September 3, 2014

Washington Authorities Target Sheep-Killing Wolves. Wolf Protectors Use Event to Fundraise

According to a Spokesman Review article, authorities in Washington State have decided to order helicopters and shooters to kill four members of the so-called Huckleberry Pack because of persistent depredation by wolves on sheep in the area. This is why forcing large predators into human-settled landscapes is a non-starter.

As is ALWAYS the case, those groups who make a living pretending to care for wild animals, went to work to feverishly do all that they could to raise money. Wolf pimps is what they are, and if it isn’t a wolf, it’s a grizzly bear, a piping plover, a Canada lynx or any other species that can be exploited for profits.

In an email that was sent out by Predator Defense Fund, the effort to stop the destruction of private property by wolves, was called “a secret operation” because Washington officials didn’t take 10 years to consult with the fascists of predator protection first.

The remainder of the email if full of balderdash aimed at playing on the emotions of ignorant people eager to give their money away to fraudulent groups like Predator Defense Fund. Isn’t that why these criminals jump on every opportunity to make money?

Hat tip goes out to Shake, Rattle and Troll

Feds Weigh Moving Grizzlies Into Washington

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

Should You Fear the Pizzly Bear?

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

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

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

Wolf Meeting and Talking Points Expanded Boundary

All content comes from an email source:

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

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

ZoningMap

Mexican wolf Draft EIS and Rule Change

Talking points for Agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prayer

Impact on Ranchers by Wolves in New Mexico

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

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

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

DEPA Executive Director

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

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

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

IFW Seeks Comment On Proposed Changes To State Threatened And Endangered List

Press Release from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

Public hearings set for August 4 in Portland and August 5 in Farmington; written comments accepted through August 15

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is seeking comments from the public on proposed additions and changes to the State of Maine Endangered and Threatened Species list.

The proposed changes include recognition of six new species under the Maine Endangered Species Act, including three bats and three invertebrates. Three cave bats are experiencing catastrophic declines from a prolific disease called White Nose Syndrome, first documented in 2006. Little Brown Bats and Northern Long-eared Bats are proposed for endangered status, while the Eastern Small-footed Bat would be classified as threatened.

Three new invertebrate additions to the list include a butterfly (Frigga Fritillary), a land snail (Six-whorl Vertigo) and a beetle (Cobblestone Tiger Beetle). All three are currently documented in single locations and are proposed as endangered.

Other changes include status changes for four species already listed under the Maine Endangered Species Act. Two birds, the black-crowned night heron and the great cormorant, are proposed to be upgraded from threatened to endangered. Two invertebrates, the Roaring Brook Mayfly and Clayton’s Copper Butterfly, would be downlisted from endangered to threatened.

There will be two public hearings where public comments will be taken concerning the list. The first is at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, August 4 at the Portland City Hall, 389 Congress Street; and the second is at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 5 at the Roberts Learning Center at University of Maine in Farmington.

Those interested in submitting public comments by writing must do so by August 15. Comments can be submitted by email to becky.orff@maine.gov or by mailing comments to Becky Orff, Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 284 State Street, #41 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333.

This is the sixth modification of the State’s Endangered and Threatened list by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife since the law was enacted in 1975.

There currently are 22 species designated as endangered on the State list, and 23 species are listed as threatened. For the listing of all 45 species on the Maine Endangered and Threatened Species list, please visit http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/endangered/listedspeciesme.htm.

The department is required by regulation to update the State’s Endangered and Threatened Species list at least once every eight years. The department will consider public comment received before presenting the department’s final recommendation of the list to the legislature in 2015. Any additions or subtraction to the list must be approved by the legislature and governor.

Proposed Additions To Maine’s Endangered Species List

Birds Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) – currently Threatened Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo; breeding population only) – currently Threatened

Invertebrates Cobblestone Tiger Beetle (Cicindela marginipennis) – new listing Frigga Fritillary (Boloria frigga) – new listing Six-whorl Vertigo (Vertigo morsei) – new listing

Mammals Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) – new listing Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – new listing

Proposed Additions To Maine’s Threatened Species List

Invertebrates Roaring Brook Mayfly (Epeorus frisoni) – currently Endangered Clayton’s Copper (Lycaena dorcas claytoni) – currently Endangered

Mammals Eastern Small-footed Bat (Myotis leibii) – new listing
#

American Life without The Endangered Species Act

A guest post by James Beers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WITHOUT the ESA:

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

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

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

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

It’s the American Way!

Jim Beers
26 July 2014

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Feds Declare Mouse Endangered. Move Toward Shutting Down Family Ranch

A family’s livestock enterprise in New Mexico is in danger of being completely shut down now that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declared the meadow jumping mouse to be an endangered species, Watchdog reports.

The new regulations came into effect from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last month, and as a result, the U.S. Forest Service is considering installing 8-foot high fences to protect the mouse, which would permanently prevent the Lucero family’s livestock from grazing.<<<Read More>>>

USFWS Publishes Draft EIS for Mexican Wolves

I’ve not had the opportunity to read this document yet but readers should be aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mexican Wolves(DEIS).

Readers should take note of what they might expect in this DEIS. If what I discovered, due to a reader pointing out certain information, is indicative of the entire DEIS, it is a typical action in the creation of fiction, promoted by outcome-based romance biology, all for the purpose of protecting wolves and filling the countryside with nasty, disease-ridden varmints.

Beginning on Page 64, an entire section is dedicated to public safety. The USFWS uses an outdated 2002 study, takes information out of context and presents statements declaring there have been no wolf attacks on humans and further claims that accounts of historic wolf attacks and human deaths caused by wolves worldwide, is based on unreliable information and cannot be substantiated. What lying bastards!

In addition, tiny steps appear to have been taken to MENTION that wolves carry Echinococcus granulosis but then repeats themselves that it is no threat to humans.

In short, if this one section is indicative of the rest of the DEIS, which I’m inclined to believe it is, just like the FEIS(Final Environmental Impact Statement) for Northern Rocky Mountain wolves, it is criminal and the drafters of this document should be charged with fraud.What lying bastards!