April 26, 2015

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

April 23, 2015 Press Release

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

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

For the text of the legislation, click here.

BACKGROUND:

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

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

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

People Who Want Wolves Are From Where?

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

WolfPetitionSigners

Oregon Bill Proposal to Delist Wolves

“An effort to remove gray wolves from the state endangered species list is moving forward on multiple fronts.

State biologists said Tuesday that wolf numbers are high enough to justify removing them the state list, while Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to prohibit the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commission from listing wolves as threatened or endangered.

With four breeding pairs in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years and 77 known wolves statewide, ODFW biologists said there is little probability of wolves declining or going extinct.”<<<Read More>>>

Fed’s Canada Lynx Review Excuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

But does it really matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

North Carolina’s Criminal Red Wolf and Wildlife Activities

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

Officer Wayne,

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

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

Evidence:

From USFWS January – March 2013 Quarterly Report –

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

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

USFWS had no sterilization permit during this time period.

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

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

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

2. Trapping out of season without a permit.

Evidence:

See the above referenced evidence.

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

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

“•? Trapping (Sept-April) •? Daily”

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Purchase of live coyotes, entrapment, misrepresentation.

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

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

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

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

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

ESA Section 7 Violations by USFWS – Red Wolf Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1986 Section 7 Consultation document states:

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

Ms. Sharneka,

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

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

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

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

Secretary Jewell and Director Ashe,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

Special Agent in Charge Keith Toomey,

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

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

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

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

MapHistoricRange

PDF of All Wolf Releases

Copy of FOIA Letter re: Section 7 Consultation requirement

USSA Foundation Joins Lynx Lawsuit to Protect Maine Trappers

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

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

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

Dingoes = Wolves = Coyotes = Dogs

By James Beers:

Dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs are all Canids. The name Canid comes from the Genus name Canis. All four of these animals are called species within the Genus Canis: Dingoes (Canis dingo); Wolves (Canis lupus); Coyotes (Canis latrans); and Dogs (Canis familiaris) but that identification of these as four “species” is misleading.

Species is a term that historically referred to animals with similar characteristics and the ability to freely interbreed and produce viable offspring. For instance, horses and mules are similar and do interbreed but their offspring are infertile and thus horses and mules are separate species. Our four “species” however (dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs) share similar characteristics, interbreed freely, and produce viable offspring. A dingo (despite their absence outside Australia) breeding with a wolf or a coyote or a dog will birth or sire pups with shared genes and behavioral tendencies of the parents. Theses pups will grow to adulthood and similarly have viable offspring from breeding with any of the other “species”. They will be as recognizable as to parentage of say a Lab crossed with a Golden retriever or a Staffordshire terrier (AKA Pit Bull) crossed with a Doberman. In addition to these outward similarities, behavioral tendencies like the unpredictability of Chows or the aggressiveness of Dobermans will likewise occur in the offspring of say a wolf crossed with a dog or a dingo crossed with a coyote.

Dingoes are Canids that were probably introduced to Australia by aboriginal immigrants many centuries ago. Question: Ask your favorite “Native Ecosystem” enthusiast, if dingoes were brought to Australia by aborigines; are they – the dingoes and the aborigines – “Native”???). But I digress. Dingoes are yellowish-brown “dogs” or “Canids” that are the size of a medium to small German shepherd. When covered in a semi thick coat of fur they appear like a lean Shepherd-type dog, and when covered in a short hair they look like a lean pointy-faced hound dog with upright ears like wolves and coyotes. Dingoes travel in groups and behave very much like wolves. They are bold and very dangerous predators that (in Australia) kill many sheep, “rabbits, kangaroos and emus” as well as children and elderly people. Anyone doubting this last need look no further than the somewhat recent case of the camping Australian family whose little boy disappeared and the mother was charged and found guilty of (killing?, abandoning? I am unsure) the child and sent to prison. Only after an appeal and thorough investigation was it clearly determined that dingoes or a dingo in the campground had killed and carried off the child to be devoured in some remote location. Just like wolves in India and coyotes and cougars attacking a child for food, it is not at all uncommon for the predator to lunge at the child after approaching quietly as close as possible and then seizing them by the neck to crush or break their neck and asphyxiate them, if still necessary: it is also not uncommon for a child so attacked to make no sound.

