September 20, 2020

Maine Prostitutes Itself for Federal Extortion “Grant” Money

MDIFWBelow is a copy of the press release sent out by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) announcing the compilation of a Draft Wildlife Action Plan, while encouraging people to comment on it over the next 30 days. At the conclusion of the press release, I will offer commentary.

Draft of State Wildlife Action Plan Available For Public Comment

AUGUSTA, Maine – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in conjunction with a broad spectrum of partner organizations, has created a draft state wildlife action plan that is now posted on the department’s website and open for public comment.

Maine’s 2015 Wildlife Action Plan identifies practical and voluntary opportunities to conserve Maine’s most vulnerable fish and wildlife, while emphasizing that landowner and public participation is essential for wildlife conservation. Yesterday, July 13 marked the beginning of a 30-day opportunity for Maine citizens to review the action plan and provide comment. You can view the document at

The draft is a collaboration of IFW and 102 conservation partners — representatives from federal, state, local, tribal, and public organizations – who over the past 18 months have identified species and habitats in the greatest need of conservation, the factors negatively impacting these species and their habitats, and potential conservation opportunities that citizens, partner organizations, and agencies could undertake to address these issues.

The partners completed their review in June, and based upon their feedback, IFW, with state agency partners prepared the first draft of the action plan, which will help guide the conservation of rare and vulnerable fish and wildlife from 2015 – 2025.

States must have an approved Wildlife Action Plan to be eligible to participate in the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS approved Maine’s initial Wildlife Action Plan in the summer of 2005. Since then, Maine has accomplished over 50 research, management, and conservation projects, benefitting brook trout, rare freshwater mussels, dragonflies, migrant birds such as Bicknell’s Thrush and Black-throated blue Warbler, and globally rare species, such as the Tomah mayfly. Puffins, wood turtles, Atlantic sturgeon, little brown bats and bumble bees are also recognizable species that have benefitted from Maine’s Wildlife Action Plan. IFW must submit the updated action plan to the USFWS by October 2015 for Maine to remain eligible for SWG funds.

Maine’s 2015 Wildlife Action plan is not solely a plan for IFW; rather, it is a cooperative fish and wildlife conservation strategy for the entire state and all Maine’s citizens and visitors. IFW encourages the public to review the 2015 action plan. Comments and suggestions from citizens will ensure that it reflects the values and priorities of Maine’s people.


The U.S. Congress requires any state that would like to participate in receiving tax dollars as part of their Wildlife Grant Program, to create a Wildlife Action Plan. This requirement amounts to nothing more than extortion money that forces states, with the greed to not be able to resist MONEY, to comply with the direction in which the dictatorial U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/U.S. Government, wants to go with its management of wildlife nationwide. When states opt for the pimp money, they essentially agree to become useful idiots of the Federal Government and forego what might be best for their state.

As you will also notice in the above press release, no explanation is given about how the Federal filthy money is allocated. From the USFWS website: “Grants funds are disbursed to States for approved grants at a maximum federal share of 75% for Planning grants and 65% for Implementation grants.”

This means Maine, or any other participating state, must come up with matching dollars in order to take the bait and willfully participate in the extortion ring. Maine, therefore, must come up with matching dollars. This can be done in a few ways but some of that money comes from hunters and fishermen who buy licenses.

The State Wildlife Grants Program provides federal grant funds for developing and implementing programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted or fished. Priority is placed on projects that benefit species of greatest conservation need.

Grant funds must be used to address conservation needs such as research, surveys, species and habitat management, and monitoring, identified within a State’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan/Strategy. These funds may also be used to update, revise, or modify a State’s Strategy.

Maine has a bragging page on their website about all the projects they have done through the Wildlife Grant Program’s money. None of these projects benefit game species and most of them actually limit and restrict hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities to those who directly foot part of the bill for matching money.

The money spent on Canada lynx is a great example. In the grand scheme of things, trapping in Maine has, for the most part, been seriously limited due to the over-protection of the lynx, which is not a “threatened” or “endangered” species. Our own money is being used to stop trapping by propping up a fake environmental program.

The projects that get the attention of the extortion, dirty money are all environmentalist (spelled anti hunting, trapping and fishing) projects. This is, of course, part of the agenda of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – to end hunting, trapping and fishing and fully implement non consumptive use of wildlife and all natural resources.

As we have seen over the years, groups like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, have managed to steal Pittman-Robertson and Johnson-Dinghal monies to implement programs that work AGAINST the perpetuation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. In other words, our own money is being used to destroy hunting, trapping and fishing.

It’s all about the money though. FREE MONEY is what people believe. During this time of Maine, and other states, drafting their prostitution plans, most believe this program to be a good thing, not realizing the long-term effects it has on traditional Maine hunting, trapping and fishing. And still, hunters, trappers and fishermen support the program and fully participate in it believing it’s all good.

For myself, I don’t like my money being used to support Environmentalism that is used against my enjoyment of hunting and fishing. You shouldn’t either.



Preventing Fascist Rule

FascismThere exists at least two intellectual concepts about the United States Constitution. One is that the charter was crafted for the Rulers, the Posterity, in order to protect themselves and their Interests for the future. The more popular approach, as it was taught us, has always been, right or wrong, that the Constitution was written for the people (small “p”), a government of the people and by the people.

Regardless of which way one opts to regard this document, history tells us that for more than two centuries, man has been taught that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was their guarantee against tyrannical rule, assurance for small government and in support of a man’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since the beginning, powers have been systematically dismantling those teachings and bringing about a form of fascist rule, the end result showing deliberate signs of totalitarian socialism.

We live in and attempt to operate our day to day within a rigged system. Power brokers are operating at frantic speed to steal from you and me our rights, or as the case may be, our perceived rights – what we have been taught from birth.

