August 17, 2019

Witnesses Weigh In on What Congress Should Do About Endangered Species Act

naturalresourcescommittee*Editor’s Note* – The following is a press release from the United States House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee and found on their website. What is printed below does not necessarily reflect or agree with the opinions of the editor. As a matter of fact, it’s easy to state that all the comments sound good, but talk is cheap and historically nothing worthwhile ever comes out of Washington. Go! To be so damned skeptical!

Witnesses: Endangered Species Act Must be Improved to Better Protect both Species and Local Economies
Field hearings highlight local and state conservation efforts

BILLINGS, MT, September 4, 2013 – Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held two Full Committee field hearings in Casper, Wyoming and Billings, Montana on “State and Local Efforts to Protect Species, Jobs, Property, and Multiple Use Amidst a New War on the West.” At these hearings, witnesses discussed how federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings can impact local jobs and the economy and how federal litigation often stands in the way of successful local and state recovery efforts.

The Natural Resources Committee has held a series of hearings on the ESA and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings this year announced the creation of the Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group. These field hearings are part of the Committee’s efforts to hear directly from local entities and private landowners on ways in which the ESA works well and how it could be improved.

“Ramped up ESA listings and habitat designations through executive orders and closed-door settlements with litigious groups are wreaking havoc on private landowners, multiple use, agriculture, rural economies, rural timber communities, energy producers, and even states’ own species conservation activities,” said Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04). “Rather than ensuring the federal government cooperates with states ‘to the maximum extent practicable,’ on major actions affecting land or water within states’ borders as ESA requires, this Administration is allowing ‘sue and settle’ to dictate how federal agencies use taxpayer-funded resources and how they prioritize endangered species activities.”

“It is so important that we get it right when it comes to making listing decisions. We need sound science, and open data that can be replicated. We need innovative, collaborative approaches to wildlife management that offer incentives for sound management. We need a clear distinction in our minds about what constitutes conservation: on the ground stewardship, or repeated court battles. We need a common understanding of what constitutes success when it comes to the Endangered Species Act,” said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (WY-At Large). “In short, we need a new 21st Century conservation ethic that is not clouded by accusations and rancor. We can and should do better for our wildlife.”

“Our wide variety of wildlife and the environment that supports it are central to our way of life in Montana, for better or for worse … Our lands, living in concert with our diverse wildlife, allow us to grow commodities that feed the world, develop minerals that provide economic security for our state and jobs for our kids, and provide recreational opportunities that are second to none … We want to keep the ESA from being used as a tool to obstruct positive species and resource management and allow the people, not bureaucrats in Washington or Judges in the 9th Circuit, to determine how our environment and our resource economies can flourish together,” said Rep Steve Daines (MT-At Large).

Witnesses at today’s hearings all agreed that this law needs to be updated in order to make sure it works in the best interest of both species and local communities:

“Montana farmers and ranchers are extremely frustrated with the Endangered Species Act. It is like a treadmill to landowners and producers. We spend an inordinate amount of time and effort in order to keep species from being listed, only to have them listed anyway. Once listed, delisting goals are moving targets. When delisting targets are reached, delisting is further delayed by court cases. Habitat control takes precedence over species conservation. Conservation of one species leads to the degradation of another… When we start playing God to one species, there is no place to stop until the federal government controls the entire west.” – Matt Knox, Montana Farm Bureau Federation

“I firmly believe that species conservation is a community-driven effort that strives to work with individuals, groups, and agencies to achieve a goal. It is essential that addressing species, such as sage grouse, is a grassroots effort, not a top down approach.”– Lesley Robinson, County Commissioner, Phillips County, Montana

“I think we’d all agree with Congress’ worthy intentions when passing the Endangered Species Act. However, we must make sure that any actions to save a species also takes into consideration the human impact. The Endangered Species Act should not force us to choose wildlife over humans and the economic opportunity necessary to my family and my tribe…Good paying jobs do not have to come at the expense of the environment. We can have both. As a heavy equipment operator for a coal mining company and a member of the Crow Tribe, I know we are already accomplishing both.” – Channis Whiteman, Crow Tribe Member

