August 23, 2017

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

Parasites “A Major Threat to Moose” But Leads “Occasionally to Death.” HUH?

Perhaps Cornell University is at it again. The last time I recall the antics of Cornell University, was when they, in their attempt to do something about the overrunning deer population on campus, decided to conduct some “tubal ligations” on some of the female population of deer.

When a university, or any other organization, is wallowing in liberal idiocy, stupid things happen to stupid people. What the brilliant wildlife department at the university failed to understand, in their blindness, was that tubal ligations on female deer only caused those female deer to go into estrus and remain in estrus until they had successfully mated. Now, without the ability to successfully mate…The result? Every buck within a hundred miles descended on Cornell looking for action.

And now, the $34,000.00 a year tuition at Cornell, has students who are conducting tests, and what they call research, to see what are killing the Adirondack moose. They say moose eating snails is how they contract “brain worm,” which ends up killing the moose. However, in one paragraph, the university writes: “…surveys in 2016 on 11 live moose and 22 necropsies and concluded parasites are a major threat to the moose population.” (Emboldening added by editor)

This if followed almost immediately by this: “Foraging moose then ingest infected snails, culminating in a diseased brain and spinal cord, and occasionally death.”(emboldening added by editor)

I may be wrong, but from my perspective, if I was going to state that parasites, from eating snails, are a major threat to the moose population, then it must be that death, and/or failure to reproduce, is at a level high enough the recruitment of new moose calves is lower than total mortality of the adult moose population.

If that is true, then how can the results of foraging moose, eating snails, lead to “occasional death?”

Maybe they should try some tubal ligations.

Understand that by reading Cornell’s own words, they are clueless as to whether moose are eating snails and if so, if it is killing the moose. “Our results show that moose foraging in areas with high soil moisture may likely encounter higher densities of gastropods – snails and slugs – which likely increases the risk of parasitic threats from deer brain worm if the snails are eaten.” (Emboldening added by editor)

I suppose it is just as LIKELY that moose MIGHT eat a truck full of cannabis a LIKELY die!

Here’s one more observation. The student researchers (give em a break, right? So they can graduate and fill our wildlife manager departments with more progressive, brainwashed, environmentalist, idiots.) said they are looking into wet and “water areas” where they think, perhaps they will find these parasitic-laden snails. One area of interest to them is described this way: “Since moose make use of water areas and eat in wet, dense pine forests, they’re susceptible to a large presence of gastropods …”

I grew up in Maine and lived the majority of my adult life here. Maine is the Pine Tree State. Pine forests are everywhere and for some strange reason, the people of Maine decided to call Maine the Pine Tree State. Maine also has moose…more than any other state in the lower contiguous states. I’m going to go out and search for moose eating in “wet, dense pine forests.” And all this time, I thought pine trees, like the hundreds of thousands I have on my small acreage, thrived in dry, sandy places.

I just can’t believe my own eyes!

Maybe I should try some tubal ligations.

Share

Animal Idolatry and the Lies to Promote It

Animal idolatry comes in various forms. One of the not-so-obvious forms is media propaganda laced with misinformation intended to mislead, most always for the purpose of conning money support out of those unable to think for themselves and to understand the truth of what they are supporting.

In this latest platform of predator drool, people are told about “killing contests” that “killing unlimited numbers of predators is legitimate wildlife management.” In support of their nonsense about “killing unlimited numbers of predators,” we read this: “How many people even know that thousands of coyotes, mountain lions, foxes, bobcats, prairie dogs, crows, and wolves are killed every year in “contests” across the country where winners get guns, belt buckles and ribbons for killing the most animals?”

These drooling fools present “killing contests” as part of “wildlife management.” Obviously they know nothing of wildlife management and/or are intentionally attempting to mislead the public by making such ridiculous claims.

Legitimate wildlife management (which, by the way, exists only in acceptable forms of environmentalism) is aware of so-called “killing contests” and the results of which are factored into their management plans and goals. The reality is that these “fake news” “killing contests” have virtually zero affect on wildlife management agencies long term management plans.

Much like a hunting season, managers allow for several things before making decisions in the next hunting harvest to know how many tags, etc. to issue to meet the goals of the 10-15 year management plans….”killing contests” included.

Now to the meat of the drool given to the public about the “unlimited” numbers of predators killed each season by “killing contests.”