The news article below concerns a 5600 kilometer (3,480 mile) long fence that has for decades represented an attempt to seal off the SE ¼ of Australia FROM DINGOES. Like Europeans and North Americans of times past, Australians have sought to eradicate or at least minimize the dangers and costs of having to live with these dangerous and destructive “Canids” or predators in the settled or being-settled landscapes of Australia. Anyone denying the facts as understood by those LIVING WITH THESE ANIMALS DAY TO DAY is seriously and ignorantly meddling in the lives of others instead of respecting their fellow-citizens’ rights to what Americans refer to as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Dingoes, like wolves, do not belong in settled landscapes for many reasons.

European history back to and beyond the days of Sparta and Athens were centuries of necessary and persistent wolf control until wolves were little more than occasional wandering remnants. Islands like Britain and Ireland finally exterminated wolves much to the delight of the rich, the poor and their rural economies.

North American is replete with the dangers and destruction that wolves presented to aboriginal Americans as well as European settlers and American and Canadian farmers, ranchers and other rural residents. With one or two minor exceptions, wolves were exterminated throughout the Lower 48 USA States by World War I and were being kept at tolerable levels or exterminated by government and private control in much of Canada that bordered the Lower 48 States and certain Maritime Island Provinces where farms, ranches and villages prevailed.

Russia and most of Asia have hosted the largest concentrations of wolves in the world from sweltering Indian villages across Central Asian scrublands to the forests of Siberia. To this day, wolves kill many people every year as well as destroy precious reindeer and other livestock and the dogs used as watchdogs for people and flocks. Dramatic controls like this Australian fence and techniques like killer dogs, poisons, shooting, traps, posses and other innovations have always been in short supply in these countries where weapons were banned; dictators Religious rulers and Czars kept rural people in helpless societies; and where effective, large-scale wolf controls have always been short-lived and susceptible to quick replacement of controlled wolf areas by the constant influx of wolves from robust wolf populations in surrounding areas.

Until recently, Europe, Asia and North Americans were in complete agreement with Australians about the undesirable nature of these large Canid predators in settled landscapes, especially where men and women are forced to go about unarmed. While Russians and Central Asians agree with these views to this day, when told of European and North American actions to introduce and protect wolves they are as stunned as if they were told that Americans were foregoing oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power in favor of windmills or that Europeans were happy with and celebrating the steady increase in livestock deaths, dog deaths and mental instability of European grazers (that support rural economies, reduce fire dangers, and manage European plant communities for many purposes like erosion control and suppression of undesirable plants by grazing their flocks) resulting from wolf increases in both population and habitats across Europe.

This recent wolf worship (the correct word) has spawned a fantasy/science library of articles by grant and publicity-seeking “scientists” claiming “discoveries” of wolf benefits like “wolves change rivers” by killing big game animals and dispersing remaining animals from river banks thus causing trees and shrubs to proliferate as well as “Native” fish, animals like frogs and plants like Indian paintbrush. I call this pseudo-“science” Romance Biology. Unmentioned in these writings are always:

* The loss of big game hunting and the revenue it once provided to conservation programs by wolf activities.

* The dangers to human safety from the recent wolf attack in a Minnesota campground to the deaths of a schoolteacher on the Alaskan Peninsula and a young Canadian man in Saskatchewan. The impact on children, the elderly and families is enormous.

* The loss of livestock and ranches to wolf predation.

* The huge loss of dogs of all stripes to wolf attacks.

* The financial losses to rural communities, rural businesses, rural families and rural government revenue and authority.

As an American, I am always fascinated (less and less of late) by American innovations copied by others. Europeans are grinding out Romance Biology lies as more and more justifications are needed both in the popular media and as justification for more and continued wolf protection in the face of increasing death and destruction from the wolves.

Now, I can add the Australians as copying this propaganda technique that I call Romance Biology. Note the last three paragraphs of the following short article replete with pictures. A professor at the University of Sydney claims that “reintroduced and existing dingo populations” will “restore the balance of nature” (a meaningless term).

The final picture below is a cleverly (just like in the US and now Europe) worded bit of anti-human society propaganda. The composer (very likely an environmental or animal “rights’” radical group) would have us believe that dingoes (or wolves or coyotes or feral dogs or cougars, etc.) killing all manner of wildlife and livestock is both good and offsets any destruction, mayhem or human pain or death otherwise inflicted by these Canids.

Whenever you see this dingoes increase “the biodiversity of small mammals, lizards, and grasses’ or wolves “change rivers” Romance Biology, ask yourself and anyone believing this, “And your point is?”