“The energy industry, tourism industry, and agricultural industry is the three legged stool that provides a robust and healthy economy. These industries produce good paying jobs for Wyoming citizens. They also help us pay our bills and put money in the bank for a ‘rainy day.’ As it is currently implemented, the ESA is too far reaching in its impacts on both the species it seeks to protect and the lives it impacts to allow so many of these impacts to be left to the regulatory and judicial process. After 40 years, the need for greater Congressional direction is abundantly clear and that should be that the conservation of species is necessarily best accomplished by those closest to the resource.” – Rob Hendry, County Commissioner, Natrona County, Wyoming

“I believe that collaborative processes are a great tool for increasing the success of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The Wyoming Plan is an example of a win-win plan for everyone.” – Meghan O’Toole Lally, Sheep & Cattle Rancher, Savery, Wyoming

~~~~~~~~~~

Some news coverage of this hearing can be viewed here.

Share

Wolf Attacks Retired Kazakh Police Officer

wolfviciousTo some living in denial, wolves don’t attack people, unless of course they have contracted rabies…..from man non doubt. However, this story, which must not be true to those in denial, tells of a retired policeman living in Kazakhstan who was attacked from behind by a wolf while the man was looking over his car. He eventually fought off the wolf with his bear hands and strangled the animal; something Dr. Valerius Geist has always reported that could be done by a strong enough person.

I would like to draw readers attention to another report from the BBC of this same incident. I suppose searching for an explanation, the author writes:

Elders are surprised at the attack on a human, but recall that local huntsman Aldaberdy Akshabayev has stopped his regular wolf culls since the council cut off funding. Mangistau region police warn that the wolves are now becoming bolder as they compete for food.

Bingo! Too many wolves. Not enough food. Trouble! Read about this in Dr. Geist’s seven steps before wolves will attack a human.

Share

Tale of Two Bears or Two Different Perspectives on Bears

“When a bear sees a human, they will run and hide and more likely than not the human will never know the bear was there.” Or perhaps those old and worn out adages about bears can best be seen by example with this one: “They’re more afraid of you than you are of them.”

Do we really understand animal behavior? In particular, do we really understand bear behavior? All of us know of the two fairy tales – Little Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Little Red Riding Hood first made it to print in the 1600s but the tale is known to have been told to children as early as the 900s. Was it all fairy tale?

Of course not. Just like Goldilocks, the stories were told to children to teach them that both wolves and bears can be dangerous wild animals. I wonder if children in the 1600s were told that bears are more afraid of them than they are of the bears?

One of the problems we face today, that I doubt occurred on the same level in 1600, is the political agendas, driven by money and greed, that foment false information about animal behavior. For whatever the reasons, predators, such as bears and wolves/coyotes, seem to have attained, in certain people’s minds, a higher level of existence, perhaps even compared to that of humans, and demands are predominant that these potentially deadly creatures need to be protected at many levels. With that thought, it then becomes necessary to stop telling the Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks stories and instead replace them with stories of how important these “keystone predators” and “species indicators” are; that they deserve a better life than humans have given them in the past, resulting in, “they are more afraid of you than you are of them.” Over the years this agenda-driven propaganda now shows its ugly face in the offices of fish and game departments and consequently in our newspapers and television sets, among others.

Because of this brainwashing, which of course, is what it is, and the fact that because all of us are human and thus our perspectives vary based on the degree of brainwashing and willingness to be intellectually lazy and accept politically motivated advocacy, disguised as science, we see differing accounts of animal behavior in newspaper and other media sources, most always originating from the halls of fish and game headquarters.

We know that few, if any, media outlets bother to investigate claims made by government officials or any one else that might be deemed “officials”, with the onset of computer technology, it’s much easier to “copy and paste.”