Yes, there are isolated contests in various parts of the country. However, coyote populations are running amok and any legitimate game management agency would welcome reductions in coyote numbers to ensure the “public trust doctrine” the author of the drool presented calls it, can be upheld to provide balanced and healthy populations of wildlife across the board. A landscape dominated by predators, results in predator pits where wildlife in general is nonexistent.

I know of nowhere in North America where mountain lions are targets of “killing contests.” If they do exist I’m sure the reasons are serious and extenuating in order to uphold that cherished, cherry-picked “public trust doctrine.”

I know of nowhere in North America where foxes are targeted by “killing contests.” Foxes, as a rule are a tightly regulated fur bearing animal and seldom, if ever, exist in numbers that make a “killing contest” necessary or even a viable effort.

Bobcats, where they exist in this country, are a prized possession. About the only “enemy” the bobcat faces, other than competition among other predators, is the specialized bobcat hunter/trapper. Again, I know of no locations in North American where hunting contests are carried out that target bobcat.

Prairie dogs are targeted at times by those wanting to hone their shooting skills by shooting these animals at long range. Prairie dogs are notorious for carrying several diseases, many of which are harmful to other creatures, and people, and wildlife managers generally condone any means of reducing the nuisance and diseased animals.

I am not aware of “killing contests” for crows. Many states have an open season on crows and yes, some people eat crow and use the animal parts for other uses. Truth be known, the federal government deliberately kills more crows than any other person, persons or group of persons, even if there where “killing contests” for them. The Federal Government kills crows because they are a nuisance and a public safety hazard. As part of that wonderful “public trust doctrine”  it is a necessary thing in order to protect and promote other species being destroyed or limited due to excessive crow populations.

“Killing contests” for wolves made me laugh. In more states than not, believe it or not, wolves are a federally protected species. I know of one time, in Idaho, when a group, legally obtained all the necessary permits and permissions to establish a wolf and coyote killing contest. After a weekend of wolf “killing,” exactly zero wolves were killed, and a handful of coyotes.

Other than some isolated regional pockets, predator “killing contests” have no affect on the populations of these predators. It is a shame, and borders on criminal activity, that any group would attempt to sway public opinion by publishing deliberate lies in the media.

Shame on them.

I would suggest that before anyone gives money, or supports any organization like this, they first learn the truth about the propaganda being spewed.

But don’t go look!

 

Share

Ducks, Dodos* & Moose

By James Beers

*Dodos were flightless birds slightly larger than turkeys.  They were found only on the island of Mauritius, East of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean.  First recorded by Dutch sailors in 1598; by 1662 dodos were extinct due to hungry sailors stopping there for food and introduced species like Norway and Black rats that began preying upon their single egg nests and young.  It can honestly be observed that no one intentionally made dodos extinct.  Dodos became extinct due to human ignorance of and indifference to the dodos fate

Question: “What do ducks, dodos and moose have in common?”

Answer: “They have each been the victims of unregulated predation that reduces their numbers such that they either did or are steadily losing their many benefits to mankind.

The dodo no longer feeds island visitors or the residents of Mauritius thanks to Early European voyagers and the vermin they carried with them

The moose and particularly their calves and pregnant cows are very vulnerable to wolf predation as attested to by the suspension of moose hunting in Minnesota as wolves increased in numbers dramatically.  This phenomenon is repeated routinely in Alaska when wolf numbers are allowed to increase above minimal levels as well as in the Upper Rocky Mountain States as wolves have increased dramatically in recent years.

Ducks in North America, similarly, are preyed upon by duck hunters since the times of Asian immigration as glaciers receded to the advent of European arrivals and settlement.

What these three animals do not share is any human concern for their sustainable benefit to humans as their numbers dwindle and the effects of predation are ignored.

In the case of the dodo, ignorance and indifference are understandable, though regretted, as men were dramatically expanding their limited comprehension of the globe and the life forms it contained.

In the case of moose; Minnesota and the Upper Rocky Mtn. States are forced by federal fiat; from feckless politicians and self-serving bureaucrats in thrall to radical environmentalists, animal rights fanatics and a host of reactionaries from gun controllers and anti-hunters to communists; to host and protect wolf densities not seen for over a century.  Alaskan moose are also threatened by the same characters using expensive court maneuvers to prevent any and all wolf control to maintain moose availability as desired by Alaskans. Thus, you could say the dodo was made extinct by human indifference while the moose numbers and availability are being reduced in moose habitat in the US by a government bureaucracy using force to implement a broad range of hidden agendas.

