May 22, 2013
And environMENTALISTS cannot tolerate this natural phenomenon, probably because they believe it is man-caused. As a result, these same mentally ill of the environment cult, plan to spend a cool $ 1 million of tax money a year and begin killing 9,000 striped barred owls because they are breeding with their fetish owl, the spotted one, and competing for habitat. Isn’t this insanity?
May 15, 2013
MISSOULA, Mont.–A U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. granted the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s request to intervene in a lawsuit by animal rights groups seeking to return federal protection to Wyoming’s wolf population. That means the judge will consider RMEF’s arguments in the case. RMEF also filed to intervene in a similar lawsuit regarding Wyoming wolves based in a Cheyenne, Wyo., U.S District Court.
“This matter is no different than the current case in the Great Lakes or past legal cases in the northern Rocky Mountains,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Individual states need to be given the opportunity to manage the wildlife species within their borders. These Wyoming lawsuits seek to frustrate the science-based management plan already laid out and approved by the federal government.”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed Wyoming wolves from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in August 2012 with a minimum population estimate at that time of 328 wolves, including 48 packs and 27 breeding pairs. That total included 224 wolves, 36 packs and 19 breeding pairs outside Yellowstone National Park.
A subsequent hunting season led to the harvesting of 42 wolves in the trophy-hunting zone bordering Yellowstone with 26 taken as unprotected predators elsewhere in the state. Wyoming Game and Fish since proposed reducing wolf hunt quotas by half for the 2013 fall season. Wildlife managers must maintain at least 100 wolves, including 10 breeding pair, outside of the Wind River Reservation and Yellowstone.
Addressing the situation, a spokesman for Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, Renny MacKay, stated, “Wolves in Wyoming are clearly recovered. Our management plan is based on the best available science, committing to the sustainability of the wolf population and genetic connectivity in the Northern Rockies. More importantly, our wolf management since delisting has proven the state’s ability and commitment to responsibly manage wolves.”
RMEF has a rich heritage of 26 years of work in Wyoming that includes 514 projects that enhanced or protected more than one million acres. RMEF also made contributions of more than $3.7 million to protect and enhance habitat, manage wildlife, and support conservation and hunting heritage outreach programs in Wyoming.
“RMEF invested nearly $7 million in wildlife research efforts around the country to better understand elk habitat use, population dynamics, predation, habitat management and other such issues. We need to strongly consider and abide by these findings and not frustrate science-based management by allowing these lawsuits to go through. They could affect Wyoming’s elk, deer, moose, wild sheep and other big game species from here on out,” added Allen.
RMEF joins a combination of government and sportsmen organizations including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Wyoming, Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association as defendants. RMEF recently received intervenor status in the Great Lakes region wolf lawsuit.
May 1, 2013
This movie trailer introduces a movie that is scheduled to be released in the Fall of 2013. We are told it will contain information to prove that the effort, from the beginning, to introduce Canadian wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho, was a criminal enterprise – criminal based on fraud, deception, theft and illegal acts. This should be be good.
April 24, 2013
MISSOULA, Mont. – The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit by several animal rights groups seeking to return gray wolves in the Great Lakes region to the Endangered Species List. If granted, Judge Beryl A. Howell will consider RMEF positions in her U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.
“It is of paramount importance that everyone recognizes that states, not the federal government, are best qualified to manage a recovered species like the wolf,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This suit, like so many previous frivolous filings, will frustrate science-based management and cause conservation damage into the future.”
Gray wolves recovered to more than 4,000 in the Great Lakes prior to delisting in January 2012.
Minnesota had an estimated population of 3,000, while Wisconsin and Michigan had about 850 and 700 respectively. The removal of wolves from federal protection happened after several years of litigation and returned responsibility for managing wolf populations to the states.
“These animal rights groups are crying wolf by claiming state management threatens to push populations to the brink of extinction,” added Allen. “There is no science that supports these claims and wolf experts like Dr. David Mech, founder of the International Wolf Center have already stated that regulated hunting by states will not negatively [effect?] the states’ wolf populations.”
Allen went on to say that, “In fact there is very recent credible evidence in both Idaho and Montana that regulated hunting and trapping of gray wolves is not harming the overall wolf population as both states have the autonomy to manage their wolf populations and they are using best science practices.”
In October 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied an attempt by environmental groups seeking to stop the state’s wolf hunting and trapping seasons stating the “petitioners failed to demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm.”