What should be obvious to most, is how issues discussed and presented for discussion, have changed. This is not happenstance, but deliberate manipulation of the citizenry to achieve necessary (to the Global Power Structure) rule, and thus control, mostly by regulation.

It begins with “Change Agents,” those trained by totalitarian socialists, who devise new ways in which long-standing culture, heritage and rights, even self-evident, God-given rights, are viewed and discussed. Void of any honest scientific research, and/or Biblical Truth, the new paradigms are often referred to as “post-normal” or “post scientific.” The talking points driving this form of fascist rule are based upon the belief that you and I are incapable of making the best decisions for ourselves, and that of what is known as “precautionary principle” – the act of regulation based on the belief that some act might cause public harm. This tactic has worked well over the years. One such instance is by invoking the Commerce Clause. Witness the destruction of the intent of the Endangered Species Act by implementation of the Commerce Clause. This act, as that of precautionary principle, paves the way for illegal “takings” by regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency practices the same fascist rule.

A great example of illegal takings by regulation is the gray wolf, where landowners and livestock growers, among others, are hamstrung by regulation, driven by both a hijacked Endangered Species Act and the precautionary principle, which is propped up through fake, or post-normal, science – outcome based within a rigged system. The effort results in loss of private property rights and illegal takings by the state and federal governments. Note here that all of this would be most difficult to achieve if not for the “useful idiots” who, blindly, seek their own slavery and ultimate destruction.

A late example is now being played out in the form of a Water Compact in Montana between the parties of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), the State of Montana and the U.S. Federal Government. If the U.S. Congress passes this compact, it effectively places the power and control of water in the lap of the federal government. Not only does this action cause an ever increasing government overreach of power, but also results in loss of property rights along with illegal takings, among other events.

The Fifth Amendment states that: “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because we operate within a rigged system, this compensation clause has little definitive meaning. We think President Ronald Reagan helped us out with Executive Order 12630 by better defining and placing guidelines on decisions concerning private property takings. Reagan stated that: “Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights.” Upon further examination of EO 12630, we discover so much legalese and gray areas, how can a citizen rely upon the compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment as some means of protecting their private property? Power brokers, i.e. politicians and government agencies, controlled by higher powers, use this method to gain control over people and their property. This is their well-designed goal.

In an article published by the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, of which attorney Lawrence Kogan is heavily involved, says that American citizens’, “…exclusive tangible and intangible private property, and by extension, their guaranteed constitutional rights, are slowly being eroded, controlled, diminished in value, restricted in use and converted into public property.”

We can debate the actual ownership of property, but as taxpayers we should be entitled to certain rights, one of which is a reasonable guarantee that any government cannot simply run roughshod over a property tax payer for something that government deems in the best interest of all. The educating of Americans has told us that government cannot “take” our property without just compensation and yet only the courts can decide when it is proper to do that. What kind of right is that?

Whether we are discussing the forcing of large predator wolves into human-occupied landscapes, including gray wolves of the Northern Rockies, red wolves of the Southeast, Mexican wolves of the southwest, Delta smelts, Canada lynx, desert turtles, climate change, sustainable development and more, the only real hope citizens have is to loudly push back against this kind of tyrannical, fascist rule.

While Americans sit idly by, Policy rules the day. The Constitution is but a moment in history. Executive action, combined with Court-recognized implementation of Policy, has led us into slavery. If by only the threat to a politician or a group of such crooked lawmakers, the loss of your vote for their future gravy train and golden parachute, appears the only presage to a cushy future, the active opposition to continued fascist rule must be undertaken.

For our future, we cannot allow government to control every aspect of our lives.


Having Received Their Money, Wolf Prostitutes Want Fame and Recognition for Wolf Delisting

FriendlyWolfToo little too late in my opinion. I am disgusted by it actually. Where were these “professionals” back when the fake recovery goals, established in the Environmental Impact Statement and Wolf Recovery Plan, were laid out and met? It is pretty damned easy, some 20-plus years after the fact, when wolves have done and are doing their destruction, and numbers are as much as ten times greater than Ed Bangs had determined would be considered a recovered number of wolves, to sign your name to a document stating the support to “delist” the gray wolf.

Now that their monies are running out and they have their wolves everywhere they want them, it’s much easier to be brave and courageous and step up to the plate stating wolves no longer need to be listed.

Or maybe this is a case where they see the dangers coming about for which they should be held responsible. They pushed for and got, and then remained silent about recovered wolf species while the rest of us worked our collective posteriors off to counter their corrupt efforts of forcing wolves into human-settled landscapes and everything bad that can come of it.

They were still supportive of, gutless, and still in need of more money, when it took an act of Congress to get wolves delisted in Idaho and Montana. Evidently they didn’t think, at that time, that something more permanent should be done about wolf recovery. No, their personal agendas were not yet filled.

Now that they see Congress pushing for a similar bill as before, to get wolves delisted in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming, AND to make sure the Courts have, no more authority over wolf delisting, these cowards are running scared, and fearing their next pet project might not be so much fun at taxpayer’s expense.

Oh, yes, the letter states how they fear that continued protection for wolves MIGHT cast negative feelings about wolves and the ESA. Again, why was this not a concern many years ago to these clowns? They lied to us and then remained silent. Now they want something done and to take credit for it; a tactic often employed by progressive totalitarians employing the useful idiots to promote agendas.

Perhaps the basis of this letter is a reflection of their fear that their power might be taken away from them by the creation of federal laws that effectively bypass the ESA and ban the courts from having a say.

I find it all disgusting. In my opinion it would be wrong to support this letter, even though it might be helpful in accomplishing the delisting of wolves. It still does NOTHING toward the ultimate cure and continues to support corruption.