But; what of ducks?

The same federal bureaucrats that are forcing uncontrolled wolves into the Lower 48 States’ settled landscapes have had complete management authority over ducks and duck hunters for a century.  Up until the early 1990’s, these bureaucrats (USFWS) gave high priority to waterfowl management and waterfowl hunting.  Waterfowl hunting financed federal land acquisition for Refuges, state wildlife programs and Billions of dollars in the economy from art and rural employment to businesses and manufactories for everything from guns and boats to waders, decoys and rural hunting leases.  Waterfowl were important and managed carefully for a long list of good reasons by knowledgeable federal managers and cooperating state bureaucrats.  But, “Why did I say; ‘Up until the early 1990’s’?”

In the early 1990’s, USFWS began a steady shift away from hiring anyone trained in, concerned about or likely to advocate for waterfowl and waterfowl hunting.  The “new” USFWS was to consist of anti-wildlife management and anti-hunting “protectionists” and animal “rights zealots.  Just as with wolves federal (and complicit state) bureaucrats began “cooking” census numbers and counts.  They shifted migratory bird money to “education” about “saving” every living thing from guns, chainsaws and cows.  They shifted migratory bird enforcement from waterfowl and preventing importation of Injurious Wildlife like snakeheads, constrictors, pythons and Asian carp to prosecuting anyone harming a wolf or grizzly bear and “assisting” the “new” natural resource enforcers shooting a protestor in the snow, shooting privately owned cows on grazing allotments and getting life terms for ranchers standing up for their rights.

I could go here, like telling you how the waterfowl NGO’s like Ducks Unlimited are no more than Charlie McCarthies on the federal ventriloquist’s knee.  Before I retired to Minnesota (once a famous duck hunting state but no more) I was critical of DU’s reticence in opposing the USFWS shift from pro-ducks to anti-ducks.  When I moved here I renewed my DU membership that I had let lapse, with the intention of going to a few DU Banquets (where they raise lots of their money) and meeting some duck hunters and maybe finding a good place or two to hunt.  In two years I was never once invited to or informed of ANY banquet.  HHMMM!

Two other quick incidents tell you all you need to know about ducks, USFWS and DU.  My first year in MN as I was leaving church one Sunday a fellow came up and said he heard I was a duck hunter.  When I said yes, he said good and that he and I should go sometime and he would get back to me.  He never did and I still see him most Sundays.  When I asked if anyone knew him, I was told not his name but he works for the MN DNR. That was 8 years ago.

Then there was the time I wrote a scathing article about waterfowl management in Minnesota and (among other local addressees) sent it to everyone I thought might be able to do something.  At 6 AM the next morning I got a very happy and enthusiastic call from a Minnesota duck organization president who talked to me for about 15 minutes and said he was going to speak with his board and get back to me.  That was 7 years ago and still… crickets.

Certain refuges no longer plant waterfowl food or manage for hunting (primary stated reasons for funding and authorization for purchase to Congress).  Nasty anti-hunting bureaucrats get nastier and nastier as they go about more egregious policies without any opposition from cowed hunters and NGO’s like DU that trade jobs and grants with USFWS employees and retirees routinely, again because of no enforcement or pushback.

All of the foregoing is a lead-up to the following note by a former USFWS employee and duck hunter like yours truly.  He is a native of the Lower Mississippi Flyway and I grew up and live in the Upper Mississippi Flyway.  He has been a reader and correspondent for years and he just shared the following message he sent to a colleague at Louisiana State University regarding the current state of the continental waterfowl population and duck hunting.

I agree with everything he says here and I ask you to remember as you read it that the same USFWS bureaucrats that are pushing wolves and grizzlies; turning state wildlife agencies into federal handmaidens; allowing all manner of deadly, destructive and dangerous wildlife into the USA despite the money, employees and laws they are given to prevent this – these same bureaucrats are purposely doing what he relates and unlike those European sailors, these wildlife-as-tools for rural destruction cannot plead ignorance or indifference.  They are doing this with full knowledge for their “foul” purposes.