In response to the Great Lakes suit, the secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Cathy Stepp, issued grave concern over the legal maneuver stating that the wolf population in her state already grew to more than eight times the delisting goals.
“Our intent is to manage the wolf, now that it has recovered, as we do other species – informed by science and in balance with social needs. Relisting the wolf under the Endangered Species Act is neither informed by science nor in balance with Wisconsin’s needs,” said Stepp. “This has the potential to halt wolf hunting in Wisconsin and leave the state powerless to effectively address livestock depredations, and would end the state’s ability to actively manage our wolf population.”
“RMEF will vigorously defend the delisting because states need to manage wolves just as they do elk, deer, bears and all other wildlife. There is no real science that disputes the fact that gray wolves are recovered and expanding, and there is no compelling reason why states cannot manage wolf populations,” said Allen.
If successful as an intervener, RMEF will join the Hunter Conservation Coalition group comprised of Safari Club International, National Rifle Association, U.S. Sportsmen?s Alliance Foundation, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation.
April 24, 2013
Dr. David Mech, the man who invented “balance of nature”, refutes his own claim. Says “Balance of Nature” a Myth.
Top Wolf Scientist Charges Wolf Researchers Have Become Advocates Rather Than Scientists
by George Dovel
The Outdoorsman – Bulletin Number 51 – Page 8
Republished on this website with permission from editor/author.
During a May 7, 2010 Boise State University Radio interview, Idaho Fish and Game Predator Biologist Dr. Hilary Cooley stated emphatically that wolves – not hunters – are necessary to manage elk herds.
Speaking with authority, as if she were part of a team of scientists whose research prompted her statements, Cooley stated:
“We saw this in Yellowstone – when we had tons and tons of elk they could change the entire landscape. We saw songbird densities changing, we saw beaver populations changing – everything responds to that and so while some people like to have high, high densities of ungulates, it’s not always good for the rest of the ecosystem.”
What Cooley was referring to are the alleged “trophic cascades” that many ecologists and most conservation biologists now claim are the stabilizing benefits provided to ecosystems by wolves and other top predators. The basic theory is that the top predator (wolf) reduces the number and/or alters the habits of its prey (elk), which provides more habitat for other species such as beaver, song birds and smaller predators.
This revival of the “Balance of Nature” myth promoted by Durward Allen and his graduate student David Mech in their 1963 National Geographic article, began when Robert Payne coined “keystone species” in 1969 and “trophic cascades” in 1980.
In 1985 Mech Admitted Balance-of-Nature is a Myth
Meanwhile after several more years of research with wolves and moose on Isle Royale and wolves and deer in Minnesota, Mech found that his “balance-of-nature claim had zero validity. Both wolves and their prey were in a constant state of changing from population peaks to radical declines, yet Mech waited until 1985 to publish the truth about what was occurring in both states but with different prey species.
And instead of publishing the correction in National Geographic or major news media – or at least in scientific journals – Mech’s startling confession that he was the cause of the balance-of-nature myth appeared only in National Wildlife Vol. 23, No. 1, and in the May 1985 Alaska Magazine. In that article titled, “How Delicate is the Balance of Nature,” Mech wrote, “Far from being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically.”
Several years later, I photocopied the article, including its B&W and color photos, and sent it to the leadership of all 27 organizations in the Idaho Shooting Sports Alliance. But those groups were understandably still so upset with IDFG for letting half of Idaho’s mule deer and thousands of elk die from malnutrition during the 1992-93 winter, they failed to even consider what would happen with wolves 10-20 years down the road.
Misleading Headline: “Wolves Not Guilty”
Because the National Wildlife Federation was promoting wolf recovery, and Mech’s 1985 article emphasized the need to control wolves to prevent the radical swings in populations, his choice of magazines was perhaps understandable. Canadian wolf transplants into Idaho and Wyoming (YNP) would not happen for another 10 years, but the biologists promoting wolves were enlisting all the help they could get from environmental activists to lessen public resistance to restoring wolves.
Twenty years later, Mech’s team of student Yellowstone Park researchers (wolf advocates) issued a news release with the headline, “Wolves Not Guilty,” saying their unfinished research revealed that bears were the major predator of newborn elk and moose calves.
When the study was finally completed, Mech explained that bears killing most newborn elk or moose calves had been documented for several decades. But based on the volume of mail I received from Alaskans who read the “Not Guilty” article, it was too late to change their new opinion that wolves had been wrongly accused of killing elk and moose.