Yes, I am bitter and I feel that I am justified in those feelings. I am not a part of, nor would I ever want to be, this post-normal scientific community climbing on board by signing this letter.

I cannot and probably will not, get beyond my anger for what has been done. To acknowledge these people’s effort at signing a piece of paper, when everything is safe and secure for them AND THEY HAVE ALL GOTTEN WHAT THEY NEED FROM WOLF RECOVERY, would be a travesty.

I have spent many years fighting against the corruption of wolf introduction and I will not quietly allow these people to now step up and claim themselves to be the saviors of wolf management.

In reality, they should be ashamed to sign their name to this, nor allowed to do so.

An open letter from wolf experts and other wildlife management professionals supporting delisting gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan

The undersigned wildlife management professionals and scientists agree with Dr. Dave Mech, Dr. Steven Fritts, Adrian Wydeven, Dr. Tom Heberlein, Ed Bangs, Dr. Lu Carbyn, Dr. Jim Peek, Dr. Paul Krausman, Dr. Mark Boyce, and Dr. Bob Ream that gray wolves (Canis lupus) should not now be listed by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan (western Great Lakes states). This is consistent with the position of The Wildlife Society1. For at least a decade, wolf populations have recovered in these states to the point where continued listing under the ESA is no longer necessary or beneficial to future wolf conservation2.

The ESA is the world’s most effective legislation to halt the slide of threatened and endangered species into extinction. In broad terms, there are 3 main components to the ESA:
1. Identifying species at risk of extinction and providing federal protections for these species (“listing”);
2. Creating and implementing plans to reverse declines and identifying targets for when ESA protections can be removed and species returned to management by the states (“recovery”); and
3. Removing listed species once identified recovery targets have been achieved (“delisting”).

Steps 1 and 2 have worked well for many species but step 3 has become nearly impossible to achieve for wide-ranging or high profile species like gray wolves. Four efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and its cooperators to delist or down-list gray wolves in the western Great Lakes states have been foiled or reversed by litigation typically based on legal technicalities rather than biology. For those of us who have worked on and supported wolf and wildlife conservation issues for many years, it is ironic and discouraging that wolf delisting has not occurred in the portions of the Midwest where biological success has been achieved as a consequence of four decades of dedicated science-based work by wildlife management professionals. This success has been well documented in “Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story” (A. Wydeven, T. van Deelen, and E. Heske, eds. 2009, Springer) and in many other professional publications.

The efforts by Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan and their cooperators including the USFWS, other federal agencies, tribal governments, and some non-governmental conservation groups have succeeded in accomplishing wolf recovery that has greatly exceeded recovery criteria in recovery plans3. In 1974 when wolves were originally protected south of Canada, only about 750 wolves occurred in northeastern Minnesota. Today, wolves are found throughout northern portions of Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin with a midwinter (2014) count of >3,700. There are few, if any, areas in these or surrounding states where wolves could live on natural prey without exceeding socially tolerable levels of depredation on livestock and pets. We believe that failure to delist in the face of this kind of cooperative effort and biological success is detrimental to ecologically sound management and to continued progress in wolf recovery and management efforts in these states and elsewhere.

The USFWS has determined that adequate regulatory mechanisms for wolf management are in place in the western Great Lakes states. We believe it is highly unlikely that these states will allow their wolf populations to decline to the point where wolves are again threatened or endangered4. All 3 states have set minimum population goals that are much higher than the levels established for delisting in recovery plans and the USFWS has established post-delisting monitoring criteria for the states to follow. In the unlikely event that management efforts in these states prove to be inadequate, the proper and legally mandated course of action would be to relist the species. It is counterproductive to keep wolves as listed under the ESA because of speculation that the western Great Lakes states will not appropriately manage wolves and sustain their recovered status. There is no scientific evidence that wolf harvest systems established in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan have or would reduce wolves’ ecological benefits in the areas where wolves have recovered. Neither is there scientific evidence that regulatory systems in the western Great Lakes states have or would reduce the dispersal ability of wolves5 or that the harvests that occurred during the period between delisting and the 2014 court-ordered relisting were not sustainable and consistent with maintaining recovered status.

The undersigned strongly believe that it is in the best interests of gray wolf conservation and for the integrity of the ESA for wolves to be delisted in the western Great Lakes states where biological recovery has occurred and where adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to manage the species. We believe that failure to delist wolves in these states is counterproductive to wolf conservation there and elsewhere where suitable habitat may exist. The integrity and effectiveness of the ESA is undercut if delisting does not happen once science-based recovery has been achieved. When this happens, it creates disincentives for the states to continue to be active participants in recovery efforts and creates public resentments toward the species and the ESA. It is important to the overall ESA goal of maintaining biodiversity to focus available funds on species that are truly threatened or endangered.

The signers and endorsers of this letter listed below include biologists with over 900 years of experience as wildlife academics, researchers, and managers; those of us who have worked directly on wolves have published over 31 books and monographs on wolves as well as hundreds of scientific articles on this species.


L. David Mech Ph.D., Hon. Dr. Ag.
University of Minnesota
Books: The Wolves of Isle Royale, National Parks Fauna Series No. 7 (1966); The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species, Natural History Press (Doubleday Publishing Co. (1970); The Arctic Wolf: Living with the Pack, Voyageur Press (1988); The Way of the Wolf, Voyageur Press (1991), Wolves of the High Arctic, Voyageur Press (1992); The Arctic Wolf: Ten Years with the Pack, Voyageur Press (1997); The Wolves of Denali, University of Minnesota Press (1998 with L. Adams, T. Meier, J. Burch,and B. Dale); The Wolves of Minnesota: Howl in the Heartland. Voyageur Press (2000, editor); Wolves, Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation (2003, co-editor with L. Boitani); Wolf Hunting Behavior: The Behavior of Wolves Hunting Wild Prey, University of Chicago Press (2015 with D. Smith and D. MacNulty).
Monographs: Ecological studies of the timber wolf in northeastern Minnesota. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-52 (1971 coauthor with L. Frenzel); Deer social organization and wolf depredation in northeastern Minnesota, Wildlife Monographs (1981 coauthor with M. Nelson); Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota, Wildlife Monographs No. 80 (1981 co-author with D. Fritts); Elk calf survival and mortality following wolf restoration to Yellowstone National Park, Wildlife Monographs (2008 coauthor with S. Barber-Meyer and P.J. White).