Consider the tale of two newspaper accounts about black bears and bear behavior. One account, from the Bangor Daily News in Maine, tells of what behavior black bears take on as they head into fall, gorging themselves on food in preparation for the long upcoming winter hibernation.

Below are a few comments and quotes taken from the BDN news article.

Yet human-bear conflicts rarely increase during the bears’ fall foraging frenzy, according to both Cross and Vashon. Fall is a time when natural food is abundant, and that’s usually what bears are going after.

(Human-bear conflicts are actually more common in the spring, when a bear has just emerged from its den and is searching for sustenance when natural food is scarce.)

“Most conflicts happen where people aren’t used to having bears around,”

Still, Maine’s estimated 31,000 black bears keep to themselves, if they can help it. And upon seeing a human, they typically will run in the opposite direction.

“The only problem is when a bear is cornered. I think that’s when you’re at the greatest risk — If you’re between a bear and cubs or between a bear and its escape route,” Vashon said. “A good example is if you find a bear in your garage and you’re blocking the door.”

Let me point out that the information given in this account isn’t necessarily false information. It’s just that, like most of these reports, they never tell about the conditions that come up when bears are more likely to encounter humans and why. It’s always about how rare it is. Well, rarity is subjective and nobody that I’m aware of cares of the rarity of human/bear encounters when they have been attacked, “inexplicably” by a bear.

Take as an example what went on in nearby Nova Scotia. Two women, in the woods east of Port Lorne, between East Shore Road and the Bay of Fundy, were chased by a black bear for about an hour. Eventually, the two women came upon a hunting camp, described in the report as a shack, broke out a window and went inside to escape the attacking bear. Is this some of that “rare” bear behavior? Or, is this some of that animal behavior we really don’t know anything about?

All the talking points found in media accounts and repeated faithfully by those infamous “bear experts” say that bears won’t bother people unless people bother them, or that the animal is sick or wounded, or we mess with their young. According to the report, the women, while in the woods were doing what officials had taught them to do. In addition there doesn’t seem to be any outward signs of anything wrong with the bear.

The bear’s behaviour caused department staff much concern because the women made noise when they walked into the woods. That is supposed to make any nearby bear move away to avoid human interaction.

But this doesn’t match all that advise about how to be safe.

Even when they backed away from it and yelled when it kept coming too close, the bear continued to advance on them.

The girls managed to get into the cabin, but the animal circled it for close to an hour trying to get inside, even reaching through the window the women broke to climb through. The women pushed a couch up against the window to try to keep the bear outside.

And yet officials repeat and media copies and pastes how rare it is for bears to bother humans. Remember, they are more afraid of you than you are of them. This is “unexplained” behavior with no attempt to explain the bears behavior and to alter talking points about bear behavior.

“It’s an unnerving situation, no question about it,” admitted Boudreau. “That’s not normal behaviour, when you look at all the encounters and dealings that we have on a provincewide scale.”

And therein lies some of the rub. It’s not “normal” behavior when you consider all the bears and the few reported cases of bear attacks. Automobile accidents are rare, when you consider the millions of drivers and driving hours nationwide but do we tell people they are rare? So why keep repeating the mantra that bears are more afraid or of the rarity when it would be just as easy to explain that under circumstances, some of which we have no clue about, all wild animals will do unpredictable things; like chase two women through the woods for over an hour or drag a kid out of a tent, etc.

I got my biggest chuckle out of the comment from the Maine bear biologist who said in reference to how bears won’t bother you unless you are blocking their escape route and gives the following example:

“A good example is if you find a bear in your garage and you’re blocking the door.”

This should have been a teachable moment explaining what the hell a bear would be doing in your garage to begin with. If it’s so rare that bears bother people and they’re more afraid of us, what are they doing in our garages that we need to be concerned about whether we are blocking their escape route? And why use that as an example of why a bear would attack?