Mech 2008 Testimony Refuted DOW Claims
Mech has always recognized the necessity for state wildlife managers to control wolves that adversely impact either livestock or game populations. And when Defenders of Wildlife and 11 other preservationist groups sued FWS to shut down wolf hunting in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, Mech’s May 9, 2008 22-page testimony destroyed every one of their arguments.
The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that federal and state wolf promoters have “been in bed with” for several decades, now oppose the same recovery plans they helped design during the early 1980s. They have parlayed wolf recovery into a never-ending billion-dollar enterprise, and used tainted science and activist judges to support their destructive agenda.
Mech realized that the states’ failure to control wolves to numbers that are biologically sustainable has generated extreme opposition to their very existence in the areas where they are causing problems. The difference between the make-believe world of indoctrinated biologists like Hilary Cooley, and the real world where wolves eventually destroy the wild prey necessary to sustain their numbers, caused Mech to take drastic action in 2011.
On Oct. 26, 2011, Mech submitted an article to the editor of Biological Conservation titled, “Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf.” He also sent copies to eight wolf scientists for review and suggestions, and on Feb. 29, 2012, the slightly amended article was submitted to Biological Conservation and was accepted for publication on March 12, 2012.
In his article, just before he dropped his bombshell on wolf preservationists who falsely promote the image of the wolf as a saint, Mech mentioned that North America’s wildlife manager, Aldo Leopold, continued to recommend bounties on wolves in 1946 to increase abundance of big game populations. Leopold also warned that extermination of large predators could result in over-browsing.
Propaganda Changed Wolf Image from Devil to Saint
But in 1967 the wolf was listed as endangered and one of the most effective propaganda campaigns of all time began. Mech points out that the image of the wolf changed from a devil to a saint and wolf advocates began to claim that the wolves’ presence was vital to restore healthy “native” ecosystems.
He said that his library has more than 30 books written about wolves and that 27 NGOs have been formed to promote wolf preservation. One of Mech’s reviewers commented on the millions of dollars raised by these groups, and could have commented on the dollars many of them receive for reimbursement of legal fees from the feds each time they sue to halt delisting or hunting.
Mech also said that a large number of researchers have invaded Yellowstone Park with the intention of proving the existence of trophic cascades caused by wolves. Yet he asserts there is not even one YNP study with evidence proving that a cascade actually took place beyond the wolf and its prey.
For example he says the claim that wolves would kill most of the coyotes and replace them with smaller predators has not happened. Instead, after the initial coyote decline they have repopulated the Park with the same number of coyote packs.
Do Wolf Kills Really Benefit Scavengers?
According to Mech the claim that wolves benefit other scavengers by providing more kills ignores the fact that wolves consume most of the prey they kill. If the prey animal died from other causes, the scavengers would have 7-10 times as much meat as is available from a wolf kill.
And he reminds us that as the wolves kill more of the available prey, the scavengers have fewer – not more – animals available for food.
What Really Caused the Restoration of Beavers
Similarly, the claim that wolves killing the elk and/or creating a “landscape of fear” would reduce elk depredation on willows and aspen, which would cascade to restoring beavers, which would, in turn, raise the water table has been highly advertised – but it has never been proved according to Mech.
He points out the reality that there were no beavers in the Northern Range of YNP when wolves were introduced in 1995. He responded to recent unsupported claims that wolves caused beavers to return to the Northern Range and raise the water table with the following excerpt from a recent study:
“What has had little publicity, however, was that the rapid re-occupation of the Northern Range with persistent beaver colonies, especially along Slough Creek, occurred because Tyers of the Gallatin National Forest released 129 beavers in drainages north of the park.”
Mech referred to other research pointing out that the combination of these beaver colonizing in the Park and raising the water table, and a reported 27-day addition to the YNP growing season, were valid reasons for increased growth and height of willows, and aspen. “It should be clear from the above examples that sweeping, definitive claims about wolf effects on ecosystems are premature whether made by the public or by scientists” said Mech.
Mech continued, “Once findings claiming wolf-caused trophic cascades were published, scientists competed to find more. Teams from several universities and agencies swarmed National Parks and churned out masses of papers, most of them drawing conclusions that wolf advocates considered positive toward the wolf.”