Adrian P. Wydeven MS
Cable, WI.
WI DNR wildlife biologist (ret.), state wolf manager 1990-2013
Co-editor (with T. van Deelen, and E. Heske) Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States: An Endangered Species Success Story” (2009 Springer)
Certified Wildlife Biologist (TWS)

Steven H. Fritts Ph.D.
Wesley, Arkansas
US Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Research Biologist (ret.)
Wildlife Professor University of Montana and University of Idaho (affiliate, retired)
Books and Monographs: Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly-protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota, Wildl. Monogr. (1981 with D. Mech); Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Res. Publ. 145, (1982); Wolves for Yellowstone? A Report to the United States Congress Volume II, Research and Analysis (1990, USFWS team member and co-author/editor); Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota, U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. 181 (1992 with W. Paul, D. Mech, and D. Scott); Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world, Canadian Circumpolar Inst., (1995 with L. Carbyn, S. Fritts, and D. Seip, eds).

Tom Heberlein Ph.D.
Madison, Wisconsin
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Community and Environmental Sociology
Author: Navigating Environmental Attitudes (2012, Oxford)

Lu Carbyn Ph.D.
Edmonton, Alberta
Emeritus Professor University of Alberta, Dept. Renewable Resources, Endangered Species and Ecosystem Studies
Research scientist Federal Dept. Environment, Science and Technology Division, Ottawa
Books and Monographs: Wolves in Canada and Alaska: Their status biology and management, CWS report series #45 (1983); Traditional knowledge and Renewable Resource Management in Northern Regions, Boreal Inst. Occ. Pub. # 23 (1988 with M. Freeman); Ecology and Conservation of wolves in a changing world, Canadian Circumpolar Institute #35 (1995 with S. Fritts and D. Seip); Wolves, bison. and the dynamics related to the Peace-Athabasca Delta in Canada’s Wood Buffalo National Park (1993 with S. Oosenbrug and D. Anions); Wolves: an annotated bibliography, Northern Reference Series No. 6. Canadian Circumpolar Institute (1998 with E. McClaren and E. Maloney); The Buffalo Wolf – Predators, Prey and the Politics of Nature. Smithsonian Institution (2003).

Ed Bangs MS
Helena, Montana
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Wolf Recovery Coordinator (ret.)

Jim Peek Ph.D.
Moscow, ID
Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho
Department of Fish & Wildlife Science
University of Idaho
Panel Chair and first author: Management of Large Mammalian Carnivores in North America, The Wildlife Society Technical Review (2012).

Paul Krausman Ph.D.
Missoula, MT
Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana Professor Emeritus, University of Arizona
Past President of The Wildlife Society
Editor, TWS/JHUP Wildlife Book Series
Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Wildlife Management starting July 2015.
Certified Wildlife Biologist, TWS
Monograph: Ecology of wolves in relations to a migratory caribou herd in Northwest Alaska. (1997, Wildlife Monographs with W. Ballard)

Mark S. Boyce, Ph.D.
Edmonton, Alberta
Professor of Ecology and Alberta Conservation Assoc. Chair in Fisheries and Wildlife
Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton
Formerly: Vallier Chair in Ecology, and Wisconsin Distinguished Professor at University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
Certified Wildlife Biologist, TWS
Monographs (wolf-related): Cumulative effects of human developments on Arctic wildlife, Wildlife Monographs (2005 with J. Johnson, R. Chase, H. Cluff, R. Gau, A. Gunn, and R. Mulders).
Gary Roloff Ph.D.
Mason, Michigan
Assoc. Professor Michigan State Univ.

John G. Bruggink Ph.D.
Marquette, Michigan
Northern Michigan University, Professor Biology

Bob Ream Ph.D.
Helena, MT.
Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation
Former Chair, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission (2009-2013)
Director, Wolf Ecology Project, Univ. of Montana (1973-1993)

C. Charles Schwartz Ph.D.
Bozeman, Montana
Montana State University (Adjunct, ret.)
Yellowstone Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Leader (ret.)
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game Research Biologist (ret.)
Certified Wildlife Biologist

Sterling D. Miller Ph.D
Lolo, Montana
Univ. of Montana and Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks (affiliate)
National Wildlife Federation Senior Wildlife Biologist (ret.)
Alaska Dept. Fish and Game Large Carnivore Research Biologist (ret.)
Certified Wildlife Biologist (TWS)

Hank Fischer MS
Missoula, Montana
Special Projects Coordinator, National Wildlife Federation
Book: Wolf Wars: The remarkable inside Story of the Restoration of Wolves to Yellowstone. (1995, 2003)

L. Jack Lyon Ph.D.
Missoula, Montana
Emeritus Prof. Wildlife, Univ. of Montana
Research Project Leader, Intermountain Research Station USFS (ret.)
Research Leader, Colorado Division Wildlife (ret.)

