February 27, 2015

Final Rule ESA Protections Enacted for Great Lakes Wolves and Wyoming

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

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

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

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

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

The text of H.R.884 has not yet been received from GPO

“Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Publishing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.”

This is the current status of Rep. Reid Ribble’s bill, H.R. 884. His proposal is supposed to take the gray wolf off the endangered list and put management control back into the hands of the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Wyoming.

There’s been a lot of talk about this bill but I’m waiting impatiently for the actual text of the bill in order to determine what, if any, value it has.

Settled Landscapes

By James Beers:

“Settled Landscapes” is a term both mellifluous and of primary importance as I write this in early 2015. It is especially important to the rural residents of the Lower 48 States of the United States and the rural inhabitants of the European continent.

I first became actually aware of the term and its’ importance about ten years ago while learning all I could and writing about wolves and grizzly bears, two large and impactful predators that had been declared “Endangered” for a wide range of hidden agendas and that therefore were being forcibly imposed by federal fiat and power on a growing area of rural America in the Lower 48 States.

I was reading some comments by Dr. Val Geist, a retired Canadian University Professor, Ecologist and Wildlife Biologist par excellence. He was making the simple, yet undeniable, statement that given a long list of very negative effects on humans, human communities, human economies and the wolves themselves; his words, “wolves do not belong in ‘Settled Landscapes’” not only caught my attention but have rung ever more true over the years. Although I have never met Dr. Geist, I have learned more from him over the years through frequent communications and collaborations.

So, what is a “Settled Landscape”?

To the environmental extremist, it might be the buildings on Manhattan Island, but not Central Park itself. It might be New York City’s 5 Boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) but not Long Island or Westchester County. It might be the Eastern Seaboard but not everything West of the Appalachians and East of California, Oregon and Washington State.

To an old Alaskan bachelor trapper, it might be everything South of the 60th Parallel that roars out of the Bering Sea by Nunivak Island heading East just North of the Alaskan Peninsula and Skagway to make the Northern Border of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Many older Alaskans still see those lands South of that Parallel as what they once called a century ago, the place of the Cheechakoes or those that were new to or recent arrivals in the “real” Alaska.

To many urban Americans, it might be all of the Lower 48 States outside the current edges of suburban sprawl form the metropolitan center they tell others from far away they are “from”.

To politicians, it is where (like Willie Sutton the notorious bank robber once answered the question in prison about why he kept robbing banks and answered matter-of-factly “because that is where the money is”) the “votes are”.

To the government bureaucrats it is anything they want to make of it or even ignore it in the regulations they write under the burgeoning authorities they reap as present-day politicians pass law after law to garner the votes and financial support of the urban worthies who see the results as affecting only those places and bumpkins outside the urban sprawl surrounding where they live.

What, you might be asking, did I see of such importance in Dr. Geist’s observation? What I saw was the simple and undeniable truth that as humans advance, order and improve their living conditions and communities certain animals that once occurred in those now “settled landscapes” must of necessity be either controlled at certain levels (i.e. big game, furbearers, upland game) or eliminated in those “settled landscapes”. Some examples of animals that can become incompatible with growing or advancing human societies and therefore call for management controls on their numbers and distributions, or for their elimination would be:

* Elephants in areas of agriculture where their wanderings destroy crops and endanger children and elderly persons as they pass through inhabited sites as free-roaming buffalo once did and would do again if imposed on rural residents of the Lower 48 States.

* Poisonous snakes, constrictors, poisonous spiders and frogs, etc. that reside in or near and wander into human living sites.

* Animals that carry and transmit diseases and infections like tapeworms, hoof-and-mouth, plague, rabies, anthrax, etc. like wolves and coyotes that endanger human lives or property such as livestock, valued wildlife or dogs.

* Animals that compete for forage with livestock or game animals; or that destroy haystacks, orchards or food-producing plants like elk and deer.

* Animals that denude property of plants and are responsible for deadly disease outbreaks or that make holes that cause livestock and humans to injure themselves like prairie dogs.

* Animals that are unpredictable and present threats to humans from rural children and the elderly to hikers, campers, joggers, dog walkers, hunters and other rural recreationists and workers like grizzly bears, cougars and wolves.

Uncontrolled large predators like grizzly bears, wolves, cougars or panthers, jaguars, coyotes, or black bears that kill and attack people, destroy livestock operations, kill dogs and other pets, carry diseases and infections dangerous to humans and other animals, generally make rural life regress toward what Thomas Hobbes described in his 1588 book, Leviathan, as “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

It is entirely sensible to recognize and address these conflicts with wild animals as matters to be reckoned with as “landscapes” are “settled”. Tolerance for large predators was the only option for Native American communities before European settlers arrived; just like tolerance for large predators in and around “landscapes” being settled by Europeans with primitive guns and almost no other means of reducing the growing conflicts they experienced as “settlement” began and continued to grow was the only option. As settlement grew and intensified; awareness of human dangers, livestock losses and rudimentary recognition of the health dangers to humans and desirable animals escalated with the sophistication and intensity of control of certain species that could be tolerated like black bears and cougars, and the elimination of those that could NOT be tolerated due to their inherent and uncontrollable danger to humans and the extent of their destruction to human communities and their economies like wolves and grizzly bears.