Any area can have more or less biodiversity and that is to be expected where man lives and raises his family. The priority should always be the welfare and benefit of man, saying that man must abandon places or community supports simply for the sake of more “small mammals, lizards and grasses” is both silly and a declaration that man and his needs are inferior to any and every mix of plants and animals desired by the rich and powerful. Our challenge is to create and maintain a high standard of living for all persons while simultaneously providing for the endurance of all species and a rich biodiversity of plants and animals WHEREVER POSSIBLE. The dingo/wolf et al enthusiast refutes the “simultaneously” part of the equation and ultimately substitutes “primarily” thereby making their “Native”, “Ecosystem”, “Ecology first” mantra superior to man and his society. That is not only nature “worship” it is the rule if tyrants based on their visions of “nature.

For instance, if riverbank diversity was so valuable (assuming wolves, dingoes et al really do what they say, an assumption akin to climate change justifying population control, and the justification on one world government without any checks or balances) why weren’t hunters simply told to kill more grazing wild animals over the years and then manage the remainder in consonance with human activities and “biodiversity” targets? Anyone that thinks unregulated predation that cyclically varies wildly as do the prey, the predators and the resulting “biodiversity” is in any sense comparable to continuous wildlife management of all species is incapable of grasping the issue in any understandable manner. The real answer is that the dingo/wolf et al protection is meant to ultimately vacate the rural landscape and convert it to closed-to-the-public real estate run by bureaucrats and managed for the benefit of powerful interest groups, the rich and politicians.

I am reminded of a luncheon I attended almost 20 years ago in Brussels. I was sitting next to a Russian (actually a western Siberian with the look of a Greenlander or Northern Alaskan) wildlife expert. He was from Magadan on the Pacific coast near the Kamchatka Peninsula. He leaned over and said to me in a low voice, “Beers, can I ask you a question?” I said sure, and he said, “Is it true that you are putting wolves back into areas where they were exterminated years ago and protecting them?” Somewhat embarrassingly I answered, “Yes that is true.” He shook his head and mumbled to me. “How did you ever win the Cold War?”

What a world when a guy from Siberia tells a guy from Illinois that our people are nuts; and the Illinois guy could do no more than nod and shrug his shoulders in agreement.

That Siberian and I have more in common with those that built the Australian fence than all the expert Romance Biology “experts that invent diversions and lies about things that do not matter, be they “scientific papers” or “signs”. Unless and until the autonomy of Local communities to determine what plants and what animals in what mixes are to exist in THEIR community and how that mix is to be maintained; this rule of far-off dictators, interest groups and bureaucracies will only sit and grow like mushrooms after a rain. Local authority like this has only existed intermittently for millenniums in Europe and Asia: it has only existed in Australia and North America for a few centuries and it is disappearing right before our eyes as you read this. The real trick is to enable the humans that live with these animals to manage them for their own good and to permanently abolish the ability of far-off governments to rule the rural people, in their broadest sense, on behalf of the fantasies and imaginings of rich and powerful blocs with both obvious and hidden agendas.

Jim Beers
23 March 2015

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

Send Wolves to Seattle

“SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – Wolves are thriving in Washington, primarily on the eastern side of the Cascade Range.

That has sparked conflict because much of the support to bolster the wolf population comes from urban and liberal western Washington, but the negative impacts strike eastern Washington. One solution is for wolves to disperse across the state more quickly, wildlife officials said.

“With the densities of wolves in northeastern Washington, we would like to see the Cascades get more wolves and more wolf packs,” said Dave Ware, a wolf recovery expert with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.”<<<Read More>>>

Buffalo as Metaphors

By James Beers

(METAPHOR, n. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable, in order to suggest a resemblance, as “A mighty fortress is our God”.)

I have just finished reading the latest federal EIS/Plan/Federal Register Notice/Request for Comments written by the US National Park Service (or is it the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or the US Forest Service, or some other federal bureaucracy – I forget) about FREE ROAMING BUFFALO IN THE YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM (my underline).

