very landscape I was riding through was also excellent mule deer habitat. During my week on horseback I saw two does and fawns and found one antler rub by a buck. I suppose they were also victims of global warming!

On Vancouver Island the annual deer kill dropped from about 25,000 a year to some 3,000 per year. Vast forest areas are now virtually without deer. My wife and I observed directly how deer vacated the landscape and rushed into suburbs and farms when a wolf pack showed up.  At night deer lined up body to body along the walls of our neighbour’s cattle barns, oblivious of the farm dogs. For the first time in four years they entered my garden and demolished the fruit trees I had planted. Some 80 trumpeter swans left with the wolf packs arrival, but only some 40 returned after the pack was extirpated; when the second wolf pack arrived the swans left and never returned. Nor did the geese, the large flocks of American widgeons, the green-winged teals, the pheasants and ruffed grouse. Note: it’s not only big game that vanishes!

Alaska colleagues experimentally released wolves on a coastal island. The wolves exterminated the deer, tried catching seals, and starved to death. Similarly, Tom Bergerud, the premier caribou biologist on this continent, documented caribou extinctions on islands occupied in the current spread of wolves.

Research in Yellowstone has shown that wolves kill about 22 elk per wolf per year, and that wolves begin leaving the country once the kill declines to 16 elk per wolf per year. That’s about the same amount of moose wolves kill in Scandinavia per year.

But where do the wolves go when they deplete the prey?

Outside the park, of course, in search of more prey. Here they may be trapped or shot. This has led to vociferous protests that the evil hunters are killing park wolves. A book has been written about it.  No mention of park management which allowed wolves to exceed their carrying capacity of the land. A classical failure of “protectionism.” However, more on that later.

You asked what will happen to your moose, elk and mule deer when wolves are introduced into Colorado and are free to multiply. The moose will be exterminated, the elk and deer decimated, except in so far as they can find shelter from wolves on private ranch-lands, as well as in hamlets and suburbs. However, protected wolves learn to hunt big game even in towns, as now witnessed in Germany. Game population will decline as well as your hunting opportunities. Wolf control can reverse that, but wolf control, as we shall see, will also accelerate hybridization and the genetic destruction of real wolves.

Hydatid disease

Wolves come with a number of diseases of which historically the worst have been rabies and hydatid disease.  Modern medicine had reduced the dangers of dying from rabies if bitten by a rabid wolf, but in the past it was cause for real anxiety, as the bite of a rabid wolf was fatal. As to hydatid disease, all technical matters I mention are to be found in descriptions on the internet – except for context! There had been a presentation given by myself together with Dr. Helen Schwantje, Wildlife Veterinarian for the Province of British Columbia, to the Montana Legislature’s Environmental Quality Council about Echinococcus granulosus and E. multilocularis, on April 27th 2010. Everything we said then applies to all western states. Nobody can claim they were not warned on the basis of very extensive research carried out  by the late Professor James Adams of the University of British Columbia. My late wife was a student of his, and I have seen his extensive collection of images taken in the Vancouver regional hospital of this disease. A horror show beyond description! We also were privy to  the shop talk of surgeons emanating from the operating rooms, that does not find its way into learned journals. It appears that hydatid disease was prevalent then in British Columbia as trappers still used dog sleds for transportation and were feeding to the dogs the viscera of moose, caribou etc including hydatid cyst infected viscera. This practice came to an end with the rise of snowmobiles for transportation which replaced dog-sleds by the 1960’s. Soiled dog sled harnesses were one source of infection.