The tolerance for some species like black bears, cougars and coyotes was composed of many aspects from the difficulties inherent in trying to rid any area of coyotes to the behavior of low-density black bear and cougar populations to generally avoid humans and human communities WHEN THEY ARE HUNTED, TRAPPED AND OCCSIONALLY SHOT AT thereby making them what we call “shy” and “furtive”. Wolves and grizzly bears exhibit no such tendencies. Wolves and grizzly bears persist as dangers to humans and as behaving in exceedingly destructive ways to all manner of human interests no matter their density or the densities of humans IN SETTLED LANDSCAPES.

But, what is a settled landscape? A “Settled Landscape” is all of the Lower 48 States with three exceptions.

The first exception to “settled landscapes” is the POLITICAL exception. This exception is often mentioned regarding the Yellowstone’s (i.e. National Parks); the “National” Forests/Refuges/ BLM et al lands; the “Declarations” and Executive Orders decreeing “Wildernesses”, “Sanctuaries”, and “Preservation”/”Scenic”/”Historic” et al Areas: and the two clearly and exclusively federal land holdings that elude any State jurisdiction, i.e. the District of Columbia and all “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards, and other needful Buildings” as mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. These are, with only three exceptions, NOT exceptions in any legal or Constitutional sense to definition as “Settled Landscapes” as those landscapes “settled” under the authority, jurisdiction, protection and government authority of that State in which they occur.

A “Settled Landscape” is legally and Constitutionally ANY and all land in the Lower 48 States (Alaska is an exception due to the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act and I am unfamiliar with the State/Federal relationship in Hawaii) under the authority and jurisdiction of the people and government of THAT STATE. Unless a State relinquishes its’ sovereignty and authority over any land within the state to the federal government, the federal government’s ownership of National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, BLM lands, and all other “Declarations” and “Orders” are subject to State laws. In other words, although federal agencies that “own” parcels of lands within a State are not required to pay State and Local Taxes to the State and Local governments they are subject to State authority like other landowners, with only three exceptions:
1. Yellowstone National Park was placed under the jurisdiction of the US Army and withdrawn from the Territory of Wyoming in 1872, 4 years after becoming a Territory in 1868 and 18 years before it became a State in 1890. It therefore remained independent of the State of Wyoming and was transferred to the National Park Service in 1917. Other National Parks outside The District of Columbia are. Like their counterpart National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, et al, merely landowners of property subject to state jurisdiction. The federal government exercises what is called “Exclusive Jurisdiction” over Yellowstone similar to:

2. The District of Columbia as defined in the US Constitution, and:

3. The “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings” (i.e. Department of Defense lands when taken and maintained as properties “needful” for national defense but not when sold off or given to political patrons like environmental groups or transferred to federal agencies.

The foregoing is an explanation of POLITICAL claims of exemption from the commonly understood concept of “settled landscapes”. In other words, “Settled Landscape” not only includes (politically) land with a certain density of “settlers”; it covers all the lands that were, are or could be “settled” under the auspices, protection and laws of the state within which they lie. Federal agencies (with the 3 exceptions above), while landowners within the State, can close certain areas or roads or uses in accordance with the laws of the state governing all land owners in the state, they are not free to introduce animals prohibited within the state or to kill or trap animals within the state outside state authority unless they have specific permits to do so. Now read that again and ask yourself, – “HOW did the federal Congress and President and Supreme Court contrive and invent the ‘power’ to simply say ‘wolves will be here and grizzly bears will be there’? If I own a ranch with deer on it, I can’t just shoot deer in my crops or haystacks the year-around without a state permit any more than the federal government can just decide to kill or poison certain birds or fish or mammals on federal lands (with the aforementioned 3 exceptions). I can no more decide to introduce and release lions or jaguars on my ranch without state authority than can federal bureaucrats decide to release wolves or grizzly bears on their lands. If my dogs get loose and bite your kid or kill your foal or kill grandma out by the mailbox or chase down your son on his bike or kill your dog on your porch or run your sheep over a cliff, etc.: why am I held responsible for compensation and subject to incarceration AND FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS LOOSING WOLVES AND GRIZZLY BEARS ON OUR “SETTLED LANDSCAPES” THAT DO THE SAME THINGS ARE NOT??