He explained that after synthesizing 19 chapters of reviews relating to the ecological role of large carnivores in 2005, a research team concluded, “Scientists will likely never be able to reliably predict cascading impacts on bio-diversity other than prey.” Mech continued, “As one reviewer of this article put it, ecologists (and particularly conservation biologists) do seem obsessed to the point of blindness with predator-induced trophic cascades.”
The extreme bias of their studies is reflected in Mech’s comment that the only wolf study results he can recall that might be considered negative by the public is the 2003 Idaho study by Oakleaf et al who found that in central Idaho, ranchers discovered only one of eight calves that were killed by wolves. That study gained little popular press.
Although Mech candidly named several wolf scientists whose research reports are tainted by their “wolf is a saint” agenda, his closing comments reflect his own agenda. “National Parks are protected from most hunting and trapping, logging, grazing, agriculture, irrigation, predator control, pest management, human habitation, and mining, all of which wreak pervasive, long-term effects on ecosystems.” (emphasis added)
By the time tens of thousands of young biologists and journalists and a hundred million other youngsters have spent 80% of their lives being taught that all human activity destroys healthy ecosystems, they believe that starvation, cannibalism and widespread disease make up a “healthy” ecosystem. Is this the legacy you want to leave to future generations – or are you just too “busy” to care?
Note: This article and many more like it can be found in The Outdoorsman magazine. Please click this link to a PDF page where you can print out a form and subscribe to the magazine. The work of George Doval, editor of The Outdoorsman, is arguably the finest work to be found anywhere in print or online publications.
March 5, 2013
When you watch this video, pay close attention to what Dr. Paul Houser, the man who got fired for asking questions about scientific integrity, says when he is responding directly about the event. The video seems to be focusing on the government’s wrongdoing in firing Dr. Houser, because of the Whistle Blowers Act, without pointing out what Dr. Houser says he was told by his boss at the Department of Interior.
Houser states that when he took his concerns to his boss he was told that “the Secretary wanted these dams removed,” and what he was doing was standing in the way of the goals of the Secretary of Interior. Dr. Houser doesn’t indicate that there is any discussion about whether his concerns for scientific integrity, i.e. that the science didn’t seem to qualify in the removal of dams to save fish, without destruction of environment and local economies, was part of the discussion.
We don’t know the full extent of what was discussed between Dr. Houser and his boss but this video seems to point out that science was at least secondary and that the Secretary wanted the dams removed.
And that is pretty much what has become of politically-driven science.
March 4, 2013
It seems some readers are agog today over an article discovered to have been published at Daily Kos, discussing supposed errors made in attempts to understand wolf and wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. At the center of this article is David Mech, father of the Wolf Wars; the man who identifies with wolf studies and the introduction or reintroduction, depending on one’s perspective, of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
It’s always vengeful bliss to say, “I told you so,” but it’s just as important to understand that Mech’s seeming admission that some things might not have been right, is really no victory for anyone accept David Mech and the environmental hijackers; those destroyers of people’s rights, property destruction and confiscation, and the subjection of citizens to reduced levels of public health and safety.
On examination of certain statements made by Mech, on the surface I can see him saying the things that I have been writing about for several years on the myths of balance of nature and self regulation of the ecosystems.
…..at the very least, scientists now disagree about whether wolf related behaviorally mediated trophic cascades in Yellowstone are really occurring………. At most, that well-publicized claim may not be correct at all.
…..ecologists (and particularly conservation biologists) do seem obsessed to the point of blindness with predator-induced trophic cascades.
Two decades later after observing wolves and moose and whitetail in Minnesota, Mech denounced the “balance of nature” writing in (National Wildlife 23(1):54-59) he said nature “far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically”.
Consider, if you will, what Mech said and the comment made by the author of this piece.
In an interview Mech states that scientific conclusions may “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way,”. Because the meme of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone is so embedded in textbooks and popular media, it may never die, even if untrue.(Emboldening added)
It has taken how many decades of wolf study, combined with the numerous “scientific” papers written and distributed by Mech, perhaps walking around with a very large chip on his shoulder, swelling in his pride as being perceived as the wolf expert, approaching godliness in some people’s eyes, to decide to consult other scientists about wolves, or in general, balance of nature and trophic cascades?
It may appear that Mech has reached some scientific epiphany or maybe even remorse, complete with crocodile tears, so why should we be so thrilled at his comments about the dishonesty and corruption of money-starved, agenda-driven scientists who, “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way?”