Jim Beers

2 August 2017

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

August 1, 2017

History of the Perfect Storm for the Demise of Ducks in North America

1-Agricultural practices have changed from spring plowing to fall plowing.  Fall plowing eliminates fall and spring duck foods

2- Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) stabilized regulations by flyway at very liberal harvest levels

3-High harvest levels appear to have dramatically decreased breeding populations in “Production” States, particularly within the Mississippi Flyway.

4-  Senator Trent Lott of MS forced the regulatory framework to be extended roughly 10 days longer into January, while all previous research had indicated that hunting seasons past January 15 broke waterfowl pair bonds, and led to poorer body condition in breeding hens the following spring. However, the northern states opposed this and requested that the frame work be extended on the front end by the same number of days. Instead of the FWS denying the southern states the ability to add days at the end of their season, they allowed northern states to open a week earlier.  This makes successful adult females and HY young ducks extremely vulnerable to hunting.  This has likely led to the disastrous declines in breeding populations in many “Production States”

5- Climate changes made this a monumental mistake for southern states because most northern states were usually frozen solid by Dec 1st. Therefore, in northern states ducks were only hunted for 2/3 of the season length no matter how long the season was.  So if the flyway was granted a 50 day season southern states hunted 50 days and northern states only hunted 30 because the last 20 days all the water was frozen!! Now most the States in the Miss. Flyway hunt nearly 60 days.

6 – Since 2005, 25 MILLION + acres of CRP and other grasslands (DUCK NESTING HABITAT ELIMINATED) have been converted to agriculture to provide corn for the government imposed ethanol mandates.  Somehow starting at the exact same time (2005) the May Survey began to increase, and by spring 2015, minus 25 million acres of CRP, and millions of acres of drained temporary and seasonal wetlands, duck populations – according to the May Survey- had grown to the point that they were higher than they had EVER been.

7- Although the May Survey indicated that there were more breeding ducks in spring of 2015, the waterfowl hunting season in 2015-2016 was one of the worst in several decades with more than a million fewer ducks killed in the Mississippi Flyway alone than in the previous year.

8- Further, although May survey numbers have grown exponentially since 2005, to numbers greater than have ever been counted, mid-winter surveys indicate half the number of mallards than in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

9- Water is now artificially maintained throughout the US and crops are “legally” left unharvested, and FLOODED, for the purpose of killing ducks.

10– The Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) Matrix was adopted to stabilize hunting regulations in the early 1990’s. The matrix is so biased to high harvest that the duck season in the Mississippi flyway has been 60 days and 6 ducks for over 20 years.

11- The AHM regulations are largely based on the May Breeding Population Estimates conducted by the US FWS, CWS and the States. These estimates were in 2016 –13.9 million breeding mallards. The harvest on mallards has been down 40% in the flyway!!! The Adult to immature ratio is very low. Given these data it appears that near record numbers of Mallards are not producing adequately to sustain the population, or, and this is quite likely given every other source of data concerning duck numbers, the May Survey numbers are not portraying waterfowl population trends in a reliable way.  It seems highly illogical that duck populations can continue to increase with the amount of habitat destruction that has gone on the past 10 years.  There are very few waterfowl hunters, observers, or biologists that would concede that there are more ducks today than there were in the 1950’s, 1960’s or 1970’s.  If that is the case, and the May survey has not changed protocols, then it is hard to believe any of the numbers coming from this survey.

12- The FWS conceded to allow special teal seasons in several “Production” states in the past 10 years.  The “production” states within the Mississippi Flyway that took these seasons have all seen dramatic declines in blue-winged teal numbers within their states over the past 30 years.  Why would the FWS allow these states, and more importantly, why would these states take a blue-winged teal season, thus adding harvest to their already decimated local blue-winged teal populations?

13- With the above points in mind, there is major concern by knowledgeable biologists and hunters that there are major flaws in the management of Duck populations in North America.

14 – One significant problem in this equation is that duck scientists that question the current system are typically shunned, ignored and not professionally considered.  The purpose of this document is not to condemn current management but to open the eyes of the people that actually manage waterfowl in North America.  It may not be too late to reverse this perfect storm, but something must be done soon if we are to stem the tide of declining waterfowl hunters, and maintain waterfowl hunting traditions for our children and grandchildren.

Paul Yakupzack
Wildlife Consulting
244 St. Paul Street
Houma, LA 70364

Share

Mixed Messages About Bears and Nuisance Wildlife And the Words of a Totalitarian

Not that most people actually care or are even positioned in any way to think for themselves anymore, but how can you expect people to “learn to live with wild animals” and other such nonsense when the messages being delivered by the indoctrinated authorities is all over the board?