The second exception to “settled landscapes” is the BIOLOGICAL exception. There is biologically no exception to the concept of “settled landscapes” be it the Chicago Loop Area or the Big Hole Valley of Western Montana. Each has a human community engaged in whatever supports healthy families, children, elderly members and the community services they need and can afford. Each has dogs and wild birds and furbearers (raccoons, skunks, etc.): each has predators like coyotes: each has available fishing and netting (smelt): and each prohibits those animals that are dangerous like poisonous snakes, constrictors, and alligators; each controls those animals that are destructive (rats, coyotes, foxes, skunks, pigeons, etc.); and each encourages desirable species like songbirds, waterfowl, and rabbits.

Notice that residents of the Big Hole Valley in Western Montana (a vast area of large ranches and few people) has trouble with species like wolves that kill cows and calves and sheep and lambs and dogs but they can neither control the wolves nor eliminate the wolves as was the case for many happy and productive decades before federal laws and federal interlopers put wolves back in The Big Hole and cowed the State bureaucracy into not only acquiescing but also in singing a duet about how wolves only kill the old and sick; wolves don’t kill livestock or reduce big game numbers; and wolves will restore stream banks and make the lame walk, the blind see and generally clean up the air and the water. We must ask ourselves, if the Chicago Loop and the State of Illinois can manage the wildlife under their authority, why can’t Montana and The Big Hole do the same? Under what authority in a just and Constitutional Republic with a Constitution can the federal government simply decide to put deadly and destructive animals into one “settled landscape” and not another? Finally, why does the federal government choose to exercise this questionable and unjust authority in The Big Hole of Montana and not, Stowe, Vermont or Napa Valley, California?

The remaining biological aspect of exceptions to the “settled landscapes” concept is the one being used by every charlatan politician for the past 40 years; that is excluding places that (reputedly) “need” protection. This may be a desert area (like the California deserts long milked incrementally for political support and votes by the two ancient US Senators from that State) or it may be an expanse of ocean recently made into a “Sanctuary” by a Presidential Executive Order or an Alaskan oil-rich area or a Utah low-sulfur coal deposit set aside from any future exploitation by Presidents looking for adulation or to divert public attention from other matters: all of them have in common that 99% of the population neither knows nor care what is happening, they only “feel good” that such vacant space or unsettled landscape is being “saved”.

Be it vast tundra, desert lands, mountaintops or an arbitrary expanse of ocean; the concept of it being “unsettled” or never being “settled” is unsupportable biologically. Even the mountain tops and ocean visited infrequently by hunters, geologists or fishermen are connected to the “settlements” from whence these men come. Like the desert and tundra are connected to and utilized by men for transportation and sparsely-settled communities, who is to say they are independent of adjoining settlements human activities biologically?

To conclude, all this is very relevant to the USA and the European Continent where the same things (forcible wolf presence and gradual elimination of animal control for human benefit) are being perpetrated by the EU in Brussels with the same enablers and incentives that we see being imposed by the federal government in Washington, DC. As in the USA, real political or biological exceptions to the “settled landscape” concept are rare to non-existent though frequently mentioned and inferred.

The presence or absence of various wildlife species; the abundance and distribution of wildlife; the costs and revenue sources for management and control of wildlife; the uses of wildlife; and the authority over wildlife in “Settled Landscapes” should always rest with and remain with the LOWEST level of government THAT REPRESENTS THOSE HUMANS AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES LIVING IN THE SETTLED LANDSCAPES AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTIONS AND WHO ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING AND ENDURING THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. The only practicable exceptions to this rule of law in the Lower 48 States are Yellowstone National Park and large Department of Defense landholdings.

Dr. Geist, in discussing alternative sites for wolves (and by my extension grizzly bears) often mentions large, FENCED government reservation like nuclear power plants, military lands, etc., as practicable sites: though such contained wildlife communities would require intense and expensive perpetual management to sustain. When considering “reservations” or “refuges” for animals like wolves and grizzly bears in “settled landscapes” it must be recognized that visitors to Yellowstone, or defense sites made available to the public, and resident workers are in danger and the questions of liability for injuries ON SITE and the disposition of animals OFF SITE ought to be established before any release on the excepted area adjoining any settled landscape. Impacts on defense operations and facilities in such locations would have to be carefully measured and evaluated as well as protected from likely future behavioral adjustments by such animals There cannot be any arguable business about wolf control outside Yellowstone affecting Yellowstone wolves or their pack structure if that is what the residents of the settled landscapes adjoining the Park deem is in their best interest when such animals stray back under State and Local authority and jurisdiction.