I would have to agree with the author of the article who states that this meme, that is the false idea that has spread throughout the scientific community full of wolf loving, money hungry faux scientists, may never die, is, in fact, the outcome that Mech intended from the beginning.
It’s a bit easier to put up a front indicating wrongdoing when the damage has been done and you’ve achieved the goals intended. Are we then to forgive and forget? I think not. The actions of Mech and many others, those being the products of his own work, i.e. his following, his own “outright dishonesty” and what I believe to be him knowing his own bias, have caused such extreme damage, to not only the scientific community but the loss of other wildlife, the spread of disease and the destruction caused to humanity through his deceitful work to cause division and strife among the people. How does one measure that value and establish accountability? Should we just dismiss it because this man is sticking his big toe in contriteness?
The damage has been done and it probably never will get corrected. The lessons learned here will also not be all good. One would like to think that the scientific community would take a deep breath and reassess this evil approach toward political ends shrouded in spurious science, but unfortunately it will stand as a proving ground in how to make money while lying and cheating the American public, regardless of the potential of damage that can be done. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil.
The U.S. Government, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should never have given one man so much power and authority to carry out his work. To do wrong, the result of work going unchecked and unchallenged, some because Mech had the power to disregard information from others, for over 2 decades and THEN step forward indicating that things may have been wrong, isn’t something the American citizens should be so easily willing to accept. There is far more to Mech’s and other’s behavior over the years that goes a bit beyond “oops” and can rightly be described as a criminal enterprise.
As Christians we are taught to forgive, but that doesn’t mean we need forget. We must correct the wrong and seek rightful justice for the actions that go beyond scientific error. The American people will never get back into the scientific literature the truth about wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. It is my opinion that this “damage” was intentionally planned. It is also my opinion that as David Mech ages, he’s now, without much fear of punitive actions against him, willing to say what he may deem appropriate to save his own skin and play to the side of science and citizens who believed him wrong and corrupt from the beginning. We shouldn’t fall for it.
We should take his words and attach those words to the years of his work and then the task at hand for the activists is to begin a long and difficult task of reeducation. How do you counter the brainwashing being done by the most powerful?
March 1, 2013
A Guest Post by Jim Beers:
From 1994 to 1996 the US Fish and Wildlife Service stole (took, diverted, whatever makes you feel good) Millions of dollars from the federal excise taxes (mostly from those collected on arms and ammunition) collected exclusively for state fish and wildlife agencies’ use on state fish and wildlife programs. Those excise taxes are a major portion (supplementing hunting and fishing license fees) of the funding available each year for state fish and wildlife agencies’ operations.
At the time of the theft, Congress had refused to fund “endangered” wolf introductions by USFWS into Yellowstone Park, a federal enclave that would “seed” wolves into Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and Utah as has happened. Resulting losses of cattle business viability, losses of big game herds (and the license money et al they generated annually), losses of dogs, human safety concerns, and general demise of rural economies were all foreseeable but denied by bureaucrats and “nature” advocates that lived largely in far-away cities. What was hidden from the public by state and federal bureaucrats and the “scientists” they employed were the disease and parasite effects of wolves on humans, domestic animals and wild animals; that danger is only now becoming undeniable as the awful consequences emerge.
The introduction of wolves captured in Canada into Yellowstone had other important effects. “Red” wolves introduced into the SE states were being perceived as the coyote/dog/wolf hybrids that they are. The romantic allure of wolf howls and the myth of “only killing the lame and the halt” were drying up. In New Mexico and Arizona, introduced “Mexican” wolves were more and more seen to be small wolves living in a harsh and largely foodless (except for cattle and sheep) desert environment, resulting in scary habituation by wolves to school bus stops, farm and ranch yards, and places frequented by kids or where garbage was sometimes available. In Minnesota and Wisconsin public questions about just how many wolves were going to be tolerated before a limit was achieved were causing difficulties for state and federal bureaucrats. Like the SE states, romance and myth were being overtaken by reality and experience. The Yellowstone wolf hoopla provided a publicity bonanza as the voters in those blue areas on the red/blue voting map enthused about vacations to Yellowstone and all the wonderful benefits that wolves were alleged to be bringing to an otherwise “unbalanced ecosystem”.