Gary L. Alt Ph.D.
Lagunitas, CA
Pennsylvania Game Commission, Leader Statewide Research and Management Program (deer and bear), (ret.)
Environmental Consultant, Principal Scientist (Normandeau Associates) (ret.)
Joseph Van Os Photo Safari Leader

Pat Brown Ph.D.
Professor, Northern Michigan Univ

Pat Valkenburg MS
Fairbanks, Alaska
Alaska Department Fish and Game, Division Wildlife Conservation, Research Biologist, Research Coordinator, Deputy Commissioner for Wildlife (ret.)
Wildlife Research and Management Consultant
Certified Wildlife Biologist

H. William Gabriel Ph.D.
Florence, Montana
USFS biologist (ret.)
UN-FAO biologist (ret.)
Univ. of Montana (affiliate, ret.)
US BLM (ret.)


Repeating Outcome-Based Post-Normal Science Doesn’t Make it True

CoyotesIn the June 2015 edition of Whitetail Journal, there’s an article about the affects coyotes are having on deer populations nationwide. Essentially the article is not very helpful to anyone wishing to know facts about predators and prey, their relationships, and all the things that effect those relationships. The article boldly states that, “The data shows…that [coyotes] don’t have major impacts on [deer] population levels.” That might be somewhat akin to saying that deep snows in Alaska don’t have major impacts on building snowmen in Florida.

It is impossible to draw conclusions, such as this, from a potpourri of studies from different regions under completely different circumstances, by agents seeking an outcome. While it might be useful to gain a basic understanding of how some coyotes, wolves, bobcats, etc. might act and react in their specific habitat, such actions do not necessarily trend into other zones by different predators, because everything is different and changes in ways not uniform across the entire nation.

Missing from the article was any discussion about how continued protection of predators, resulting in larger populations of the deer-killing varmints, would continue to negatively impact deer herds. Perhaps the author is a bit of a believer in “natural balance.” On the one hand the article states that, “…the impact of winter coyote predation is greater when deer are low, below five deer per square mile.” That is a fact. Possibly deer numbers were below 5 per square mile because coyotes reduced them to that level and kept them there. This is sometimes referred to as a “predator pit” – the result of Predator Mediated Competition. A predator pit occurs when there are more than one prey specie that predators can eat, otherwise, the coyote/wolf will move to another area where it can find prey. This will allow the prey species (deer) to somewhat recover before the next round of killing begins.

You will also read in this article that when deer populations are running as high as 55 deer per square mile, predator effects on deer seem low enough that managers can control the deer herd by limiting or increasing deer hunting permits. Is that acceptable?

But, don’t we all know this by now? If your favorite place to hunt has been or is overrun with predators resulting in 5 deer per square mile, then this is a problem at every level. Just because down in the Southeast, where there’s 50 or more deer per square mile, coyotes don’t seem to matter, this does little in understanding and taking the right positive steps to cure the problem.

Don’t forget! I’ve mentioned this often and will keep repeating it because it is proving to be quite a prophetic statement by Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary. He stated before the annual Southeast Deer Study Group in 1995, in reference to their complaints of too many deer, “Enjoy your problem while it lasts, because the coyote is coming. Once he’s here, you’ll miss your deer problems.”

The article states that predator control doesn’t work and one excuse given is because coyotes are transient – meaning that if they kill all their prey in one area, they will move to another area and eventually other, or the same, coyotes will return if prey begins to recover. This is nothing new. The author cites studies that prove in the first year after substantial numbers of coyotes were removed from one study area, deer numbers, in particular fawn recruitment, increased dramatically. Over the next two years the numbers didn’t grow so much. And this is what the conclusion that coyote control don’t work is based on? I would like to know what the author expected.

The author goes on to conclude that the only way coyote control – that is for the purpose of protecting and growing deer herds, can work is, “…keep at it all the time, month after month, year after year.”

Like the Geico commercial says, “Everybody knows that.” Don’t they? They should. Anybody that I have ever talked with, who has a good understanding of the need for predator control, knows that it must be an ongoing endeavor. Deer management must include predator control. Without it, the ONLY other option is loss of hunting opportunity and eventually loss of hunting altogether, when growing numbers of predators cause dwindling game populations to predator pit levels. Is that acceptable?

If not, then don’t settle for predator protection over hunting opportunity.

An additional note: Environmentalist are always trying to butter their bread on both side. They have, historically, repeated the mantra that hunters and trappers, using bounties, extirpated or nearly did so, wolves and coyotes. In the next breath, they will tell us that hunting, trapping and using bounties not only won’t have any effect on reducing coyote numbers but will cause the numbers to go up. Amazing brain power there at work.


Environmentalism Has No Faults

EnvironmentalismIf you could swallow back hard against the urge to regurgitate whatever is in your stomach at the time by reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor, you would discover that Environmentalism is the creator of the Nirvanic Land of Oz, while hunters are nothing but stupid killers.

Romantic notions of environmental insanity and Gaia worship, placed on a plane that exceeds even that of the Creator, beckons for uncontrolled outbursts of Kumbaya and maybe even a few lines from I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.

As should be expected from the camp of the environmentalists, they think the republicans in the Congress hate wildlife and are out to destroy the Endangered Species Act, while, in their robotic minds, Obama is removing more animals from the Endangered Species Act list than any human ever thought possible. Now we can better understand why wolves walk on water, change rivers and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

The Land of Oz has been saved….well, almost. Laws, more laws and even more laws, stripping of property rights and loss of jobs, homes, ranches, businesses, have all proven to be the savior of Toto’s happy playground…despite hunters. We did nothing. We do nothing. We kill and that’s all there is to it. We should just be lined up and shot. They shoot horses don’t they?

My favorite IDIOT line from this article says, “There are a lot of people out there, including deer hunters prowling…, who could’ve all taken a shot at one of these black bears, and they didn’t.” My God! It’s a miracle. Had it not been for environmental influences, those “prowling” hunters would have killed everything in sight – probably people too. How are we kept under control? Amazing.