“Wolves”, like far-off powerful government dictates about plants and animals like grizzly bears, “do not belong in ‘Settled Landscapes’.” It is a testimony to American and Canadian ethics that wolves and grizzly bears have been maintained in Alaska and much of Canada to date. Likewise it is a testament to European concern that supporting a similar “rewilding” of the European continent is occurring. That said, the presence or absence of either dangerous or destructive animals must, in the final analysis, be the responsibility of those living in the “Settled Landscapes” affected by these species be they Chicago Loop picnickers or French shepherds.

If there is to be any hope for such animals in the future; only the continuing acquiescence of those living with these animals in their “Settled Landscape” and the continued financial support of those from elsewhere desiring the presence of these animals in the “Settled Landscapes” where others live, gives any hope of anything but a repeat of the historic accounts of the inevitable human reaction to these animals since the time of the Ancient Greeks and The Thirteen Original Colonies of what is now the USA. That is to say intolerable incident after incident until; despite Washington, despite Brussels, despite the King, despite the Lord of the Manor; the residents of the “Settled Landscapes” decide they have had enough and take things into their own hands and using a wide range of methods and even some new ones not even seen before once again make the “Settled Landscapes” safe and productive for human settlements.

Jim Beers
14 February 2015

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

109 Mexican Wolves – “Cross-Fostering” New Technique to Grow More Wolves

From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region:

The Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) has completed its annual year-end population survey, documenting a minimum of 109 Mexican wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico at the end of 2014. At the end of 2013, 83 wild wolves were counted. This is the fourth consecutive year with at least a 10 percent increase in the known population – a 31 percent increase in 2014.

“In 1982, the Mexican wolf recovery team recommended a population of at least 100 animals in the wild as a hedge against extinction; until we initiated the first releases in 1998, there had been no Mexican wolves in the wild in the United States since the 1970s,” said Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle. “Although there is still much to be done, reaching this milestone is monumental!”

“This survey demonstrates a major accomplishment in Mexican wolf recovery. In 2010, there were 50 Mexican wolves in the wild; today there are 109, a more than doubling of the population in Arizona and New Mexico. With our Mexican wolf population consisting of wild-born wolves, we expect the growth rates observed this year to continue into the future. In spite of considerable naysaying, our 10(j) program has been a success because of on-the-ground partnerships. We have every reason to believe that our efforts at reintroduction will continue to be successful,” said Arizona Game and Fish Director Larry Voyles.

In spring of 2014, the Interagency Field Team (IFT) successfully implemented a field technique in which genetically valuable pups were transferred to a similarly aged litter of an established pack. During the count operation, the IFT captured one of the two pups that were placed in the established pack during 2014, which confirmed this “cross-fostering” technique as an additional method for the IFT to improve the genetics of the wild population. In addition, the IFT conducted 14 releases and translocations during 2014, some of which provide promise for improving the wild population’s genetic health in the future.

“Testing and implementing new management techniques, such as cross-fostering, can help us improve the genetics of the wild population,” said Tuggle. The experimental population is growing – now our strategy is to focus on establishing a genetically robust population on a working landscape.”

The results of the surveys reflect the end-of-year minimum population for 2014. Results come from population data collected on the ground by the IFT from November through December of 2014, as well as data collected from an aerial survey conducted in January and February 2015. This number is considered a minimum number of Mexican wolves known to exist in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, as other Mexican wolves may be present but uncounted during surveys.

The aerial survey was conducted by a fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter. Biologists used radiotelemetry and actual sightings of wolves to help determine the count. The results from the aerial survey, coupled with the ground survey conducted by the IFT, confirmed that there are a total of 19 packs, with a minimum of 53 wolves in New Mexico and 56 wolves in Arizona. The current survey documented 14 packs that had at least one pup that survived through the end of the year, with two that had at least five surviving through the end of the year.

The 2014 minimum population count includes 38 wild-born pups that survived through the end of the year. This is also considered a minimum known number since it might not reflect pups surviving but not documented.

The Mexican wolf recovery program is a partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, and several participating counties. For more information on the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Program, visit http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/ or www.azgfd.gov/wolf.

USSA Files Great Lakes Wolf Appeal

From the United States Sportsman’s Alliance:

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation has filed an appeal of the ruling handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell on Dec. 20 concerning management of gray wolves in the western Great Lakes area.

The Feb. 13 notice of appeal seeks to overturn the ruling that forced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to return a population of wolves found in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan to the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act – with ramifications that affect the entire scope of managing the apex predator. The decision stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Humane Society of the United States; Born Free, USA; Help Our Wolves Live; and Friends of Animals and Their Environment.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to continue to fight this legal battle,” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA’s vice president of government affairs. “There is no doubt that wolves in the region have recovered, but to hold their management in those states hostage until wolves are reestablished in Central Park in New York City is ludicrous and we will continue to fight it.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and our partners, collectively known as the “Hunter Conservation Coalition,” will fight for sportsmen’s rights, as well as for a state’s right to scientifically manage wildlife found within their borders.