There are a few other factors however, that we should be aware of. The unpunished theft by federal bureaucrats of millions of dollars from our (yours and mine) state fish and wildlife agencies was a green light for federal bureaucrats to perpetrate future crimes and for the state fish and wildlife agencies to see that going along with crime (like Chicago Mayor Big jim Thompson and Al Capone in the 1920’s) was more profitable than reporting and prosecuting crime. Federal bureaucrats could hurt you and your agency (more all the time as their power and authority increased); making enemies of them was not for the faint-hearted or career-minded.
Additionally, twenty years of precedence have been set that destroys nearly all states rights’ over any plant and wildlife. In addition to sage grouse, wolverines, delta smelt, barred owls, and west coast suckers as “endangered” drone missiles to make growing areas and more human activities federal responsibilities; more folks began to see these as facades to continue the demise of State authority and jurisdiction over growing areas of American life. “Endangered” wolves and grizzly bears are two of the most effective of these rural destroyers to date.
Federal bureaucrats forcible impose (by claiming total jurisdiction over) wolves and grizzly bears that kill people but neither the federal government nor the bureaucrat is responsible. The wolves and grizzlies kill livestock and force either penury or bankruptcy on a wide range of rural businesses and economies but neither the federal government nor the bureaucrat is responsible. The wolves and grizzlies kill and seriously reduce elk, moose, deer, and other highly prized (and formerly lucrative license money and rural economy supplements) but neither the federal government nor the bureaucrat is responsible. Adding insult to injury in this regard, as wolves overrun more and more areas, federal benevolence trumpets “returning wolf management to the states”. Ironically this has created wolf “seasons” (for wolves declared “Game” animals) that are little more than spurs to wolf reproduction and health as low harvest allowances merely take a small amount of the population annually, thereby reducing winter food competition and encouraging larger litters by healthier wolves much like big game harvest management protocols. The final blow is that all this has allowed the states (and their federal mentors) to begin using the federal excise taxes generated by the sales of arms and ammunition! This means less availability of excise taxes for the hunting programs they were adopted for over 80 years ago. Now growing portions of the excise taxes and license money intended for hunting programs can be spent on wolf complaints, wolf collaring, satellite tracking, wolf transplanting of “problem” wolves, wolf meetings, wolf media propaganda, wolf “counting” (of a notoriously hard-to-count animal) and a whole range of wolf expenses as the wolves decimate game animals and make hunting more dangerous for fewer participants. Think of it as a win/win all around!
Understanding what I have just described, consider the growing movement to establish “Free-Ranging Buffalo” herds. Buffalo spread disease one of which that can destroy state cattle sales outside the state, destroy fences, destroy crops, destroy water holes, harass livestock, are a danger to rural home sites and even small town residents in winter as they seek foods, and are considerably dangerous to vehicles after dark on rural roads. Buffalo are titled “domestic” animals in certain states and come under a range of agricultural and veterinary laws that would preclude federal intrusion. UUHHH, so what?
“Free-roaming buffalo”, just like wolves and grizzly bears are simply environmental drone missiles employed in concert with government land purchases, government/NGO land easement purchases, government historic/scenic declarations, federal land closures, federal fire non-management, restrictions on grazing and timber management, and other ploys to further importune rural America and those that live and work there. Consider the drama and unsuccessful to date legal machinations in Montana to stealthily release Yellowstone buffalo in N Central Montana. Ask yourself why the 100 year-old National Elk Refuge by Jackson (that feeds 15,000 elk each winter) that was specifically founded in the Congressional Authorization FOR ELK, has been renamed the National Elk and Buffalo Refuge with a flick of a bureaucrat’s pen and the elk numbers to be wintered drastically reduced while a quota for “wintering buffalo” created by bureaucrat rule makers.
Now those that have been paying attention might be wondering where the federal government could get the money in these days of insurmountable debt? Well there is one factor I have not mentioned about wolves and the money stolen to push them “over the top”. The excise tax money stolen to put the wolves in Yellowstone was taken during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year of the Clinton Administration. For the history buffs out there, the 1st and 2nd years of the Clinton reign were marked by a widespread national fear that the Clintons were going to register (and confiscate?) guns. Hence there was a surge almost as big as what we have seen in the past 3 months of sales of arms and ammunition and a concomitant surge in excise tax collection.