Let’s look at some of the messages being delivered to the public by the Press from members of the so-called expert and authoritarian crowd, including government agencies.

In an article by an “expert” on bears, the expert addresses the fact that recently a professional runner (whatever that is) in Maine was attacked and chased by two bears. He wields the theory that the reason the bear chased the runner was for the same reason a dog chases a car…unknown. The runner decided, because he was a runner, I suppose, to attempt to outrun the bear. He did and ran into a building and hid behind a screen door. The expert says of this event: “Clearly if the bears wanted to get to him and all they had to do was lean into this flimsy screen door,” he says. “At that point the separation of this screen door was enough to say ‘the chase is over.’ Whatever signaled the chase to shutoff at that point indicating that this wasn’t a predatory attack. The initial event was over when there was a structure involved.”

The expert assumes, in his theory, that the bear is only motivated by the urge to chase something that is moving, a la the dog chasing a car theory. One thing wrong with this theory is that, according to the article, when the runner first encountered the bears, “…he encountered two charging black bears.” The two bears were charging not chasing.

What if the bears were actually looking for a meal? If I were to attempt to rationalized a bear’s behavior, as most people do, failing to accept the fact that an animal is an animal and a man is a man, I could say that the bears decided they weren’t that hungry and less effort would be expended by visiting a nearby garbage can or two. Animal behavior is unpredictable….period!

In this incident the authorities give the following advice: “Wardens advise people who encounter black bears to make themselves appear big, make noise and back away slowly. But they recommend people stand their ground if a black bear charges and say if the bear attacks, then fight back.”

A Maine wildlife biologist, whose job is to deal with encounters and interactions between people and wild animals says that he thinks the best thing to do is to find ways in which people can….wait for it…..here it comes….”learn to live with the bear…” or any other animal that is creating a problem.

I wrote recently about my thoughts on anyone trying to tell me to learn to live with wild animals.

Maine’s wildlife biologist suggests, instead of killing the nuisance animal: “would rather move the bear to somewhere else in the neighborhood and then “haze” it a bit, with noise, hit it with some rubber bullets, fire off some pyrotechnics and maybe even “some hound dogs barking nearby.” (Note: Authorities can legally harass and deliberately abuse a wild animal, hoping it teaches them to fear people. It is against the law for you and I to harass wildlife in this manner.)

According to the expert, relocating a wild animal, “About 50 to even 75 percent of them might die” anyways.

In Maine Government News we get a different story. Here we learn that the State of Maine has brought in the Federal Government agency APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) who will distribute rabies bait vaccines in efforts to counter the prevalence of rabies in the Pine Tree State.

In the Release an attempt is being made to educate the public about how to deal with wildlife and especially wildlife that may be infected with rabies. The Government advises against relocating animals, even though they tell us in other media outlets that they prefer moving problem animals to other locations.

“Do not relocate wildlife because this can spread rabies into new areas.”

The last thing I need is some heavily indoctrinated totalitarian animal lover telling me to learn to live with predators and nuisance animals. If I, my family, or my property is being damaged or is in danger of harm or damage, killing the problem animal is about the only sensible solution to the problem. More than likely the reason any animal is intruding on you or your property is because there are too many of them.

Time to do a little house cleaning.

You do what you want to do to deal with such animal issues but don’t tell me I have to learn to live with it when I don’t.

Share

VooDoo Science, Social Demands and Lyme Disease Drive Any-Deer Permit Allocations

So, let me get this straight! According to John Holyoke’s report in the Bangor Daily News, the excuses the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) give for increasing the allotment of “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) to over 66,000 is because of 10 consecutive years of mild winters. I can say they were mild for me because I was in Florida, but record breaking snowfall evidently doesn’t account for any part of the Winter Severity Index.

We hear also that most of those ADPs are being handed out in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) in Central and Southern Maine where populations of deer are the highest, and yet ADPs are being issued in zones where there haven’t been any for a few years and where record deep snowfalls occurred.

And if that isn’t enough to start your blood boiling just a tad, read what Lee Kantar, acting deer biologist(?) said (because the former deer biologist quit and moved on): “Kantar said that as the DIF&W continues to work on its next generation of long-range management plans, a subtle shift is emerging. In past years, it was common for biologists to issue population estimates for various big game animals. When asked for a statewide estimate on deer, Kantar said biologists are focusing more on the health of the population than sheer numbers.