The Hunter Conservation Coalition consists of the following organizations: U.S. Sportsmen Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International, National Rifle Association of America, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, Michigan Hunting Dog Federation and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Let’s See The Proposed Great Lakes Wolf Bill

THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW! Not really but isn’t that usually the cry we hear when things don’t go the way we have been brainwashed to think they should?

We’ve been hearing about PROPOSED bills that would remove the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act in the Great Lakes region. I’m tired of hearing about all the promises that are going to be in this bill. I’m not that stupid. I’ve been down this lousy road before. Bill titles and false promises get people on all sides revved up and squawking like a gaggle of geese. The reality is all too often that the actual text of the bill is useless drivel, written so most can’t understand (not that it matters, they never read the bill anyway).

So, let’s see the text of the bill already! Why do these clowns get to spend weeks spreading what, more than likely, will turn out to be lies and more lies, when they can’t, don’t, won’t share their proposal until after a formal submission….if then? Are they hiding something? This is the same tactic President Obama is using in his plan to seize full control and censorship of the Internet. WHAT’S IN THE BILL?!?

It’s fun for some to get all worked up over this supposed wolf bill proposal that’s been talked about from Congressman Reid Ribble, and yet none of us knows what’s in it. If we pay attention to the tidbits of information being said about the bill, it might give us some hints.

For instance, in this news article, Mr. Ribble is quoted as saying, “My bill doesn’t have anything to do with the Endangered Species Act. It just says a court should not be making a determination. And, in fact, if the population [wolves] decreases the Fish and Wildlife Service can re-list the wolf at any time.”

What’s he saying here? Looks to me like he is suggesting that the Courts will longer be able to make any rulings on wolves in those states listed in this bill….whichever ones those are. What I find troubling is that he says that if the wolf population decreases, the Feds can relist anytime they want to.

So Ribble, if this is what’s in his bill, is tossing blindly all his support and ceding all power to the decisions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Really? Those corrupt, agenda driven clowns? I see the USFWS as being really no different than the Humane Society of the United States, Midwest Environmental Advocates or any of the well-greased groups that steal their money from the taxpayers of this country. USFWS history shows their constant and consistent caving in to pressures from environmental groups.

If this bill doesn’t contain the right language, then what a waste of time. The idiot wolf lovers have pushed and demanded for so long, taking advantage of and bastardizing any semblance of law and order to get their way and more, when it comes to wolves. And now people have had enough. Screw em!

Not only would I make it so leeches can’t make their living filing lawsuits, I would permanently remove the wolf from Federal protection and disallow the USFWS any say in the future events that surround the wolf. We mustn’t forget that these criminals at the USFWS created this mess in the first place. They lied to the American people and foisted a plague upon the people and land.

It appears to me this secret proposed wolf bill does nothing but give USFWS dictator status. Way to go!

V. Paul Reynolds: Lynx ITP “Doesn’t Pass Straight Face Test”

“If you applied the Florida panther math to the Maine lynx, trappers would be permitted to accidentally take 50 to 100 lynx a year and not impact the population appreciably. And yet, USFWS, in collaboration with Maine’s state wildlife managers, is restricting Maine’s incidental take to .006 percent of the lynx population – not over a year – but over 15 years! Really now, does this pass the straight face test?”<<<Read More>>>

Cowboy Bitten by Coyote/Wolf, Saves Dogs With Rock

Press Release from Wolf Crossing dot Org:

While packing salt to a herd of cattle on Wednesday, a ranch manager in eastern Catron County heard a distressed cow bawling and upon investigation the man and his cow dogs were attacked by what he described as a pack of coy/wolves or coyote hybrids.

“I tied my mules up and went to the fight, my dogs were with me. There were 7-8 animals not including my cow dogs and the cow was still trying to protect that baby calf.” Says the cowboy who didn’t wish to be identified due to past harassment by extremists.

“Two of those animals had my hound dog down and were going to kill him. I didn’t bring my pistol, so I hit one with a rock; the other one bit me on the arm and I think I stuck it with my pocket knife and it let go. I finally got my dogs called back enough to get some control of the situation but those animals weren’t leaving and I was afoot without a weapon.”

The cowboy was able to back out of the scene with his dogs and find his pack mule, but his riding mule had taken off for home in the heat of the moment.

USDA Wildlife services and the Catron county law enforcement were notified of the event and an investigation was launched the next day. Clearly the incident was abnormal for what is described as Mexican wolf behavior. Wildlife Service found bite marks on the dead baby calf measuring 39-40 mm; about average size for Mexican wolves but too big to be coyote size which ranges 27-33 mm.