Missing from the entire conversation in this article is discussion about the overall public perception of environmental mentalism, and that environmentalism is what is to blame for actions by Congress to get some semblance of sanity (if that’s at all possible from any government agency) back into Endangered Species Act administering. Environmentalism wants their cake and eat it too. They are cluelessly causing humans to suffer so they can continue their perverted animal worship, programmed into them from birth. It’s sick behavior, but they don’t know it. This behavior has gone on for so long now, unchecked and fully pushed by the Courts, that their greed has caused people like myself, to become so sick and tired of it all, that we are speaking up and demanding something be done to stop the runaway train.

Without the cooperation of the activist Courts, Congress is being forced to write laws exempting species from any control by the Endangered Species Act and the Courts. And yet, these non thinking, mental midgets, not only cannot see what they have done, they still blame hunters for killing everything. They fear Congressional actions will put wildlife management back 10, 20, 30 or more years, but fail miserably to grasp the results of a forced Congress exempting animals from the control of Environmentalism and the Courts, possibly causing the prohibition of helping that species in the future if trouble surfaces again.

Long before Totalitarian rule via Environmentalism, hunters became the conservationist. It was our work and our money that conserved and preserved wildlife. Environmentalism has changed the narrative of how wildlife management is discussed and now they are taking credit for what today they call their Land of Oz, DESPITE the continued allowance of hunting.


Force Word Changes, Force World Changes

ClimateDenierOh, this is nothing new, unless you have your head buried in the comfort of sand, pretending everything is good. It has been a tactic for many, many years and now that we have a White House occupied by a paradigm changer, i.e. someone who co-opts words in exchange for co-opting normalcy, the amount of and prevalence of the act is everywhere and more frequent. Just open your eyes to see… if you dare.

Here’s an example: Nearly a year ago, communists gathered in Oakland, California, testing ground for completing a communist takeover, to protest climate change and Capitalism. Their claims were that Capitalism is causing climate change. They demanded that, “We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.” Non thinkers believing that to end Capitalism, replacing it with Communism, will end Climate Change.

Although it is getting progressively easier to demand and get instant change on many issues, especially with unrestricted use of Executive Privilege, those seeking radical change find still enough resistance that they must resort to changing the way certain issues are discussed – climate change for example.

A year later and we discover that this forcing of word changes to force world change is in full swing and out in the open. Pressure is being put on a pliable and biased media to ban certain climate change terms and replace them with the words hand-selected by the fascist, climate change promoters.

One example is to ban the use of the term “climate change skeptic” and replace it with “climate change denier.” This, of course, works to help influence a non thinking public that man-caused global warming is the norm and denying it is due to a mental disorder.

We shouldn’t forget that in the 70s we were all going to freeze to death because of man-caused global cooling. That approach didn’t accomplish was the rulers wanted and so they switched gears and it became man-caused global warming. Now we are all going to drown.

The climate change fascists didn’t like the results of using their own term, “man-made global warming” and they forced the word change upon the masses and now everything is “climate change.” Climate change has always existed. It’s quite natural. However, when fascists co-opted a word or term and blitzed an ignorant citizenry, the term now denotes the product of evil men.

And now, censorship by the media, will continue to play a role in brainwashing the servants to believe that a skeptic, i.e. one who seeks truth, is bad and need to be labeled “deniers.” How long before that term is changed in order to further force world-wide changes?

It’s not just relegated to climate change. This tactic is everywhere. We have seen it with wildlife management. We’ve witnessed the tearing down of scientifically established institutions and replaced with romance notions, mostly accomplished through the changing of words and creating new meanings. This is known as “new knowledge.” We live in a post normal existence.

We know history repeats itself. How long before us climate change deniers will be jailed for publicly questioning theories?

Not long, I’m afraid.


The Upside-Down World That We Live In

DogPerversionIn another act of brilliance, a writer in the Bangor Daily News, still attempting to find a bear for a mate, made the following statement:

Let’s not forget that the bears of our state –if they belong to anyone other than themselves – belong to all of us, and the way they are treated is a powerful statement about the kind of people we are and the values we hold.

Who could argue such a statement? It’s true. The kind of people we really are is reflected in how we treat animals. However, my view of that statement and the guy’s who made it, couldn’t be any further apart from each other.

The author of this statement, in the context of his article, is saying that humans are bad because we hunt animals – in this case the subject is about bears and the way it is being done.

Progressivism has caused the world to turn topsy-turvey. Those of the progressive persuasion believe this to be a good thing. All they need do is convince themselves that what once was bad is now good. At least in this case, it is my opinion that it is not a good thing. The way that American’s treat animals has turned in a very perverse direction. The more humans are convinced, through propaganda and brainwashing, that animals are “just like humans” and have “rights,” the more extreme the perversion becomes.

If we wind our clocks back to the late 1700s, through historic accounts we can learn that while Thomas Jefferson lived and worked for the U.S. Government to find trading partners throughout much of Europe, he used, much like this author, the same principle that people could be judged by how they treated their animals. However, Jefferson believed, as did much of society then, that coddling animals as pets and thinking of them the same as humans, was a mark of poor character and he refused to do business with them. Today, people find such an act as atrocious. I applaud him.

But, to a progressive, what Jefferson did means absolutely nothing. To them the world must change to meet their growing perversion.

Hunting and gathering has been a part of existence since the beginning of time. Through the progression of time and mind manipulation, people have become convinced that it is acceptable to go to the market and buy a slab of steak, but it is wrong to harvest your own slab of steak through hunting.