“We’re not abandoning the thought of ‘How many critters are there out there?’ but the means for us doing that, we do as part of monitoring health, as well,” Kantar said.”

This “subtle shift” is a convenient new tool that is part of a continued reduction in accountability for wildlife managers. The ONLY way a biologist can honestly determine how many ADPs to issue to meet population goals is to know how many deer are within a WMD. To somehow approach things from the perspective of “I think the herd is healthy in WMD 27, therefore I will increase ADPs,” is a step backwards of about 40 years.

Now, it appears, the convenient excuse will be that managers don’t really have a handle on deer populations and will, with the onset of a new Romance Biological deer management plan, sense the condition of the herd and make excuses from there. In case you hadn’t figured it out yet, this is right in line with the convenience of Climate Change (CC = 33). With Climate Change and managing deer for “health” is there really any reason Maine needs any wildlife biologists?

The third excuse of convenience is now emerging where the issuance of 66,000-plus ADPs is Lyme Disease. Deer are carriers of ticks that spread Lyme disease. With the perpetual effort to scare the living hell out of people over Lyme disease, social pressures will demand that MDIFW kill more deer. Historically when those demands are made, the deer get killed and licensed sportsmen are not allowed to do the job and residents are not allowed to benefit from the resource. Also, understand that where Lyme disease is said to be most prevalent is in areas where land is heavily posted to prevent access for hunting those deer. As with any Totalitarian society, the problem is created by the totalitarians who in turn demand that government solve their problems. And we know what kind of job government does at anything they do.

Maine residents and sportsmen should look of a “subtle shift,” or maybe not so subtle shift, toward a new movement of Romance Biology and Voodoo Science to guide the wildlife managers to wallow in their own brilliance of disease creation and scarcity because they are fully engaged in the effort to “change the way we look at and discuss wildlife management.”

Share

A Pack Of Anti Wolf Control Lies

Killing predators isn’t always wise game management
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2017/07/16/intensive-game-management/

Claiming that broad-scale wolf control “has limited benefits to prey populations, is an outright lie… This lie is designed to destroy the benefits of consumptive use hunting.. To establish a wilderness region where no man can survive.. This lie being spread about will kill more wildlife by wolves crashing their prey and competitive wild carnivores and then wolves crashing their own population..

State and federal biologists in every state are implementing United Nations Eugenics Policies designed to reduce available resources thus designed to reduce the population of people.

In order to implement this documented double speak designed to reduce the populations of people all over the earth to the population objectives for people outlined in this document they must crash all economic models that support the current populations of people.. By limiting all resources availability which includes all wildlife and even fisheries.. Of course along with domestic agricultural industries that feed people, and livestock.. Which is why food production is under attack.. And why forests are being burned down all around us..

 

An indirect driver, such as human population

Source:

Ecosystem Change
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/millennium-assessment-2/4-factors-changes.htm

Driver
http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/def/driver.htm

Managing ‘drivers’ means getting rid of people – By eliminating economical opportunities, especially consumptive use of ALL resources by first mismanagement then stricter management control leading to eventual termination of specific activities, namely consumptive use hunting as well as other domestic economic opportunities.. Thus causing populations of people to collapse..

Demographic,economic and social drivers
http://www.webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3/pdf/12_WWDR3_ch_2.pdf

KEY DRIVERS OF CHANGE
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2093e/i2093e01.pdf

Driving environmental change
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Environment-chapter2.pdf

protecting water-related ecosystems for sustainable development
http://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/salathe_1.pdf

Ecosystem Change and Human Well-being
Research and Monitoring Priorities Based on the Findings of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment
http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/ecosystem-change-report/ICSU-UNESCO-UNU_Ecosystem_Report.pdf

 

The key lies in knowing what the difference is between real things and fictional things? That is to say, things of the imagination as fictions. This bullshit non carnivore management ideology is a fiction, a fairy tale.. It will never work and if fully implemented in every region will have epic disastrous results.. This madness will destroy all wildlife.. Every last scrap of food wild and domestic that could feed people, especially the citizen classes must be eliminated to successfully crash the citizens population numbers to attain the desired population objectives set forth in the UNEP documents as population objectives for people, citizens.. Using the economy, the economy they own as the weapon…

Feeding the “eco”-economic-so called ecological system to itself and to large predators rather than allowing people to eat and to populate this earth.. Wolves bears cougars coyotes and dirt has more rights than all people that disagrees with the eugenicists posing as environmentalist conservationists..