“There was all sizes of the things, small ones, and a couple big ones too. I thought they were coyotes but close up I didn’t have time to examine them really well, especially with the mess we were in.” Upon his return home the ranch hand found his arm was bruised but his heavy cotton duct, coat stopped any puncture wounds and his injuries were not serious.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife service is in the middle of the annual year end count of Mexican wolves but were not able to identify a pack in the area at the time of the attack, although there are documented collared wolf packs that use the area as territory. The cowboy said none had collars at the time of the incident and no radio collar signal was found in the area the day of the investigation.

Ranchers in the area have been pleading with FWS to begin analysis of the wolf packs on the ranches in the area due to an increased belief that they are interbreeding with coyotes resulting in bigger packs of coyote like animals.

Jess Carey, Catron county wolf interaction investigator, wants the animals involved removed and analyzed due to the aggressiveness and defense behavior of the pack.

“I am not sure what I am supposed to do out here, I can’t take care of these cattle like this with these animals running around attacking the cattle, attacking my dogs, and attacking me. This isn’t what they are supposed to be doing with this program.” Said the cowboy involved in the incident which is still under investigation.

Breeding season for both wolves and coyotes is in full swing and single wolves are making wide circles, actively searching for mates in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery area. Physically it isn’t impossible for Mexican wolves to interbreed with coyotes and in this program, wolves have been documented breeding with domestic dogs at least three separate times.

Caren Cowan of New Mexico Cattle Growers association says, “DNA analysis of the pack responsible for this attack is essential if the Mexican wolf program is to be pursued with any scientific credibility.”

Calf1

Calf2

Calf3

Wolf Lessons from North Carolina

Written by and Presented by James Beers:

Last Friday, 30 January, I wrote a piece, Kudos to North Carolina and Her Wolves that Never Were, complimenting the recent success of some men in North Carolina regarding how to stand up to the federal government and the Endangered Species Act. This involves “red” wolves, an enviable (to most of us) State Wildlife Agency and both federal and State elected politicians from North Carolina listening to and standing up for the rural residents of North Carolina.

Since writing that article, I have had numerous e-mails and some phone calls asking me how they have accomplished what they have. It is with trying to answer that question that I have spoken to some of those involved and they have shared with me some samples of their methods and approaches. I have attached a series of items below for the use of those involved in this fight from the Great Lakes toYuma to Dorris (CA) and Spokane.

I would caution you to keep in mind that the US Fish and Wildlife Service and all their environmental/animal rights’ allies are watching this closely as well. They are no doubt involved in high level and intense conferences to determine how to keep this from being repeated elsewhere not only with wolves or grizzlies but with every songbird, minnow or “bunnie” they have “Listed” or intend to “List” in the shade of the Endangered Species Act.

Here are a few observations I have made over the past few days as I dug into this victory of Constitutional government and the rights of all citizen’s to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness:

– This success story is really the victory of a few determined North Carolinians that, until recently, would have appeared to be no different than you or me. A farmer/businessman, a boat entrepreneur, and a volunteer Coordinator of the North Carolina Legislature’s Sportsman’s Caucus are three that leap out. The farmer was having “wolf” problems as some of his land lies alongside federal “wolf” habitat. The boat entrepreneur (an important vocation in a State rich in freshwater, brackish water, saltwater, seafood, fish, duck hunting and every other imaginable water recreational pursuit) is an example of a concerned citizen doing what he believes to be the right thing. The Sportsman’s Caucus Coordinator is the sort of all-too-rare political worker that sees what is best for the residents and wildlife of his State – and does it.

– They evidently made a conscious decision to proceed without any lawyers. They knew what their goals were and they seemed to have found that the lawyers either did not understand what they were about or they were not receptive to what these men knew had to be done.

– Among other things they did to gain public support while they were uncovering federal violations and trying to organize political support, was inexpensive, novel and apparently worth every penny. They hired one of those old prop planes you see hauling advertising signs along and over East Coast beaches in the summer to fly back and forth over and throughout a big (in North Carolina) college football game (UNC & ECU I believe) with a sign trailing behind that said something like “Google Red Wolf Restoration Scandal @ …….”

– They recorded federal government answers and non-answers to questions.

– They carefully read the regulations and documented violations by federal employees.

– They publicized (see below) everything they found.

– They got scientific and media help from a wide range of North Carolinians with a similar devotion to what is best for their state plus skills and experience these men needed.

– They lobbied both the newly elected conservative federal and state officials and also those progressive officials that wanted what was best for North Carolina. I was told one that one long-standing state wolf supporter politician who had had a “Research” Center named after him remained unconvinced of these men’s mission. NOTE: Naming a Refuge or Bridge or other public project after either an alive or deceased (as an invitation to others) powerful politician who supports government growth and benefits is an old (at least since The New Deal) and tried ploy of those like bureaucrats that anticipate annual returns to the public money or new law trough.

