January 31, 2015

Frank Murkowski Lives on a One-Way Street

Former Governor of Alaska and U.S. Senator, Frank Murkowski, in a rant about environmentalist lawsuits to stop timber harvesting in portions of Alaska, seems to invoke “balance of nature” in one breath about wolves, while holding his breath about “balance of nature” in the next.

In the Juneau Empire he writes:

To try to link timber harvest with reduction in deer population and thus a decline in the wolf population is nothing more than a fabricated argument to stop logging. If environmentalists really wanted to increase wolves they would instead support the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s proposal to reduce the cap allowing hunters to take 60 wolves per year. This would directly and immediately increase both deer and wolf populations. But, there is a balance in nature — an increase in wolves will result in a decrease in deer. The wolves will then move to where there are more deer. Logging has little to do with nature’s balancing in this regard.

If Murkowski is employing the “balance of nature” myth as it pertains to predator/prey relationships in order to protect timber harvesting, intimating that if man just left it alone it would be alright, then certainly if ecosystems balance themselves out then there is no need for timber and forest management (timber harvesting) other than the greed of consumptive use…right?

Perhaps there’s a need to better polish the argument here. Or double check with the Council on Foreign Relations and make sure he has his talking points right.


Wolves Are Killing Caribou People Are Killing Me

CaribouProverbs 17:28 King James Version: “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

Or some people like to make the following statement and attribute it to Abraham Lincoln, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.” But this runs contrary to human nature because we humans excel in showing the world just how ignorant we are. It is blissful they say.

Canada has a problem in that wolves are killing off the caribou population. Not that the majority of spouter-offers care anything about learning or even the implementation of a few facts in any matter that involves wolves, Dr. Tom Bergerud has essentially dedicated his life to the study of the woodland caribou. It’s no mystery that wolves kill caribou and are the leading culprits in the demise of the northern animal. But don’t go look.

Canada’s problem has reached a point in some places where “people” (I will deliberately avoid using the term scientist) have decided that if the number of wolves in parts of British Columbia isn’t reduced caribou will disappear. This does not set well with the ignorant masses that see wolves as something to fantasize about. According to their brainwashing and propagandizing, if wolves were left alone the woods of British Columbia would be Nirvana.

This becomes evident when one reads the comment section in this article. What is it that H.L. Mencken said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Canadian public.”

It isn’t really a matter of whether or not you think that people should kill wolves to protect caribou. The real issue is the lack of any remote understanding and factual knowledge about what is taking place. (Oh give me a break. The ignorance erupts like a volcano out of their comments!) Without ever once taking it upon oneself to do some research and study, it’s much easier to hate on humans. Everything you don’t like is reason to ask for the destruction of humans…..well, so long as it isn’t you…right? Kill them but not me. I’m enlightened….by Walt Disney.

I believe it was Thomas Sowell who once said that he did not fear exposing people to all sides of any issue, provided that he first had the time to teach people how to think and be independent in thought. He then knew that truth would rise to the surface. Brainwashing, coupled with intellectual laziness doesn’t offer that option.

Wolves become an emotional subject here on planet earth. Why? Various reasons but mostly because humans have become programmed to love their dogs (all animals really), even to a fault. Having pet dogs isn’t a problem. Pet dogs that are given priority over human welfare is. You can discover all of the psychological reasons people prefer dogs over humans but in our propagandized indoctrination institutions wolves are our pets and how dare somebody shoot one that is about to kill a fellow human being? Kill the human instead.

So, blinded by the programmed hatred toward other human beings, the wolf becomes a great tool to embellish that hatred. And it is loved.

Ignorance is behind all the emotion. Lazy ignorance foments myths like a balanced nature, and humans kill everything, while never once lifting a finger to discover truth. Truth, they have been taught, is what someone with a paper certificate tells you it is. If you like the sound of it then it must really be truth. You are castigated to think otherwise.

But why bother? Why should I spend the 30 minutes it takes to type this diatribe when few will read it and even fewer will, whether they agree or not, go beyond what they have just read to think independently. We are incapable for the most part. Go back to what you were doing.

Future of Idaho’s Wildlife

Letter to the Editor;

I have recently read articles about the Fish and Game wanting a fee increase and yet another idea about how to get some Idahoans pitted against each other so only some foot the bill. I would like to make it very clear I love the outdoors and everything it has to offer, especially for our youth. I believe every sportsman wants to pay every cent that is truly needed, and will sacrifice time, effort, and money to keep the thing they love above all else as a heritage for their children. Time after time I’ve witnessed our Fish and Game pit one group against another. To the point some of our best sportsmen no longer go to any meetings concerning matters at hand. Basically because decisions have already been made and frankly their time and personal integrity have been wasted.