Think about that for a moment – A Federal Plan for a common critter throughout AN ECOSYSTEM! Translation; since “Ecosystem” can be whatever you choose it to be, this federal plan composed by federal (i.e. unaccountable) bureaucrats, and buffalo being the critters they are, these central government “planners” are outlining what they will do – 1) in Yellowstone Park, 2) on the federal lands beyond Yellowstone Park boundaries, 3) on private property surrounding Yellowstone Park, and 4) on all the public and private property surrounding all the public and private property that surrounds Yellowstone National Park. Shades of Soviet Central Planners creating Stalin’s “Plan” to starve millions of Ukrainians to kill all the farmers that thought they still owned their land and replace them with the Soviet Collective Farms that, like this buffalo lunacy, will be a harmful and dismal failure, except in the halls of government where bureaucrats will slap each other on the back like the Soviets did for 60 years while giving each other bonuses as people, families and their communities disappeared.

There is NO authority or jurisdiction for federal bureaucrats to consider, much less delineate, where buffalo will occur or under what conditions they will be tolerated and who will pay for it OUTSIDE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone National Park is unique in this character that it shares with only the District of Columbia. State governments have jurisdiction under the Constitution over the plants and animals in or about to be in their state regardless of who (federal, non-profit, private, etc.) owns it.

Consider:

– Buffalo are not “endangered”.

– Buffalo are among the most dangerous animals encountered by visitors to the various U.S. and Canadian National Parks and will attack humans if provoked. They appear slow because of their lethargic movements but can easily outrun humans—bison have been observed running as fast as 40 miles per hour (64 km/h). This fact is studiously either avoided or downplayed in the federal “plans”.

– Between 1980 and 1999, more than three times as many people in Yellowstone National Park were injured by buffalo than by bears. During this period, buffalo charged and injured 79 people, with injuries ranging from goring puncture wounds and broken bones to bruises and abrasions. Bears injured 24 people during the same time frame. Three people died from the injuries inflicted—one person by buffalo in 1983, and two people by bears in 1984 and 1986.

– Romance Biology accounts of the “massacre” of buffalo by “hunters” in the 1800’s never mention how towns, roads, farms and ranches could have ever been established, much less co-existed, with free-roaming buffalo.

– Romance biology accounts of the disappearance of buffalo also mention frequently that “livestock diseases decimated buffalo”; federal planners today downplay and ignore the threat that free-roaming buffalo would present to livestock such as brucellosis, hoof-and-mouth, BSE (Mad Cow) and Anthrax.

– Buffalo are cantankerous; a point I thought about as I hunted pheasants in Montana prairie hill country slated for a free-roaming buffalo referendum that was soundly rejected soon after my visit. (There was a BIG sign by the church entrance on Sunday morning that read, “NO BUFFALO IN MALTA!”) Imagine some guys on foot with shotguns behind dogs coming on a band of buffalo that get irritated by the dog’s, miles from anything but grass, pheasants and sharptails. Where do the dogs go? Why to YOU. Who storms after the dogs? Why the buffalo. What do you do? Why you either die or suffer injuries that YOU will be blamed for causing by some sort of regulatory violation based on some Romance Biology Professor’s nostrum paid for by government.

– Imagine living where buffalo knock down fences (commonly); where buffalo wander through crops and destroy them routinely; where buffalo (they are dark and heavy like moose) standing in country roads are struck by vehicles causing death, injuries, and property destruction to local men, women and kids; and where buffalo attacks on livestock are common.

But I digress: in what way you may ask are buffalo, metaphors? Let me count the ways.

Buffalo and their enablers are like:

Federal Wolf Planners that bear no responsibility for the lies and mayhem they create for their own benefit and the continued reelection and sponsorship of their political patrons.

State Wolf Planners that do federal bidding and spend scarce hunting and fishing revenue money on federal schemes designed to ultimately destroy hunting and fishing.

State Bureaucrats that express only contempt and disdain for residents of their state and Local governments in their State that object to wolves, grizzlies and protected mountain lions in their communities.

Wolves that spread disease, kill domestic animals like dogs and livestock, kill or compete with more desirable (to sportsmen and local communities) game animals, and present clear and present dangers to humans forced to coexist with them.

Wolf Enablers in that they (their majority) live elsewhere; do not raise livestock; do not hunt, fish or trap; and do not rely for effective local government representation on County governments and their revenue streams.

Grizzly Bear Advocates that spread and protect these very dangerous and very destructive animals based on lies and denials of deaths, destruction and injuries. Grizzly bears, like wolves, no more belong in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States than elephants, tigers or Nile Crocodiles belong here in this day and age.

Anti-Hunting/Animal Rights Radicals that promise to compensate losses from these animals but never do: that deny the truths right before their eyes with widespread propaganda in enthusiastic newspapers, TV, and school classrooms; and all the while forcing (through lawsuits) state fish and wildlife agencies to drain their funds for wildlife management on these programs to destroy hunting and rural American life.