– As you consider what is useful to you from North Carolina, remember that North Carolina has its’ share of large urban concentrations and a good deal of out-of-state professors and technical workers and researchers that one would expect to be big fans of wolves “out there over the hill from where I live but where I may want to vacation one day”. Yet the politicians and rural residents generated the political support necessary within the political climate of the day to do what they have accomplished. For instance, I was told that about 75% of the current wildlife students at one of the large and respected Universities are either unconcerned about animal management and/or anti-hunting and trapping. Yet these men have accomplished what they have.

– As with many such accomplishments today, getting a coalition of state and federal elected officials on your side to not only stand up to bad laws and federal abuse but to just as importantly remind the state bureaucrats that they work for the residents of the state and that they will be backed up when they look out for and protect them; is most important.

What they have done can be done where you live and it can be, and probably is best, done by men and women just like you. Look over the following information but keep in mind that these men have jobs and not staffs for things like you might expect from all the other “players” in these wolf melodramas. Rethink what you have done and are doing as well as what you might do tomorrow. Share this around, speak with your friends and neighbors, and consider how lucky we are to have a State like North Carolina and men like these in this great Nation – and don’t forget the info below.

Jim Beers
3 February 2015

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

1.) Videos explaining aspects of North Carolina’s steps to force the federal government to remove the so-called (hybrids of dog/coyote and wolf) “red” wolves.

http://www.nchuntandfish.com/forums/showthread.php?95624-quot-Red-Wolf-quot-restoration-scandal&p=1486239&viewfull=1#post1486239

2.) A humorous but telling explanation of what is being called a “red” wolf.

RedWolfTruck

3.) Public Information examples:

1. NCWRC Resolution to End the Failed Red Wolf Program
http://vimeo.com/user28731375/redwolfrestorationscandal

(Official Video) USFWS Illegally Releases 64 Red Wolves on Private Land and Lacked Federal Authority

***MEDIA CONTACT; Jett Ferebee, 252-714-2774***

Congressman Walter B Jones, Water Jones, Congressman Jones, Joey Hinton, Doc Hastings, House Committee on Natural Resources, Congress, Congressman Doc Hastings, ESA Oversight, Sue and Settle, Sue & Settle, T. Delaene Beeland, The Secret World of Red Wolves, Cornelia N. Hutt, Cornelia Hutt, Red Wolf Coalition, FOX, FOX News, ABC, ABC News, NBC, NBC News, WRAL, WRAL News, Raleigh, Charlotte, Sean Hannity, Bill Oreilly, Bill O’Reilly, The Factor, Megan Kelly, Greta Van Susteren, N&O, News and Observer, Bob Pendergrass, Dan Nicholas Park, Kim Wheeler, Red Wolf Coalition, David Rabon, RWC Board Member, USFWS, Red Wolf, Hybridization, International Wolf Center, Rob Schultz, Nina Fascione, Defenders of Wildlife, ESA, Endangered Species Act, Nonessential Experimental Population, North Carolina, Alligator River Wildlife Refuge, Red Wolf Coordinator, Section 10(j), 5 – Year Summary, Captive Breeding, Reintroduction Area, Coyote, Coywolf, Coywolfs, Coy-wolf, Coywolfs, Predator Control, Service, Take Permit, Adaptive Management, Sterilization, Federal Game Lands, Fish and Wildlife Service, Animal Welfare Institute, Lawsuit, NCWRC, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Depredation, 5 County Red Wolf Recovery Area, Hyde County, Beaufort County, Tyrrell County, Dare County, Washington County, Red Wolf Recovery Program, Reward, PHVA 1999, George Amato, Mike Chamberlain, Jennifer Gilbreath, Ed Bangs, Brian Cole, Karen Goodrowe, Karen Beck, Gloria Bell, Dave Flemming, Jack Grisham, Art Beyer, Randy Fulk, Mary Hagedorn, Mike Bryant, Todd Fuller, Phil Hedrick, Onnie Byers, Eric Gese, Gary Henry, Brian Kelly, Phil Miller, John Theberge, Fred Knowlton, Michael Morse, Mary Thebarge, Sue Lindsey, Dennis Murray, Kathy Traylor-Holzer, Chris Lucash, Ron Nowak, Will Waddell, Ford Mauney, Mike Phillips, Bob Wayne, Dave Mech, Ulysses Seal, Kathy Whidbee, Scott McLellan, Doug Smith, Aubrey White, Michael Stoskopf, Paul Wilson, Dan Ashe, Sally Jewell, Department of the Interior, Red Wolf Study, Peer Review, Peer Reviewed, Howlings, Columbia NC, Columbia
Last edited by BR549; 01-30-2015 at 07:54 PM.
*********** Please forward this link to likeminded Hunters, Anglers and America’s Conservationist, via Email, Facebook, Twitter etc.***********