Is this really the issue when one argues that animals are just like people, that they have rights? If that were true, then I don’t understand why there is opposition to taking the life of a bear, when probably many of the same people who spend their waking minutes protecting bears, see no problem with killing an unborn human. Is this not really more of a reflection of what kind of people we are than how we treat bears?

Turning one’s focus onto placing value on how we treat animals, only distracts from the reality of how we treat our fellow humans and the value of life that is placed on them. Murder, hatred, stealing, lying, drugs, alcohol, and all those things that once were considered terrible things, doesn’t seem to be a reflection on the “kind of people” we have become, yet, hunting wild animals and how we do it, is? This is sick human behavior, but not to the progressive.

Once man knew what was right and what was wrong. That has all changed now and in the statement highlighted above, it becomes clear that we are no longer using a moral compass to guide human behavior and set. Instead, we are now placing animals as equivalent in all aspects to humans in order to convince ourselves of our own worth and treating animals better than we are treating humans.

We all should be ashamed.


Cross-Fostering Wolves: When Bad Becomes Good

WolfPups2Below is a press release offered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. It actually baffles this tiny mind of mine. The press release is designed for the general public that knows nothing about wolf breeding programs, wolf introduction, etc. All the public knows is that there are either wolves or there aren’t wolves, i.e. they love or hate the idea.

There’s tons missing from this presser. For instance, it basically tells anyone (rarely anyone), who gets this release, that efforts are underway to increase the number and viability of wolves in the desert Southwest. They kind of side-step the process and completely fail to inform anybody about the genetics of raising mongrel dog/wolves in captivity so somebody can rush the little puppies out into the woods, sticking them in another wolf den, crossing their fingers, and hoping for the best.

I’ll spare readers of any rants about perversion and real government efforts to destroy the rights of humans. Consider, however, the hypocrisy that exists when it comes to wildlife management, even at its simplest levels.

The majority of those who support wolf/cross-bred mutt introduction, believe that wolves are some kind of magical, god-like creature that is so important for their long, sought-after balance of nature – a myth. These seriously misled and perverted wolf adorers, while thinking nothing of stooping to the severity of destroying an actual wolf subspecies at the hands of dumbing down DNA requirements for a pure wolf, raising cross-bred dogs as “wolves” and whisking the puppies away in hopes some unsuspecting bitch will raise them as pseudo “wild dogs” is beyond comprehension.

The envelope is being pushed in just how far man should go in wildlife management, and these wolf lovers support this action, but refuse to support any less radical management efforts to protect other species.

Does anybody find it odd and disturbing that history, through fact and folklore, never paints the image of a wolf in any light other than that of death, destruction and evil, and this modern American society, not only promotes that nasty wolves be forced into our back yards, be are now seeing the wolf as god-like – their answer to all that troubles them?

The Bible tells us that in the Last Days, events like this would happen; that down becomes up, that wrong becomes right, that dark becomes light, and, evidently, wolves become a savior.

Press Release from the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

For immediate release, May 4, 2015

Mexican wolf biologists remain vigilant for cross-fostering opportunity
Technique promises to improve genetics of wild population

PHOENIX — The Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) is observing from a distance the potential denning behavior of Mexican wolf packs in the wild looking for a cross-fostering opportunity. Cross-fostering is a technique to move very young pups from one litter into a different, similar-age wild litter with the hope that the receiving pack will raise them as their own. Cross-fostering is undertaken to introduce genetically-desirable pups into the litter of an experienced female and wild-proven pack.

Last year, two pups were successfully cross-fostered from a wild, but inexperienced female, into the den of the proven Dark Canyon pack in New Mexico – a first for the Mexican wolf recovery program. A key to cross-fostering is timing. Donor pups and the litter of a receiving female must be whelped within days of each other.
This year, that requires close coordination between captive rearing facilities in the binational Species Survival Plan rearing facilities and packs in the wild.

The IFT will be looking for opportunities to cross-foster wolf pups in the Apache National Forest between now and May 30. In particular the IFT will be trying to cross-foster wolves into the Bluestem and Maverick packs due to the packs’ proven ability to successfully rear pups.

The 2014 Mexican wolf population survey results announced in February showed a minimum of 109 wolves in the wild, up from 83 the previous year.

The reintroduction is a collaborative effort of the Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, and several participating counties in Arizona.


ESA Recovery Plans: Mandated, Needed, Necessary?

Lynx canadensis  Canada LynxI’ve been involved in business nearly my entire life. Most dealings with business have been in “micro” business and yet I learned decades ago that the ONLY way to be successful in business, or anything in life for that matter, was to have a plan.

Having said that, why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) not have a Recovery Plan for Canada lynx? As you will discover, this is just another example of why the Endangered Species Act needs to be either seriously amendment or ripped up and written all over again.

On March 3, 2000, the USFWS formally listed the Canada lynx as a “threatened” species in part or all of the following states: CO, ID, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NM, NY, OR, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY

Before I post that portion of the Endangered Species Act that spells out exactly, in a way where lawyers can have a field day with it, let me first say that a definite change to the ESA that is necessary is that NO species should be allowed to be listed in any category if it does not have a Recovery Plan with it – PERIOD.

[Sec. 4] (f)(1) RECOVERY PLANS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement plans (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as ‘‘recovery plans’’) for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to this section, unless he finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. The Secretary, in development and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable—

(A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity;

(B) incorporate in each plan—

(i) a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species;

(ii) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section, that the species be removed from the list; and

(iii) estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.

(2) The Secretary, in developing and implementing recovery plans, may procure the services of appropriate public and private agencies and institutions and other qualified persons. Recovery teams appointed pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

(3) The Secretary shall report every two years to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives on the status of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans for all species listed pursuant to this section and on
the status of all species for which such plans have been developed.

(4) The Secretary shall, prior to final approval of a new or revised recovery plan, provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment on such plan. The Secretary shall consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of the plan.