It’s simple really. Instead of always having the programmed need to protect the bear or wolf or whatever the wild animal is, declaring it to be something always cute and cuddly, why not explain to people the conditions that can exist that increases the changes of encountering a bear?

Officials talk of the abundance of natural food bears gorge on. What happens with bears if that natural food is scare? What happens to bear behavior when there’s too many bears that can be fed with all that natural food? What happens to bear behavior when there too many bears AND not enough natural food? What happens to bear behavior when people intentionally and unintentionally feed bears? And how do you explain how brilliant we think we are, when bears and other animals do things we can’t explain? What do you tell two women, who went into the woods and did just as they were told to do and were attacked by a bear anyway?

I guess we just write another news article and repeat the same old, worn out talking points: bear encounters are rare, they’re more afraid, bears are shy, and above all else, make sure you make noise to scare the bears away and if they don’t run away, look big, make more noise and wave your arms…..before the bear makes lunch out of them.

bearbehavior

Share

Is Creating Scarcity by Over Protecting Wild Carnivores Ethical?

beareatspeta*Editor’s Note* – This information first appeared on Candid Conservatives.

Hosea 4:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

AND THIS HIPPIE IS HELPING FULFILL BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE WITH HIS SCIENTISM;

*Editor’s Comment* – Isn’t arguing that eating meat involves some sort of “sacrifice” ridiculous when honesty reveals that eating, nay, living on this planet requires many levels of sacrifice? Evolution promotes fear of lost resources while God promises to take care of those who love him. You choose.

Share

The Environmentalist

Thomas Sowell wrote: “People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities.” He also said that one of the problems with education today is that what our educational institutions were created for, “to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them….”, have become indoctrination factories in order to promote, “whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today’s intelligentsia.”

Education is a good thing. It’s what we do with it and how we use it that makes us the individuals that we are. Indoctrination is not a good thing. It doesn’t allow a person to think and reason, thus making them lacking in common sense or the ability to decipher fact from faction, even when it is staring them in the face.

Bill Cosby, arguably one of the best comedians ever with the uncanny ability to turn real life, everyday events into gut busting humor, once did a sketch about using cocaine. He was explaining about cocaine and the effects it had on humans. When he asked why someone did coke, the reply was, “Because it enhances a person’s personality.” Cosby’s sharp retort was, “What if you’re an asshole?”

Does education do the same thing?

If what you start with is the south end of a north bound rhinoceros, then supplement it with education you just might end up dealing with a very large rhino with a bad case of hemorrhoids. Somewhere along the line people have come up with the outlandish notion that education makes you a better person and worse, better than others. A ski coach I had in high school, who remains a very dear friend, once told me you can’t make a good tossed salad if the only thing you have is lettuce. Educating a head of lettuce still will not give you a good tossed salad.

America has reached a point it seems that much of Urban America is at odds with Suburban America. I’m no psychologist so this is where the “educated” can exit the page because I might say things that aren’t found in one of their books.

An example of what I am referring to is the demand of city dwellers that country folk learn to live with wolves and/or other large predators. The mindset, perhaps enhanced through indoctrination, too often shows us that Ms. Greedy Greenie thinks it’s only right that Shane Shatkicker suffer financial losses, risk of personal injury and loss of private property due to government-sponsored wolf and predator protection. If this is so, then in reciprocity it should be equal comeuppance that Ms. Greedy Greenie learn to live with 60 or 70 truck loads of manure each year dumped on her front steps that’s laced with echinococcus granulosus tapeworms, the result of her cute and cuddly wolf.

If only it were that simple. It’s not really. You see there’s a certain breed of people that thinks as Ms. Greedy Greenie might and if we can better understand what makes her tick, well, we can at least have fun with it because understanding it isn’t going to cause Ms. Greenie to have an epiphany and start shooting and eating wolves.