Environmentalists and their hidden agendas to vacate rural America by a combination of government land purchase; federally-financed and coordinated surrogate purchases of key easements and land options; closure of roads; closure of public lands to management, use, grazing, logging, hunting by contrived claims of “importance”, Wilderness, Roadless, Sanctuaries and other bureaucratic creations; and the elimination of Local governments while simultaneously co-opting state bureaucracies.

Central Government and World Government Activists that envision a world THEY RULE where there are no such things as Constitutional guarantees, Congressional oversight, Judicial Review, private property, or the opportunity for local communities to live in peace and prosperity, free from outside influences that only take from them for the benefit of others.

Progressive (choose your own term here) Activists that believe that ANYTHING you can generate a majority, or influential, or rich, segment of the population to support should be imposed by any means on the minority or less powerful NO MATTER THEIR OBJECTIONS.

HHHMMMM, roll all the above together, put all their little hidden agendas and activities in one pot, and what do you have? Whatever you want to call IT; IT is a metaphor all its own. IT is like:

– Islamist “Planners” outlining and incrementally forcing their worldview on the rest of the world, NO MATTER WHAT THEY THINK regardless of civilized standards of behavior or any moral considerations.

– Soviet “Planners” taking advantage of every incremental opportunity to expand the Soviet Empire by whatever means from lies and invasion to forcible occupation. Never forget that the “Soviet” or “Russian” nuclear plant at Chernobyl was in Ukraine, surrounded by Ukrainians and not in Russia.

– Mao’s “Planners” destroying the cities and intelligentsia inside China while gobbling up Tibet and the South China Sea’s resources outside China.

– Nazi “Planners” lying about their plans for outside Germany until resistance was impossible and then swiftly invading and establishing concentration camps and slave labor with the intent of killing “sub-humans”, enslaving “inferior races”, and restoring a Romance History Fairyland populated by “Pre-Roman” plants and animals, “super-men” and the estates of Nazi overlords.

– Margaret Sanger Population Control “Planners” justifying the mass murder of millions of fellow human beings by abortion and the sterilization of others by government mandates (China) with government funding based on racist beliefs and disregard for the intrinsic value of each human life.

– Same-Sex Activists that appeal for “equal treatment” and then proceed to destroy the legal concept of marriage and parenthood and then destroy businesses, individuals and now churches and Chaplains that object to what they represent.

– Gun Control Advocates that get politicians to do anything, no matter its Constitutionality, to ban ammunition, restrict “only certain” guns, negotiate and secretly write UN agreements to subvert the 2nd Amendment, and smuggle guns to Mexican killers as justification to restrict guns in the US; while protesting how they “hunt” and “don’t want to restrict all guns” and how they “respect” the 2nd Amendment.

– Current American Society with its government secrecy; erosion of checks and balances; vilification of police; flag bans on campuses; government sex and race preferences; loss of local government; debilitating debt; and growing disparate justice standards based on wealth, government standing, and the political party of the judge’s appointing sponsor.

In the study of Logic you quickly encounter the Syllogism. A syllogism is a verifiable argument wherein two verifiable (i.e. true) premises explain, or lead to, a verifiable conclusion. For instance:

Premise #1-

Buffalo are a current tool of a coalition of extremist agendas that aim to destroy American Constitutional governance.

Premise #2-

Current American Society’s Constitutional governance is eroding at an accelerating rate.

CONCLUSION-

Buffalo are contributing to the erosion of Constitutional governance in America Society.

Come to think of it; buffalo are far more than just a metaphor for our times. They are but one of the destructive forces we face and must overcome.

Jim Beers
17 March 2015

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

To Kill Minnesota Wolves Killing Livestock

More damned insanity! We spend gobs of money on efforts to protect an animal that doesn’t need protecting, and then we spend gobs of money to kill an animal that’s killing livestock. This makes about as much sense as everything that the damned government creates. Maybe the solution would be to make government extinct!

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., announced a cooperative effort Wednesday between the U.S. and Minnesota ag departments to fund an effort to help livestock producers in northern Minnesota who have been losing sheep and cattle to wolves.

The predator-control program has often run out of money over the years. Under the effort, the federal government carries out the trappings and provides technical expertise through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Grand Rapids.

The trappings will take place in problem areas where farmers or ranchers have been losing their livestock.<<<Read More>>>