Hydatid disease is a nasty parasitic disease, caused by us ingesting the eggs of the dog-tape worm Echinococcus granulosus. It can be deadly! The danger resides primarily in the family dog getting infected, and then spreading infective tape worm eggs on lawns, drive ways, veranda and in the house. However, one can also catch the disease from handling the bodies and furs of infected wolves, or from berries and mushrooms contaminated with hydatid eggs from nearby wolf scats, or by running a lawn mover or hay-baler over some dry wolf scats, or drinking water that has percolated over wolf scat.  The people in real danger are ranch families on whose lands infected elk and deer gather to spend the winter and who crowd in about buildings to escape the marauding wolves. Infected elk, moose or deer carry large cysts filled with tiny tape worm heads primarily in lungs and liver. Normally they become debilitated by these cysts and readily fall prey to wolves. These, upon ingesting the viscera, also ingest the cysts. The little tape worm heads are then freed and attach themselves by the thousands to the gut of the wolf. Here they produce masses of tiny eggs that go out with the feces of the wolf. When such dries, the eggs are blown about on the surrounding vegetation. That vegetation is fed on by elk and deer. The tiny eggs turn in the gut of elk and deer into tiny larvae that drill into the intestines and are carried by the blood to the liver, lungs and more rarely the brain of the elk, where they then grow in time into the large cysts, debilitating the elk, making it prey for wolves.

If hunters shoot an infected elk on a ranch and leave the viscera behind, there is the possibility that the ranch dogs will find it, feed on it, become infected by the dog tape worm and begin shedding eggs around farm buildings, barns, and lawns within about seven weeks. People will step into the infected dog feces and, inadvertently, carry it into veranda and house. Here the eggs spread over the floors, but may also drift onto tables and furniture. The dog, licking its anus and fur, transfers tape worm eggs into its fur. The eggs are most likely to infect babies crawling about on the floor, veranda or lawn. They child will lick its hands, or eat contaminated food, and the eggs will develop into cysts. Since re-infection is likely, numerous cysts begin to grow in the liver and lungs. Cysts in the brain are normally fatal. The cysts develop initially slowly, so that not much may be notices till the child is a teen. Then, while playing sports, a cysts in the abdomen may burst. Some children die right then and there of anaphylactic shock. Those that survive need to undergo extensive operations. Should even a tiny bit of parasitic tissue lining the cysts survive surgery, it will grow into another cyst. A terrible, debilitating lifelong condition.

The primary danger comes from dogs which have fed on infected gut piles of elk, moose and deer. Also from farm and ranch dogs that have found an infected dead elk in a coulee and fed on its innards. Since in winter elk will seek refuge also in suburbs and hamlets, any resident dog finding dead elk is likely to get infected, and infect its owners in turn. In short any dog, hunting dog or companion dog that finds a dead deer or elk or an infected gut-pile will bring the disease into the home and to the neighbourhood of its owner. And that will include school yards.

So, where elk winter on ranches, de-worming dogs regularly is a necessary precaution. So is the removal of all dead elk. It is essential to insure that during hunting season hunters bring in the infected viscera for destruction. The real problem will be teaching hunters to dispose in the field infected viscera.

And be weary of people belittling this disease! The claim of a benign parasite is flatly contradicted by Delane C. Kritsky; Professor Emeritus, Idaho State University, who was Associate Dean and Professor (35 years) within Department of Health and Nutrition. “We should be asking who (the U.S. government, the Fish and Wildlife service, the wolf advocates) will be paying the health bills and funeral expenses for those who will ultimately become infected as a result of wolf introduction into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming?

Wolves are also known carriers of bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, Neospora caninum (causes abortion in cattle) and, of course, rabies. In Yellowstone, by dispersing elk far beyond the park, the park elk met elk infected with brucellosis, and became infected themselves. In Wood Buffalo National Park wolves have not eliminated tuberculosis and brucellosius in bison. Wolves may not even bother taking down old diseases bison bulls, but looks to young bison instead,

Chronic Wasting Disese CWD

Chronic wasting disease is a juggernaut descending onto American wildlife. Because of its prevalence it has been suggested that predation would wipe out this pernicious disease. In short, introducing and spreading wolves within areas where this disease is endemic among deer and elk, would eliminate the disease. Not so. It would spread the disease.  Wolves generate panic among deer and prey leading to desperate long distance flight as well as desperate searches for locations free of wolves, primarily due to human presence. I have personally witnessed this wolf-induced panic among deer. And I have observed it personally also among livestock. Secondly, because wolves in dispersing go great distances, they would spread ingested CWD prions via feces and urine over very great distances. And they would disperse it in concentrated form. More ranches would wind up CWD infected, let alone public lands. And who in his right mind would buy a ranch infected with CWD, or even a ranch adjacent to an infected ranch? And the trouble is that, generally, we have been trying to contain CWD locally instead of eliminating the root cause of its spread: the commercial trade in wildlife.