For sake of this diatribe, I shall refer to all those who want to control my life as an environmentalist. It’s kind of a catch-all word. The only real defining characteristic of the environmentalist is the degree to which they are mired in their radicalism. Some got it so bad they flog themselves believing that trees are in pain. They want to be one with the tree. I got news for them. They didn’t need to flog themselves. Trees are stupid and so is this kind of radical environmentalist.

There are however, the soft core environmentalist. These are, more than likely, the same ones who used to or still do attend National Training Laboratory’s human interaction workshops. This is where you “get in touch with yourself” by touching and feeling the other person’s body. Advanced classes cover such deep subjects that go to the heart and soul of a human. They ask them questions like, “If you were an animal, what kind would you be?” The ultimate therapeutic pinnacle is to achieve complete warm and fuzzy semi-consciousness.

Of course the overwhelming majority of those able to become an environmentalist have done so through educational cultivation. Although still in the data retrieving stages, some scientists believe that there is a direct correlation to the degree in which an environmentalist becomes radicalized and the depth of their education/indoctrination.

History has taught us that the environmentalist is compelled from birth to play out a dual role as the preservationist and the reformer. It is not understood if this is genetics or due to the kind of music the fetus was subjected too while in the womb. Before we can understand the roles of preservationist and reformer, it should be explained that the environmentalists see themselves as the center of everything that is morally right. It actually goes beyond that to them believing that they are the center of the universe. I would never say this to an environmentalist’s face for fear of the demonizing I would receive because I couldn’t produce an academic study to support my claims but I kind of see them as the eye of a category five hurricane. Only they never leave the eye and cannot see the destruction going on around them.

One day an environmentalist wakes up and decides, unknowingly, not to take a shower. Whatever has happened to them they are unable to waste this precious resource. Soon it carries over to every aspect of their life, including thoughts of sterilization so as not to pollute the world with more children. As you might have guessed, there are upsides to environmentalism.

After coming to grips with the fact they are no longer human in this aspect, their quest becomes the total reformation of the planet. We all HAVE to think and eat and live as does the environmentalist.

Being the eye of the hurricane, the environmentalist has to be in control. Feelings are important, especially feeling good. Remember the warm and fuzzy semi-consciousness? I’m referring only to the selfish need of feeling good. If that comes at the cost of another person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it won’t matter because the environmentalist believes themselves to be a Moirai.

What puzzles me however is that we know that environmentalists are self-centered and yet their world is a dichotomy of two quintessences – anthropocentricism and biocentricism. Anthropocentric thinking puts man managing our wildlife, our ecosystems and the environment around us. Biocentric thinking believes if left up to “nature” everything becomes another verse of Kumbaya. Being that an environmentalist is on the edge of the universe in all things, one would think they would simply have to control the environment directly. Not so! They want to let Mother Nature do it……….well, sort of. The secret is some believe they can control Mother Nature and others think they are Mother Nature. Odd isn’t it?

The environmentalist is the only one capable of setting all moral standards. You might think you have some morals of your own but trust me, they suck! Morally you, my friend, are no better than a rock, no smarter than a pig and have no more right to use your back yard to plant a garden than a herd of wild pigs just looking for a meal and a chance to be free. Why can’t I get Kumbaya out of my head?

That sage brush that infiltrates the lowlands of Idaho? Sorry, my friend. The environmentalist says you have no more rights than a pile of brush. You cannot bother the plants and animals because they have rights. I always figured if anything can sit down to my kitchen table and drink coffee, smoke a cigarette, fart and talk about football, they have rights.

The environmentalist must preserve everything. If they fail on their mission they simply cannot afford to pay their therapist bill to repair the psychological damage. Yes, preservation is of the utmost and to achieve that we must have diversity. Without diversity there is no stability and if we lose our stability there is nothing left for the children. The poor suffering children will be left with nothing. Cry me a river!