RedWolfHistory

NewsClippings

From: Jim Beers

> Subject: Wolf Hybrids, North Carolina and What a Few Good Men Can Do
>
>
>
> Kudos to North Carolina and Her Wolves that Never Were
>
> As someone with a long involvement in US and European wolf debacles of the past three-plus decades, it is with admiration and a wry sense of amusement that I have followed the sordid history of federal red wolf impositions on the good people of North Carolina. I admire what you are doing about “wolves” and I am deeply amused by your resurrection of the lost power of State governments as spelled out in the US Constitution.
>
> Red (I call them GI for “government issue”) wolves released on Bull Island at Cape Romaine National Wildlife Refuge in South Carolina and then in North Carolina at various and sundry sites were always true hybrids composed largely of coyote; dog; and long gone, small SE US wolves’ genetic material. That these GI or red “wolves” (actually hybrids) are and always were fully capable of reproducing viable offspring with not only coyotes but with every variety of dogs from deer hounds and Dobermans to pit bulls and basset hounds is something honest biologists recognize as the classic definition of a Species, that is a group of similar animals capable of producing viable offspring. In other words, the bureaucratic manipulation of a federal law clearly intended to save “Species” such that something bureaucrats call a “red” wolf is given the unique identity of, say, a giraffe or a rhinoceros as a Species in order to execute a very severe federal authority capable of superseding State jurisdiction over wildlife in the State; the activities of rural residents in things from animal husbandry and hunting to animal control and the safety of all, especially children and the elderly; rural property owners like dog owners; and ultimately the economic activities of struggling rural communities: all this was and remains a scandalous abuse of government power and environmental oppression. That any citizen could be imprisoned for a year and fined $100,000 for killing or attempting to kill such mongrels placed in his midst by a remote central government is a travesty once thought to be unimaginable in a Constitutional Republic or even a “majority rule Democracy.
>
> To see a State Government and its’ Wildlife Authority (the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) stand up to this federal bullying is heartening and a hopeful sign for other States, to say the least. The Commission’s Resolutions to order the federal bureaucrats to remove the “wolves” that they have been illegally releasing on private property in North Carolina, plus their Statement recognizing and calling for a Declaration of Extinction due to the Hybridization of the “Red Wolf” Genome (i.e. a full set of chromosomes representing all the inheritable traits of a singular group of organisms) are models to not only other US States hosting these GI wolves from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Coast to the Southwest ; they are a much needed encouragement to Europeans from Germany and Italy to Spain where wolves are spreading death and destruction due to the same sort of abuse of government power by the European Union government as Americans are suffering from Washington politicians and bureaucrats. Increasingly these European wolves are being shown to be “hybrids” with dogs and just as in the US, what dogs are not being killed by wolves are bred by or breed with dog/wolves “in heat” creating the inevitable and increasingly complex hybridizations that will always be the hallmark of wolves living in settled landscapes.
>
> In France alone, just last year, nearly 10,000 domestic animals were killed by wolves. Throughout Europe; sheep flocks, shepherds, and self-sufficient rural families are, like their American rural cousins, enduring untold stress and disappearing much to the distress of their rural communities where they have contributed so much for untold generations and where grazing lands are beginning to revert to brush and fire fuel. European men are being incarcerated for killing what appeared to be rogue dogs that, after lengthy and extensive laboratory by government’ experts, were declared to be wolves. The same propaganda about wolves (“restore stream banks”, “don’t kill stock or game animals”, “belong”, “necessary”) and the same paradigm of a remote and all-powerful central government controlled by wealthy, urban factions is destroying much of rural Europe with GI wolves just as we see in the rural western States today and just like federal bureaucracies have long-intended for North Carolina and an ever-expanding ring of surrounding States.
>
> So thank you North Carolina. Your intestinal fortitude and your moxie are both a model and a ray of hope to far more than merely those ensnared by the “red” wolf spider web manufactured in Washington. All of us with wolves or about to “receive” wolves from our Pacific Shores to where East meets West in Eastern Europe salute you and will begin watching your progress and learning how we can begin emulating you.
>
> Jim Beers
> 30 January 2014

4.) A note from one of the North Carolina men:

I will ask of you to leverage our message by sharing with others in the “WolfBGone” Community. If you will drive them back to ” Google Red Wolf Restoration Scandal” that would be great!! Also feel free to post and share the following two videos that expose this Federal Mess!

Video #1 – http://vimeo.com/user28731375/redwolfrestorationscandal

Video #2 – http://vimeo.com/user28731375/googleredwolfrestoratonscandal

5.) Another note and two documents from the North Carolina men:

“Here are the Official Doc’s to publish!!”

FWSgov

Resolution