(5) Each Federal agency shall, prior to implementation of a new or revised recovery plan, consider all information presented during the public comment period under paragraph (4).

Sec. 4 (f)(1) states that the Secretary shall create and implement a recovery plan – well that is if he deems it necessary to protect and recover a species. The ESA must be a joke. Think about it for a minute. If a recovery plan was deemed not necessary for the protection and conservation of a species then why is it even listed to begin with? Either way, because the ESA was written for lawyers and not for the purpose of protecting and recovering endangered species, we now know that there doesn’t necessarily have to be a recovery plan.

However, early on in Section 4, 3(B) of the ESA, we know that the Secretary, must designate “critical habitat” at the same time any species is listed as “threatened” or “endangered.”

(3) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and determinable—

(A) shall, concurrently with making a determination under paragraph (1) that a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat; and

Fourteen years after the Canada lynx listing, a U.S. District Court in Montana ordered the USFWS to develop a timeline in which they are to create and implement a Recovery Plan for Canada lynx. That Court made the determination that the USFWS had no justifiable reason to not have a recovery plan. The ESA provides “flexibility” or deference, if you will, that allows the Secretary to not include critical habitat listing at the time of species listing but the Secretary must prove doing so would negatively affect the conservation of the Canada lynx. The Court said it couldn’t be proven.

According to the linked-to article just above, it states that according to the ESA there is no timeline to list critical habitat. I disagree. Above, the ESA clearly states that the Secretary: “Shall, concurrently with making a determination…that a species is an endangered or threatened species, designate any habitat…” Last time I checked, concurrently meant at the same time.

The USFWS also argues that it hasn’t been able to devise a Recovery Plan because of lawsuits involving the designation of critical habitat. If the law requires that critical habitat be designated at the same time that Canada lynx is listed as threatened, and no critical habitat has been designated, then why is the species listed as threatened? By law, it should have been delayed.

We also know that last January, the USFWS announced – and still without a plan – that it is going to be conducting a review to determine what to do about the Canada lynx listing, i.e. keep it as “threatened,” increase it to “endangered,” or remove the animal from the list altogether.

This is a very sad joke being perpetrated onto the American public. All of this reveals why the ESA doesn’t work. In the meantime, there is no plan for lynx recovery, there is no designated critical habitat in all areas and people are suffering economically because of an illegal protection with no plan to find an end.

Disgusting government bureaucracy geared to fattening the wallets of lawyers and environmental groups.


Minnesota: Why a Deer Management Audit Will Prove Nothing

DoeDeerYesterday I posted a link to a news article from Minnesota where it appears enough hunters pestered the state’s legislature long enough to prompt them to cave in to an audit on how the fish and game department there makes decisions pertaining to deer management.

In the article that I linked to, a few things were stated that should be red flags for those who exerted enough effort to get the legislature to act. I wonder if others can see these flags.

It is my belief, based only on the information that can be taken from this news article, that any audit, as it appears will happen, is designed for failure before it starts. Here’s why.

First, is that this call for an audit of how the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), is now being prompted by “government-as-usual.” Government is usual and does little for the people or their concerns. Aside from the fact that members of this government know nothing about deer management, how can they conduct an honest assessment to determine if there actually exist problems within the MDNR’s management plans? Which brings me to the other issues.

The article states the following:

Specifically, the audit will likely examine the following questions:

— How does DNR estimate and monitor Minnesota’s deer population, and how do these methods compare with other estimation and monitoring approaches?

— How does DNR establish the state’s deer population goals, and how does this compare with methods used by other states?

— To what extent do DNR’s deer population goals reflect an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests?(emphasis added)

If we look at the issue of “how do these methods compare with other states,” the assumption is being made here that “other states” do it right. Do they? Isn’t this an example of blind faith in a system designed for outcome-based wildlife management goals from others with little or no interest, and sometimes outright opposition to, managing deer for surplus harvest, i.e the interests of hunters?

One has to have their head buried in the sand to not see the evolution of what once was fish and game management to what is collectively, through central control, labeled department of natural resources – removing any and all reference to “game.”

All fish and wildlife/natural resource departments today are heavily infiltrated with biologists, administrators and wildlife managers trained to think beyond the normal paradigm of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. It has been openly stated that their goal is to change the way America approaches fish and wildlife management. Therefore, today, most all fish and wildlife departments have devised deer management plans that do not necessary manage for hunters surplus harvest but to manage deer according to the whims of social demands.

This is revealed to us in the third part of what the article states as something that will be specifically looked at with this audit: “…deer population goals reflect an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests.”

Deer management is a scientific endeavor and should not be, nor should it have ever become, a means of performing a balancing act between social entity’s demands with varying personal ideologies and what science should be dictating.

However, even the science has changed. It is what is now referred to as post-normal and by some as romance biology. Disguised as science, the demands of socialists, through central command, have taken over fish and game management. While hunters still fund the process, socialists get their demands met and the hunters, all to often, do not.

What Minnesota is looking at, is a government bureaucracy, that knows nothing about deer management, seeking comparisons of other government bureaucracies that are all cut from the same cloth. In addition, it appears as though any conclusions that might come out of such an audit will be mostly influenced by the demands of social groups and little to do with science or American heritage and tradition.

In short, it appears to me that the government is placating the hunters because they already know the result of any audit will be only what they desire it to be. Hunters in Minnesota should not get their hopes up very high. While we should all congratulate the hunters for their efforts to at least rattle the cages of law makers, most of whom believe themselves to be a cut above everybody else, it is too bad that included in this demand for an audit wasn’t the desire to seek answers for what is good for the hunting heritage of Minnesota and not how Minnesota looks in comparison to other states.