The science behind what should dictate direction for wildlife has long disappeared. Money overrides science every time there is a new shortfall in the status Quo. When most Idahoans go to work and their productivity weans we have to work harder for a better or more productive product, or we suffer. We don’t just try new ways to make more profit on the same poor product! For our kids sake they have to change direction, but I fear they will never be held accountable because they are such masters at pitting the sportsman against each other. Or at least groups of people against one another. To the point I mentioned earlier, until it’s to hard for the average man to dedicate anymore time and effort going to their meetings. Because they never make any real difference for the average man to justify his sacrifice from his family and his own struggle in life.

They ( F&G) will patronize you but your opinions mean little if anything. They ( F&G) will spend all kinds of money on more studies but the results never really go anywhere or make any real change that have improved their product. Look at a 30 year window of my life during the 60’s 70’s 80’s I would without question say almost everything they managed has diminished in quality and quantity since then especially. I know some quality will change with growth by human expansion that they have no control. That said I also know if they cared there are many things they could get going at no cost at all except their time and effort. They have very poor relationships with almost every landowner I know and landowners own a big part of the playing field.

If you question my opinion I understand but I would ask two questions . 1.) If it was good science during the 60’s- 80’s (probably longer, when the Snake River had a lot more water all winter) to close fishing season during the winter why would it now be open all winter with very low water flows (like fishing in a bucket). What science decision do you believe had merit, then or now? 2.) If deer populations are historically low, as well as deer harvested by sportsmen , and deer tag sales since the 80’s, (especially low compared to that same 30 year period) what science would dictate our Fish and game to adopt 2 deer tags sales to a resident as long as he or she pays non-resident prices on the 2nd tag? I believe these decisions revolve around Money and influential people rather than Science and our children’s Heritage.

I know many believe Hunting and fishing is cruel and unneeded, that for wildlife to survive they need to get rid of the sportsmen! I beg to differ, real sportsmen would go to great lengths and sacrifice to keep all wildlife in abundance but with balance. Those who don’t see that are blinded and are probably building their new home in the middle of the last Mule deer winter range, killing more wildlife than any sportsman could in his lifetime. They may not mean to, but their destruction is far greater when they don’t take the time to find out that proper understanding, use, and management is crucial for wildlife’s future existence.

I mean it with all my heart that I would back the Idaho Fish and Game for a fee increase if only they really needed it. I Don’t believe they do! I believe they have become a huge Bureaucracy out of control for the average sportsmen of Idaho and have no real belief that accountability by the sportsmen is on its way. I beg all sportsmen to stand up and be heard, call all F&G Commissioners and Politicians, for your kids’ sake changes need to be made. If only 10% of Idaho sportsmen stood together we could move mountains with our Politicians and Commissioners. Pull together and make it happen lets hold someone accountable.

Bryan Sprague

MDIFW Will Resume Capture and Radio-Collaring Moose

Press Release from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Starting next week, The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will take to the air in year two of an intensive five-year moose study that will provide a greater understanding of the health of Maine’s moose population, particularly factors that impact their survival and reproductive rates.

A trained crew that specializes in capturing and collaring large animals is utilizing a helicopter and launched nets to capture and collar female moose and calves in an area located in and around Jackman and Greenville (centered in Wildlife Management District 8).

“By radio-collaring moose and actively monitoring their movements, we can further understand the factors that can impact Maine’s moose population,” said IFW moose biologist Lee Kantar.

The radio collar study is just one component of the research that IFW conducts on moose. IFW also utilizes aerial flights to assess population and the composition of the moose herd. During the moose hunting season, biologists also examine teeth to determine a moose’s age, measure antler spread, monitor the number of ticks a moose carries, and examine ovaries to determine reproductive rates.

Depending on the weather, the crew plans to start next week, and they plan to capture and then collar 3 adult female moose (cows) and 35 moose that were born this past spring (calves) with GPS collars that will track and broadcast their movements to IFW biologists.

This is the second year that the crew from Aero Tech, Inc. will work in Maine capturing and collaring moose. Aero Tech specializes in this type of capture and collaring, and is currently performing a similar job in New Hampshire. The crew, based out of New Mexico, consists of a team of four, with each having a specialized role in the process.