Diversity is often achieved through importation of species. To argue a species is not native is an effort in futility because the environmentalist, if not a “scientist” themselves, knows some that can create subspecies and all sorts of other goodies that all make wonderful sense to the minions of the environmental world.

The twisted thinking of the environmentalist leads them to conjecture that diversity is good, more diversity is better and the most diversity is the best because it makes our ecosystems, which aren’t really a system at all, stable. It’s kind of like reaching a climax where perceived stability achieves crescendo then we graduate from Kumbaya to a few verses of “The Greatest Love of All”. Unfortunately, Michael Jackson is dead.

To actualize diversity, stability, protection of animal’s and plant’s rights and to preserve for our children, may actually require the reduction of the human population. Nothing is beyond the realm of the environmentalist who is in it to win it. We could build one giant city the size of Texas and Oklahoma and move the entire world’s population there, leaving the rest of the world uninhabited but that wouldn’t be enough.

Referring back to the pending study about whether level of education is in direct proportion to the depth of environmental radicalism, if you are fortunate to be a biologist and an environmentalist, then you are the only one qualified to decide who lives and who dies. I think it was Daniel Janzen who once wrote that biologists were the only ones qualified to decide how anyone should use their land and who or what can live on it. Let’s get this straight because this confuses me. The seventh day God rested. So, it must have been somewhere around the 5th or 6th day that God got really tired. He created a biologist and told him he could create the landscape and decide things like where to put a lake, an ocean, a mountain and whether or not polar bears lived on ice or the jungle. Cool! The biologist must have been responsible for Algore. Or maybe I’m thinking engineer?

If you are a PhD, weeeellllllll! If you are a PhD environmentalist then you have told God to get out of your seat. Not only have you knighted the lowly one-degreed biologist to prop up Algore, a PhD scientist determines who is smart and who isn’t. This goes hand in hand with right and wrong, fact and fiction.

The PhD is all knowing and makes no mistakes. What they believe is truth. All other thoughts are wrong. Because of their indoctrination as an environmentalist, they lack common sense and actually believe tofu is one of the food groups.

But here’s the thing that environmentalists have done and they must be like really smart or something to do this. Environmentalists don’t have to live out in the country where they control the lives of those who do and make a mess of everything. It’s kind of like an out of sight, out of mind kind of thing. This makes it much easier to fight off any thoughts that the people losing the livestock to wolves are actually real people.

They don’t want anything to do with it actually. Some of what they do, insisting on a preserved wilderness and a natural ecosystem, is because they’ve destroyed the one they live in now. They are riddled with guilt. It’s much better to create this nirvana of pristine wilderness in their minds and it eases all the pain. Somehow it will make up for it all. It’s really much the same as an alcoholic. “There stands the glass that will ease all my pain!” (Webb Pierce, 1950)

The environmentalist has been indoctrinated to live in parallel existences. Their everyday existence enjoys the benefits of a cutthroat lifestyle that provides them money (for their lawsuits) and everything else they should be shameful for, while at the same time can lay claim to owning a pristine wilderness, at the expense of other human beings. If the environmentalist so chooses, they jump in their SUV, drive 8-10 hours and do a quick drive through their favorite park and rush home and tell everyone how great they are and fortunate that they care enough to have such things. There’s more warm and fuzzy feelings had they stayed home and watched reruns of Barney on Sesame Street.

It’s very much like owning a dog. No, really! Remember when chihuahuas were cool? Everyone ran out and bought one for status. Then there were golden retrievers, Newfoundlands, wolf hybrids, etc. Got to have one to look cool but toss it away when the fad is over.

Right now the environmentalist thinks it pretty cool to destroy the lives of others so they can have a “backyard” they can call theirs to play in. And they can do that because they are educated. They once began as assholes, tried a little of that cocaine fix- education – and enhanced what they started out with.

We are all born ignorant but not stupid. What makes us stupid is what we do with the education we have. I can’t help if you are nothing but lettuce.

Share