Attack on humans the escalation model. While real wolves do indeed attack humans rarely and are very shy, they kill humans none the less under predictable circumstances. Historically wolves have killed in Eurasia tens of thousands of people, and are know as belonging to the “beasts of battle”,  who occupied battle fields and devoured the dead.  Medics noted on battle fields in modern times that wolves vastly preferred human flesh to that of horses and other domestic animals. Fortunately, when wolves begin targeting people, they do so in very diagnostic fashion. They sit or stand and begin watching humans at a distance. They close the observation distance gradually. They continue their exploration by pulling on clothing, licking exposed skin before trying an initially clumsy attack. Not only food shortages trigger exploratory behaviour, so do well fed wolves frequenting garbage dumps. The key factor to watch for is the steady, consistent observations by wolves of humans. Wolves, unlike dogs, are sight-learners, very intelligent sight-learners, I might add. And steady observation of humans by wolves signals an intent on behalf of the wolf to attack people as potential prey.

Why American wolves – were – “harmless”

A prevailing myth is that wolves are so shy as not to attack people, especially North American wolves, which had for the longest time no recorded attack on a person by healthy wolves. When the student Kenton Carnegie was killed by wolves, it was blamed on black bears by a scientist ignorant of tracking, but widely accepted by environmental interests. Totally ignored was the investigation by two educated native people that had exceptional qualification in tracking. That follows a pattern of ignoring the experiences of native Americans. The myth itself can be traced back to a number of North American wolf specialists in the 1950’s who then lacked the understanding of wolves we have now, and who dismissed historical accounts as “tall tales”, precisely because of the scarcity of attacks by wolves on people in north America. It remained a puzzle for a long time even to great specialists in wolf behaviour, such as the late professor Erich Kinghammer of Wolf Park, Battle Ground, Indiana, with whom I discussed this puzzle many times in the decades past. However, I now know the answer: In the 19th Century, the wild spaces of Canada and Alaska were not only occupied by hamlets of rural and native people, and the wilderness widely exploited seasonally by an influx of hunters, while vast private lands were secured from predators by government predator control officers. Moreover, wolf control included the areal dispersal of poisoned horse meat. However and most important of all: vast areas were divided into trapping territories and trapped over by – in the case of Canada – by about 60,000 trappers. These desperately poor, hard working men depended on wildlife for survival and on dog sleds for transportation. Since wolves disperse wildlife, follow trap-lines destroying fur and kill dogs, trappers were usually not well disposed towards wolves. The wolf population of Canad is currently estimated at 60,000 and was probably less than half that in the 19th century. Note: for every wolf alive there were one or two trappers, and that does not include the armed no-trappers occupying that land. Granted the huge territories wolf packs roam over, all wolves in 19th century Canadian wilderness were thus in constant contact with very hostile human beings. That is, all wolves were being continually educated to shun humans. Moreover, because of wolf control there was a super abundance of wildlife – which I still personally experienced. That is, wolves surrounded by a a super abundant food supply grew into shy giants of almost unbelievable body size. I still experienced that personally. Because of reduced density, hydatid disease was relatively rare, attacks on livestock very limited and attacks on humans unheard of. Moreover, by keeping wolves out of settled landscapes it retained the integrity of packs as well as the genetic identity of wolves. Giant wolves living in functional packs will not hybridize with coyotes or dogs, but annihilate such. The wolf kill by trappers, however, was limited. It amounted only to about one wolf per five trappers per year, judging from bounty records.  

Replacing the little wolf with the big wolf.

North America has two species of wolves, a little native wolf who survived the incredible predation hell-hole that characterized North America during the ice ages, and a big wolf who came from Siberia, repeatedly, who did poorly in the native North America fauna, and who spread and multiplied only after human had exterminated most of the native megafauna some 12,000 years ago. The little wolf is a very smart, adaptable little fellow, who does poorly in the presence of the big wolf, but explodes in numbers in settled landscapes and follows humans closely. With human aid it spread into Alaska as well as central America and is still expanding. And it is obnoxious enough to have triggered large scale control measures. In the US coyotes are killed at roughly1000 per day.