Prior to their arrival, Kantar and several other IFW biologists will fly and scout different areas of WMD 8 in order to locate cow-calf groups. This pre-capture scouting worked very well last year by providing GPS coordinates to Aero Tech pilots who were able to fly to these areas, and capture and collar moose with an increased efficiency that decreases their time in the air, and the number of days they fly.

Last year, the department collared 30 adult cows and 30 calves.

Once collared, the GPS-enabled collars transmit twice a day, providing biologists the ability to track moose movements. The GPS collars are expected to transmit movement signals for four years. If there is no movement for a certain period of time, the collar transmits a mortality signal, and biologists will then travel by foot to investigate the cause of death.

“Once we receive a mortality signal, we locate the dead moose within 24 hours,” said Kantar. Biologists conduct an extensive field necropsy on each moose, taking blood, tissue and fecal samples that will later be analyzed by the University of Maine-Animal Health Lab as well as other specialized diagnostic facilities,.

This is the second year of the monitoring study. Additional moose and calves will be captured and collared next year.

“This project is just one component of the Department’s multi-faceted moose management system. It provides us with another important tool to ensure we have the most relevant data needed to manage our moose population,” said Kantar.

Upon locating fresh footprints in the snow along the railroad tracks near Wilson Street, Penobscot County Deputy Ryan Allen deployed his K9, Dozer, on the track. Approximately 1.5 hours and nearly two miles later, Deputy Allen located Webb in a large piece of woods between Wilson Street and Bagaduce Road. Webb was very cold, disoriented and not dressed for the extreme cold weather. Maine Game Wardens responded with an ATV and 4-wheel drive trucks to remove Webb from the woods. Capital Ambulance transported him to St. Joseph’s Hospital to be treated for a substantially decreased core body temperature.

Lt. Dan Scott of the Maine Warden Service attributed the quick thinking and teamwork of the first responding units to saving the man’s life. Lt. Scott commented, “With temperatures hovering around zero and wind-chills near -15 below, the man would likely not have survived a night in the woods.” The Maine Warden Service reminds us that hypothermia can set in very rapidly in the extreme temperatures we have been experiencing. People should monitor themselves and especially young children for the signs of frostbite and hypothermia. Anyone recreating outdoors should dress accordingly, take a friend, and tell someone where they plan to go and when they plan to return.


Will Florida Bring Back Bear Hunting?

According to Field and Stream:

“Early next month, members of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), a seven-member panel appointed by the governor, will consider whether reinstating a bear-hunting season after a 20-year absence can help address the growing number of bear-human conflicts throughout the state. A story from the Sun Sentinel says the FFWCC expects the notion to be controversial, especially because the move for public safety and wildlife management involves an animal that stirs sentiment from both hunters and non-hunters. If the hunt gets a thumbs up, discussion of how many permits to issue and location of hunting boundaries will take place in April.”<<<Read More>>>

Because The Coyote is Coming

More and more studies are showing that the presence of large predators affects deer populations. When there are too many coyotes, for example, in an area that will not support that number, coyotes raise the dickens with deer populations.

Reading this article (linked to below) I am reminded of no fewer than two articles I have written in the past. One was in July of 2010. It was actually a republication of an article written by Dr. Charles Kay for Muley Crazy Magazine called, “Predator Mediated Competition.” If you are not familiar with that term, I suggest reading Kay’s article as it will help to better understand the issue as well as the article I have linked to. In short, predators, such as coyotes, so long as there exists more than one prey species, could drive a certain species, say the whitetail deer or mule deer, into unsustainable levels and keep them there.

The second article was in reference to Dr. Valerius Geist who attended a gathering of hunters and game managers in Virginia concerned with too large populations of whitetail deer. The article I wrote was in December of 2010 but Geist’s comment was made in 1994.

…in 1994, Dr. Valerius Geist, while attending the annual Southeast Deer Study Group meeting in Charlottesville, Virginia, said the following as it pertained to a perceived “problem” among wildlife managers in dealing with too large populations of whitetail deer.

“Enjoy your problem while it lasts, because the coyote is coming. Once he’s here, you’ll miss your deer problems.”

It now appears that in places where once there was a problem with too many deer, the deer are disappearing leaving managers wondering what happened. Here’s just one example of that.