Share

Native Americans say grizzly bear decision violates religion

The Native American plaintiffs argue that trophy hunting for grizzly bears goes against their religious and spiritual beliefs. The lawsuit filed June 30 asks a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider the Native Americans’ beliefs and consult adequately with them before removing grizzly protections that have been in place since 1975.

“He is our relative. For us Bear Clan members, he is our uncle,” Ben Nuvamsa, a former chairman of the Hopi Tribe in Arizona, said Wednesday. “If that bear is removed, that does impact our ceremonies in that there would not be a being, a religious icon that we would know and recognize.”<<<Read More>>>

Note: Dr. Charles Kay says about this article: “This is all bull[pucky] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!—————Tell me then, where did all those bear claw necklaces that are mentioned in historical journals and today displayed in museums come from???????———also see my article on Lewis and Clark’s wildlife observations———just about the only place grizzlies were found was in buffer zones between tribes at war—-that is to say, hunting by Native Americans controlled the ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION of grizzlies in North America—-the idea that native people did NOT hunt bears is totally absurd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!——–——–Charles

And James Beers writes:

Dr. Charles Kay is 100% right on target.

That said, I would observe all this grizzly bear love BSmythology about wolvestribes helping USFWS stock wolves in defiance of state authorities, and now mandatory incorporation of tribal say-so’s into USFWS “burn and destroy” Listings under the ESA are simply expressions of “partnering” between USFWS bureaucrats, environmental radicals and Tribal governments.

This has many dimensions:

  1. Furthering Tribal claims and precedents and expanding aura of legitimacy both on and OFF Tribal Lands, thus giving Tribal governments increasing authorities in growing segments of rural America is a given attitude among many Tribal members in rural America.

 

  1. Like fish netting, wolf killing, cabin break-ins, fish selling, night shooting and other such law violations going unprosecuted and unpunished throughout much of rural America when involving Tribal members again both on and off Tribal lands by Local, State and federal law “enforcers” from officers to prosecutors and judges; stopping any grizzly bear management or harvest makes attacks on humans and losses to private property more likely and more devastating thus further driving many non-Tribal Americans off the land and out of small towns.

 

  1. This grizzly pagan myth, like Tribal help to USFWS and environmental radicals introducing wolves, and Tribal help to interfere with any wolf and now grizzly control are seen by many Tribal governments as clearly vacating more and more of rural America as livestock production, rural safety, decreased game herds and generally declining economies and Local government authority all suffer as human attacks and depredations increase, rural land values go down and more non-Tribal American rural residents disappear.

 

  1. Much of the reason for this successful legitimizing of Tribal animosities against non-Tribal Americans can be traced to the McCain-Feingold scam law that reputedly “cleaned up and reformed campaign finance” except it exempted Tribal “contributions” (called “lobbying money” when contributed by non-Tribal Americans).  Combine this bit of “special exemption” with all the Casino appeals (Millions of $’s) to US Senators especially to license a casino for this Tribe or that Tribe plus all the Tribal lobbying to NOT grant a license to that Tribe for a Casino that will compete with our Tribe and you have a witches brew of corruption, the Washington “swamp”, angry Tribes, politicians, bureaucrats, and radical environmentalists that all together puts Macbeth’s witches to shame.

 

  1. Federal bureaucrats that envision controlling and/or owning most of rural America; state bureaucrats that seem comfortable with being federal assistants; radical environmentalists that manipulate these bureaucrats like Edgar Bergen manipulated Mortimer Snerd; and University professors that live off of grants are all seen as benign future neighbors by the Tribes since they can push them all around more and more as time goes by.  The grizzlies, like the wolves and “protected” mountain lions, will eventually replace hard-working, innovative and vibrant communities with a few government offices and “law” enforcers aimed only at non-Tribal Americans. Protected and unmanaged Grizzlies, Wolves and Cougars will:

 

–      Kill the dogs of the non-Tribal members,

–      Kill the livestock of the non-Tribal members,

–      Kill the game of the hunters,

–      Destroy the economies of the non-Tribal rural Americans,

–      Cause human deaths and injuries that will make rural life more and more unsustainable, especially for the elderly and the young.