You have also legislated via your endangers species legislation and endorsed by the courts that the big wolf will be placed where the little wolf is now.

Has anybody considered what this replacement will mean?

Do you think you will be happy having replaced the unprotected little wolf with the highly protected big wolf?

Do your legislators talk to one another?

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

The real wolf versus the dog, destructive hybridization.

Protecting grey wolves in settled landscapes and letting them multiply freely leads in the long run to wolves hybridizing with other canids in the settled landscapes, with coyotes in north America and Golden Jackals in Europe, and with domestic dogs in both. That is, or will be, the fate of real wolves to be genetically degraded into extinction as a species. The end product of current American and European “wolf conservation” – so called – is to loose the real wolf as as species and produce a human-caused artifact, a worthless hybrid.

The real wolf is s a species. The dog is not. A species it is the product of Nature sculptured by such for millions of years.  By contrast the dog is NOT a species, but an artifact of human creation using the genetics of the wild wolf and other canids. The dog is a very great, highly useful, but also artistic creation, one which I would not want to live without. And I thank providence that the dogs I have are not wolves! Dogs have been created by humans to fit with human needs, our habitations and professional activities. They are a great treasure, as dog owners can attest to.

But so is the real wolf. And there is no question that we must insure the perpetuation in modern times of the real wolf. However, it cannot be done the way it is practised now in the USA and the European Union. For trying to maintain wolves leads remorselessly to slow, but certain, hybridization with dogs and coyotes and thus the loss of the real wolf. Hybridizing wolves with dogs and coyotes is a way to exterminate the real wolf by destroying its genetics. Of course wolves and dog are closely related genetically. However, very nearly the same basic genetics generates totally different animals. The dog is not a wolf, no matter what.  Similarly, humans and chimpanzees are also very closely related genetically, but are very different organisms.  Pigs and whales are closely reflated genetically, but you do nothing for whale conservation by protecting pigs. Placing dogs into the same species as wolves is a profound confusion of categories.

Consequently, after all the trials and tribulations of introducing wolves into settled landscapes, after all the cost to the public and private purses, after all the destruction caused by these wolves, after all the pain and suffering that befalls humans, livestock, pets and wildlife, after the loss of a grate public treasures such as wildlife, at the end, the wolf is exterminated genetically and replaces by a worthless artifact of hybridization.

Some achievement, some nature conservation, something to be really proud of!

Ecological management for native biodiversity and productivity: The fiasco of “protectionism” advanced by good, but mindless nature lovers.

Right now the national park service is bemoaning the fact that in US national parks the bio-diversity is plummeting (species are going extinct) while at the same time the parks have now over 6,500 invasive plant and animal species in the parks. Management in national parks is primarily protection – that is, doing nothing! (after all, “nature knows best”, it will restore ecological ” balance”  and etc. etc.). However, in reality, doing nothing allows the extinction of sensitive native species, while the hoodlums of the plant and animal world, the invasive species, thrive and prosper under total protection. Is this nature conservation? Is the national park service intellectually capable of differentiating between degeneration and evolution? To make my point another way: In one project in California, Wildergarten, one gentleman, Mark Vande Pol, in fierce opposition to national parks and their ruinous do-nothing policy, bought 14 acres of ground on which there were only 60 species of plants total, currently visible and reproducing. After 28 years of hard, intelligent, insightful work the count  today is some 245native species, while he controls completely another 125 exotics that were once in the seed bank.  Uniquely, the project has a special emphasis upon small annuals.  In fact, he is actively replacing an exotic seed bank with natives!  Have you ever even heard of such a public, foundation, or university project?

Do you see what I am getting at?

The publicity making lament of the National Wildlife Federation about the state of affairs on “protected” areas, is in good part due to the self-infliction of dogmatic, uncritical protectionism, in which even monitoring would be shunned as it smacks of intervention. Ergo, no science, no scholarship disturbs the fundamentalist religious view that “protection” is the salvation of nature. In reality, its exactly the opposite! Protectionist policies lead to the unwitting degeneration of nature, the longer and more effective the protection, the greater the degeneration.

Has the Wildlife Federation, let alone the Sierra Club or humane societies ever learned any lessons from the great and – when it is allowed to work – wonderful North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?