“On a 2,000 acre tract of land in north Alabama, biologists at the University of Georgia’s Deer Lab compiled a different study. In the area 22 coyotes and 10 bobcats were removed before fawning season. Fawn survival increased by 250 percent.”

“An Auburn University deer study showed that trapping and removing coyotes and other predators improved fawn survival in that area by about 80 percent. The University of Georgia deer researchers analyzed 353 coyote scat samples from two public hunting areas. During the fawning time, coyotes switched almost exclusively to fawns for food.”<<<Read More>>>

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The following is an editorial/Letter to the Editor sent to the Green Bay (Wisconsin) Press-Gazette in response to a “fawning” article about the recent decision by a lady, federal judge in Washington, DC to place all Great Lakes wolves back under federal jurisdiction, thereby precluding even a modest, “fig-leaf” illusion of states (i.e. those living with the wolves)managing wolves or having any say about how many, where, and to what extent wolf damage and destruction will be tolerated as enforced by draconian federal law enforcement. ..Jim

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The recent decision by an activist federal judge in far-off Washington, DC utilizing (not really enforcing) what is arguably the most recklessly un-Constitutional law in American history to abolish all State and Local authority over the presence of wolves in their midst is a Tragedy of a magnitude worthy of a Shakespearean Play. It would not be out of order to compare it to some individual cleric in W. Iraq issuing a Fatwa based on his interpretation of Sharia Law.

Your paper lauds how the lady judge has confronted “hostile state management” (i.e. of wolves). Hostile state management by State politicians and bureaucrats would have first and foremost been to follow state and federal law and forbid the expenditure of any state hunting license revenue or and Pittman-Robertson excise taxes derived from arms and ammunition sales on any wolves that were forced into the state by federal bureaucrats and that have caused great harm to rural life, livestock, game animals, and the “domestic Tranquility” of Wisconsin residents being forced to endure the harms spreading wherever wolves become established.

State government has become a handmaiden to federal overreach and Local government revenue, jurisdictions and authority have been severely restricted, for what?

What is “management” of any wild animal population other than achieving and maintaining numbers and distributions of the animals as desired by those that live with or utilize those animals?

How can anyone right-thinking person (the judge in question and your writer are as right-thinking as St. Louis demonstrators shown a Coroner/Police Report) describe a wolf season with stated number goals as “unregulated killing?

If Killing wolves is “barbaric”, what pray tell is wolves killing and eating an Alaskan schoolteacher or a Canadian college student?

What is “recovery”? As many wolves as can be shoehorned into 48 states (when there are millions worldwide)? What were all those early ESA “goals” for wolves other than lies?

Even the miniscule annual harvest quotas in our states are merely tiny efforts meant only to quiet critics. The 10-15% harvest quotas of the (asserted) wolf population (since wolves cannot be accurately counted we may be sure DNR numbers are as reliable as national jobless and inflation numbers) are even lower than annual harvest quotas of desirable game animals. These tiny harvest quotas do only 2 things, 1) they reduce winter competition for food guaranteeing more and healthier reproducing females next spring and 2) they encourage larger litters and therefore MORE wolves next fall. That nonsense about “pack structure” and “alpha males” is no more that romantic biological propaganda. To reduce however many wolves are out there, a harvest of 50-70% for at least 5 years and then a 35-50% reduction annually thereafter would be required.

If leghold traps (that by the way allow for release of non-target animals), snares, electronic calls and baiting are “cruel” and “unsportsman-like”; this latter term from organizations that would eradicate all “sporting” hunting, trapping and fishing activities tomorrow; are to be banished what is left? Evening classes for predators? A domestic Jane Goodall Corps?

Please spare us the use of the term “science”. Wolf/predator “science” over the past 30 years has become little more than propaganda purchased by government bureaucrats and radical environmental/animal rights organizations from University professors seeking funding, tenure, recognition and graduate students.

Wolves kill people, livestock, game animals, dogs and other predators like coyotes and foxes. Wolves spread, carry, and contract over thirty diseases and infections that kill and disable humans, domestic animals and other wild animals. Wolves cause great stress to rural families, rural communities and rural life. To call this “decision” a Tragedy is actually being kind. So what is so funny? Where is the “Humor” in this Tragedy?

The “Humor” lies in how your paper and all those wolf-lovers you serve in all those places distant from where the wolves and rural people are doing their “Danse Macabre”, (i.e. Dance of Death) can say with a straight face that it is “barbaric” to kill wolves with “packs of dogs – with hounding of wolves so out of the realm of responsible action that it’s drawn condemnation around the nation”.