The first inkling of something major amiss in Washington, DC regarding the excise taxes apportioned to the states was the mysterious disappearance of any large increase in excise taxes to state fish and wildlife agencies in the following years. In other words, the gun-confiscators actions (I have long suspected Mrs. Clinton’s role in “Fast and Furious”) caused a surge in sales that created a large surge in excise tax receipts that caught the eye of federal bureaucrats in Washington, frustrated by Congressional intransigence regarding wolves, intent on environmental jihadism and confident (as proved to be the case) that they would never be brought to account since they were serving such high purposes with only the best of intentions.
Ladies and gentlemen, the recent sellout of guns from stores everywhere and the continuing scarcity (due to unbelievable purchases for hoarding by citizens and an unexplained purchase of millions of rounds by federal domestic agencies) is creating once again that surge in excise taxes that when stolen before by federal bureaucrats went unnoticed and unreported by state bureaucrats.
If we do not put this federal genie back in the bottle (asserting Local Authority and Jurisdiction seems to be our best hope), our children will live in a much poorer world that none of us would recognize nor want.
The current administration, more than even the Clinton administration, abjures any oversight or questions. They are committed to a supreme central government more than any in my lifetime or the history of the nation so far as I understand it. Will they register and ban guns, and therefore decimate state fish and wildlife agencies access to excise taxes while inept state agencies are complicit in the demise of fishing and hunting? Will they steal or divert the current surge in excise taxes for buffalo introduction and protection or private property takeovers or other further decimations of rural America for urban votes? Are they now scheming for even more claims of environmental catastrophe unless they get more money from us or seize the remaining vestiges of state authorities?
I do not know the answers to those questions but I have my personal suspicions. I do know however, that a similar “run” on the gun stores 20 years ago resulted in enormous harm to rural America and American governance. With all that is facing us now, more than ever we need to be alert to lying bureaucrats and hidden agendas. We are in a carnival and have the mortgage money on a table bet about under which shell is the pea as the con “artist” smiles and switches them around. A lot is riding on how well we watch and challenge the play.
1 March 2013
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
March 1, 2013
*Editor’s Note* – Edited for correction and clarification 3/3/13
During our ordeals with the past bear referendum and the two times the Maine Trappers Association went to federal court on behalf of all trappers over the Lynx issues, we received a tremendous amount of financial and letter writing support from trappers from away.
Now the USFWS is going after Wolverine trapping out west in the lower 48 states. They want the wolverine to be classified a Threatened Species. Only one state currently has a trapping season (Montana), but they want to put trapping restrictions on California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington & Wyoming.
The reason the USFWS is doing this is because GLOBAL WARMING may cause the population to decrease based on “climate modeling indicates” the wolverine’s snowpack habitat will become greatly reduced & fragmented in the coming years due to global warming, thereby threatening the species with extinction according to a USFWS news release.
The USFWS has opened a 90 day comment period that started 4 Feb. to allow public comment regarding the proposal. To find out how to submit comments go to [ http://www.fws.gov/mountain/prairie/species/mammals/wolverine ]
Lets give the trappers out west a helping hand, they sure did us when we needed it.
It is my opinion that Global Warming is one part of the U.N. Agenda 21 (their documents support this) scam to gain control of the peoples & governments of the world and reduce world populations in the future and restore wild areas to support what they call a sustainable population.
Submitted by Dave Miller
March 1, 2013
Ranchers in Washington state met with fish and game managers and one rancher, Bud Sampson, asked:
“Why are these wolves so special and what do they do that is so great that we have to have them? If you could tell me one thing they do good except cost us millions of dollars, run down all of our game animals and get rid of them. … You people don’t have the foggiest clue how to manage these wolves, and it’s been proven.”
Game manager Dave Ware responded:
“They can have a tremendous impact on the overall ecosystem. In terms of what they do, it’s intangible stuff, it’s hard to pin down in a meeting like this, but there is a value to it.”
Doesn’t that say it all? The wolves “have a tremendous impact” on the ecosystem. That’s for sure and much, if not most, of that “tremendous impact” is negative. But consider the scientific and social understanding Mr. Ware must have about the invasion of grey wolves in his state – “it’s intangible stuff.” Stuff, mind you! And it’s stuff that can’t really be defined or readily perceived; like it destroys ranchers livelihoods, reduces opportunity for hunters to bring home meat, if not ends the activity completely? Are those the “intangibles” Mr. Ware speaks of? Those seem quite tangible to me and I wouldn’t call it “stuff.”
So, here we now have it. The absolute value of having wolves on our landscape is because they have intangible value. That’s the dumbest thing I think I have heard yet from the wolf protectors.