Turkeys were virtually extinct. How about their numbers today? And turkeys cannot exist without a diverse, productive habitat!

Wood ducks were virtually extinct, but no more. How come?

In 1974 bighorn sheep across the US were in decline, despite all attempts at “protecting” them, and that for over a century in California. All to no avail.  Well, the cause of the decline was identified publicly in 1974, a society to implement the rescue was called into life by 1976, and within 25 year the population of bighorns increased by almost 50%.

How come?

How come we have today so many more elk than three decades ago? Though of course not in Yellowstone National Park! There, the “within-park do nothing policy” has driven the park elk almost entirely onto private ranch land. What a success!

Oh, I must also add this one: place wolves into Yellowstone park – where everything is “protected“. And the moose went extinct. How come? We area about to loose the woodland caribou in North America forever, courtesy protectionism of same and of “habitat”. How come?

The natural “regulation” paradigm of the nature protectors is an intellectual failure, as it has to be if one understands that ecosystems, unlike individuals, are subject to positive, not negative feed back. Trusting nature to do it “right”, whatever that may mean, leads often enough to impoverished landscapes of low productivity and biodiversity. Letting “nature” have its way does not always lead to the productive, the diverse and the beautiful. Quite the contrary. And we have missed the obvious right under out noses: The revolutionary North American System of Wildlife Conservation not only saved species from extinction, but its knowledgeable hands-on policies created a landscape full of life, full of productivity, full of awe and beauty, as well as to high benefits to society while proving that the public ownership of land and resources did not lead to the” Tragedy of the Commons”, but quite the contrary. It led to the triumph of the commons. Tragedy resulted from pecuniary interests undermining the public good.

Must we abandon policies that generated productivity, richness and beauty, but also a humane treatment of wildlife? The fate of wildlife is to be changed form being killed quickly and humanely by a hunter’s bullet, to being torn to pieces bite by bite, tortured sometimes for hours by wolves tearing and ripping their way towards their unfortunate victims slow death. Which hunter ever left wildlife torn savagely? Which hunter chokes his prey slowly to death? What inhumanities are the protectionists and their ilk imposing on our unfortunate wildlife?

We have to make it clear that we can vastly improve on Nature. In fact we are doing so every day in our daily lives and dealings. We have improved on bird flight, and can transport humans in masses to distant earthly destination or to the moon and beyond. We can see so much farther in the night sky than the natural eye can achieve, and we can conserve nature on the smallest pieces of land, where as national parks fail in part because they are too small. So their lament! And where a continued existence of predators and prey is achieved in the “do nothing model”, it is on sizes beyond comprehension. Like some 150 wolves and 2,500 bison in Wood Buffalo National Park, which exceeds Switzerland in size! And I am thrilled that we have such an area for comparison. See the wonderful books of Lu Carbyn on bison and wolves in said park. Read and learn!

Not everything “Natural” is good, not everything “Natural” is beautiful, not everything “Natural” is worth fighting for. Quite the contrary! Wildfires are natural, so is tuberculosis, Lyme disease and septicemia. We are asked to abandon landscapes rich in wildlife with a proven and humane treatment of wildlife, for one that is so thoroughly impoverishing vast landscapes, while subjecting wildlife to the horrid cruelties and inhumanity of death by predation.

Is that a goal worth celebrating? Is that a goal worth striving for?

I do not believe in reincarnation , but should I be wrong, all I can say is “Lord please do not let me come back on this earth as a BISON IN WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK’. Here is my story why.” Dr. Lu Carbyn, Canada’s primary wolf biologist.

Share

Restraining Order Issued to Stop Grizzly Bear Hunts

A very biased report on the actions of a judge in Montana who issued a temporary restraining order to stop a grizzly bear hunt:

“A federal judge in Montana on Thursday issued a court order temporarily blocking the first trophy hunts of Yellowstone-area grizzly bears in more than 40 years, siding with native American groups and environmentalists seeking to restore the animals’ protected status.

The 14-day restraining order by U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, came two days before Wyoming and Idaho were scheduled to open licensed grizzly hunts allowing as many as 23 bears in the two states to be shot and killed for sport.”<<<Read More>>>

Share