Jim Beers

1 January 2015

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.


Geo-Engineering is a Real Threat Not Ranchers, Farmers, Proven Game Management

Geoengineering science is the real threat against natural resources, wildlife. Not ranchers, farmers nor proven effective hunting management models. Environmentalists trying to put to ruin those ruining the earth in their eyes are seriously off target.

The US and Canada are both actively and passively pressuring scientists and agencies to suppress data they do not want released to the public!

Monitoring And Muzzling Scientists, New Legislation Casts A Chill

“I know a California Fish and Game biologist that is reprimanded if she even tries to bring up the issue of climate engineering or the fact that the streams and waterways in California are flowing with aluminum. I have been in the forest with USDA scientists testing soils and coming up with results that showed horrifically higher PH values than the historical norms. These scientists will not speak out as they know it is a bad career decision or worse.”

WHINE: Wolves Can Be Shot on Private Land Within National Park

“The Wyoming Game & Fish Department will take the lead in responding to wildlife management issues on privately-owned lands within the park, and will coordinate with park staff when necessary and appropriate,”<<<Read More>>>

Getting the Best Constitutional Amendment for Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap

V. Paul Reynolds, in his weekly article in the Sun Journal, indicates efforts are underway to introduce legislative action in the Maine Congress for a constitutional amendment aimed at helping to protect the right of Maine residents to hunt, fish and trap. I’ve been calling for this for many years now, as have several others.

I’ve also had a few brief communications with George Smith, outdoor writer and outdoor sports activist, in which he asked me a few questions about the ideas of an amendment. He also has indicated that an effort is underway to propose a constitutional amendment.

If an amendment can even survive the Maine legislature, it has to be the right amendment. It is pointless to jump through all the hoops and spend the time, effort and money to get an amendment passed, if, in the end, the amendment doesn’t do what I believe it is that sportsmen and citizens expect.

But first let’s look at what an amendment will not do. It will not prohibit the right of the people to petition. Some fear such amendments will do that, when in fact, what the amendment, if written properly, will do, is better define what the people of Maine want and expect as it pertains to hunting, fishing and trapping. It would not, if written properly, unconstitutionally prohibit the right to petition.

The three major positives, in my opinion, that can come from a properly written amendment, are explained below.

1. An amendment clearly defines what the Maine people want and expect.

2. An amendment written that acknowledges that Maine residents want game animals for consumptive use, within the regulations for that purpose by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, sends a message to radical animal rights and environmental groups that this means enough to the Maine people that they went to the effort of providing that guarantee in their constitution. This would not end lawsuits, but might deter others. It will not prohibit the right to petition.

3. Of most importance in an amendment must be a clear directive that any official Maine fish and wildlife department must manage game species for surplus harvest. Let me explain. I have been involved with and studied constitutional amendments in other states that have them. An amendment of this kind, if it is going to do as residents want, has to do more that simply recognize a “right” to hunt, trap and fish. Some states have such amendments, some of which state that fish and game departments must manage wildlife to provide “opportunities” to fish, hunt and trap. Stop and think for a moment exactly what that means.

An opportunity to hunt fish and trap, does not result in a harvest, for consumptive use. Herein, lies one of the problems with enacting these amendments. As wildlife agencies nationwide morph more and more towards providing opportunities for bird watching, an amendment without a mandate to manage game for surplus harvest, results in going on a wildlife watching tour and carrying a gun, fishing rod or bag of traps merely for the exercise. It is my opinion that an amendment of this kind is to deter lawsuits, protect a heritage and provide sustenance for those wanting and needing to eat game and to ensure that fish and game departments manage for those purposes, not just “opportunities.”

An amendment with real teeth, that will keep sportsmen happy and continuing to pay the bills for the fish and game departments, must guarantee that a fish and game department will do everything in its power to manage game species for surplus harvest. It is my opinion that anything short of that will not accomplish what I believe sportsmen want and in the long run what people who understand how successful the North American Model of Wildlife Management has been, want as well.

The argument has often been used by animal rights and environmental groups that less than 10% of the people hunt. Combined hunting, trapping and fishing, I’m sure provides a percentage higher than 10%, however, the vast majority of citizens understand what’s at stake and support this plan.

In 2012 Idaho passed an amendment. It did not include the “teethy” mandate for surplus harvest management requirements. However, that amendment easily passed with nearly 80% of the voters indicating they favored such an amendment.