 

  1. As rural America becomes a wasteland of enormous intense destructive fires(due to no timber management); as desirable wildlife disappears (thanks to predators); and as deadly and dangerous wildlife increasingly goes unmanaged (thanks to bad laws and ideologue bureaucrats): the bureaucrats will sit at their desks in this “New Normal” world estimating how long to retirement; the professors will begin wondering why a nation Trillions in debt no longer funds wildlife research for things of no economic or social benefit; the politicians will harvest their millions of unreported lobbying money; non-Tribal Americans will pour millions into the Casinos for Tribes to continue the dissolution of rural America; and radical environmentalists will continue churning out documentaries and magazines full of dire predictions about this and that critter that demand you send them money before it is too late, etc., etc.  While non-Tribal Americans scoff at this, many Tribal communities and governments see this as not only likely, but inevitable.

 

Expanding Tribal Lebensraum (German for – additional territory considered, especially by Nazi Germany, to be necessary for national survival) and exemption from any US law is the Tribal Utopia these pagan animal myths are intended to advance and the radicals, bureaucrats and politicians are only too willing to accept them and use them without question because they believe what makes the Tribes happy will only make them happy by lining their pockets and providing retirement behind walls paid for by lobbying $’s, promotions and bonuses received for chirping these dastardly duets about pagan sacred this and pagan sacred that to advance hidden agendas that are no more than 800# gorillas all around that we all pretend aren’t there.

Now, let me get this straight.  If,

“The Native American plaintiffs argue that trophy hunting for grizzly bears goes against their religious and spiritual beliefs. The lawsuit filed June 30 asks a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider the Native Americans’ beliefs and consult adequately with them before removing grizzly protections that have been in place since 1975. He is our relative. For us Bear Clan members, he is our uncle,”

Then how come we cannot have a manger scene in a park?  How come you can’t mention the Bible in school?  How come we have all these nutty and Draconian rules barring our religious expression and this agency, and these plaintiffs get all this extra-legal protection???  Somebody call the ACLU (halloo, anyone out there?) and throw the whole pack of them in jail or at least treat them like Judge Moore of Ten Commandments fame or those Right-to-Life folks that exposed the barbarity of Planned Parenthood and were treated worse than many terrorists.

Jim Beers

9 July 2017

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

 

Share

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Are Radio Tracking Collars Just a Waste of Money?

One might think so.

I was reading last night a story about what authorities in Minnesota are saying is killing their moose. According to this report, Minnesota once had 8,840 moose in 2006 and now there are only 3,710 “based on aerial surveys in January.”

What about those surveys?

We are told that that between 2013 and 2015, 173 moose were collared as part of a planned study to determine why the moose were dying. It has been reported that because of animal rights perverts’ complaints about the study (probably fearing the study might prove their ideology wrong), the governor stopped any further collaring of moose and essentially the study ended and one has to wonder whether much or any of the information they claim to publish is worth camel dung.

The report says, “Of 173 moose that were captured and fitted with GPS-transmitting collars from 2013 to 2015, here’s what happened to them:

* 28 moose are still alive with collars that are working.

* 53 are believed to be alive but their collars have stopped working.

* 23 are presumed to be still alive but their collars fell off and their status is unknown.
* 12 died immediately after being collared so were not part of the mortality study.
* 57 died with working collars and are the basis for the mortality study data — the moose where cause of death is known”
57 moose, out of 3,710 is the sample used in making their determinations as to what is killing Minnesota’s moose. I doubt that the pie chart they have provided is very accurate and can tell us only what perhaps killed those 57 moose.
But it gets worse. Minnesota officials tell us that collars are very problematic. “It’s frustrating. It’s disappointing. But it’s still a developing technology. Everyone who uses collars like this has issues. There’s a lot that can go wrong,”
The report also contains some other interesting bits of information. As an example, some have determined that the moose are “malnourished.” Undernourishment is being blamed on habitat and there are indications that the highest survival rates for moose are coming in areas that recently saw very large forest fires and the forests have begun to regenerate.
In addition, calf survival rates are running around 30% which, if accurate, tells us it is doubtful that there would be any growth in the moose herd contributed from newborn moose. And, those moose calves, according to Minnesota officials, are being killed mostly by wolves and bear.
Share