September 17, 2019

Still Pushing “Climate Change” As Effecting Winter Ticks. Changing Propaganda?

It is incredibly insane listening to and reading the idiots who insist on spreading the lie that Climate Change is the cause for an increased presence of winter ticks which consequently are killing moose by sucking them dry of blood.

For years now, brain-dead scientismists have beat their propaganda drums that due to “lack of cold winters and ample snow” winter ticks are thriving and killing moose. Their premise has been that northern states, like Maine, because of warmer winters was not killing the ticks. Ignorance and the need to promote a false, non-existence of “Climate Change” (in the context that it is being promoted) failed to understand the complete life cycle of the tick and to what severity of cold, snow, and the right conditions needed to actually limit the number of ticks.

But that hasn’t stopped them from their money-making promotions of “Climate Change.”

From news out of Canada, a report falsely claims that global warming is the cause of moose mortality in Maine and other Northeast States as well as Canada. However, this time around, perhaps motivated by the fact that nobody is buying the B.S. that the lack of “normal” cold winters and snow are causing the ticks to thrive (people are looking out their windows and seeing 3-feet of snow and below zero temperatures in mid-November), they’ve decided to change their propaganda (lies) to approach the manipulation from a slightly different use of words (such as changing global warming to climate change): “…that tick is a parasite that’s given more time to find a host. Moose are just exposed to this potential parasite load for a longer period of time.” (emboldening added) There is never any consideration that the simple fact that too many moose perpetuate the growth and distribution of the winter tick.

Because, evidently, the lack of cold and snow (which isn’t happening on a regular basis) isn’t working out to substantiate their false claims of global warming they now are promoting that due to a warming climate ticks have a longer period of time to find a host moose to ride on for the winter and such them clean of blood.

What’s amazing is these clowns spend all of their “research” time (wink-wink) trying to figure out what’s happening to the moose because of the tick (by using someone else’s data) and nobody is interested in studying the actual tick. The only information being used about the tick is nonsense spread from one half-baked scientismist to another and repeated en masse and eagerly by an irresponsible, enabling, and lazy Media.

Evidently the authors of this propaganda piece didn’t bother to ask those in Maine conducting moose studies, or they didn’t want to because it might upset their agendas, otherwise, they would have found that Maine’s biologists are suggesting that the seemingly unprecedented spread of winter ticks is caused simply by the presence of too many moose.

But, there is no money in finding solutions and there is far more money in perpetuating “Climate Change.”

What’s most sad is the fact that truth and reality are being suppressed due to the perpetuation of the false myths about global warming.

Share

My Recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

George Smith, an outdoor writer, and environmentalist, provides his readers with a list of his recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). I can’t say I agree with everything he is suggesting. I’ll explain why.

Smith wants a better open door policy at the MDIFW main office. I agree although I don’t use it and probably never will. You can’t fix a rigged system by using the rigged system.

George says it’s time for MDIFW to do something about turkeys. He says there are too many, that the fees and permitting system needs to be changed, bag limits raised, in order to motivate more hunters to take up turkey hunting.

I’m not a turkey hunter. I’ve never tried it and doubt that I will for a number of reasons. I will, however, concur that there are too many turkeys. I’ve never seen as many wild turkeys as I have this late summer and fall.

It is a known fact that management and acceptance of any wild animal on the landscape are heavily influenced by acceptance and satisfaction from the general public. When such animals become a nuisance and a public health and safety issue, acceptance by the public disappears in a hurry. Maine is reaching that point where they are considering the turkey to be a nuisance. I agree something should be done to get those numbers under better control.

It is my strong opinion that Maine has too many moose. This has caused the overwhelming growth in winter ticks that are destroying the moose herd. Maine should have been keeping the moose population at lower, healthier levels than growing them to numbers great enough to appease the selfish desires of tourists and hunters.

Smith suggests a program of capturing and “spraying” moose to kill the ticks. This is about as feasible as trapping deer and planting birth control devices in them. It certainly appears to me that the biggest motivational factor in finding ways to kill the ticks other than reducing the population is completely selfish. Whining and carrying on because moose gawking businesses can’t make enough money unless they can see moose anytime and everywhere they want to is not only selfish but it’s irresponsible. MDIFW is irresponsible in their management goals of the moose to attempt to grow moose to numbers that satisfy the tourist industry.

Smith says that Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s moose biologist, said he, “…believes that eventually the population will be reduced to a level where ticks will not be such a problem.” Eventually? Is this going to happen when the ticks (Natural Regulation) have successfully brought the number of moose to levels it should be through years of suffering moose, or is MDIFW actively manipulating the moose hunt to bring numbers to tick-free desired levels?

Hypocrisy exists when Smith in one breath suggests that moose numbers should be protected by finding ways to “spray” moose to kill ticks, while in the next talks about how proud he was to help facilitate the slaughter of deer on one of Maine’s coastal islands. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. While killing the deer was in the name of putting a stop to Lyme disease, evidently, such a suggestion informs us that ignorance is abundant when it comes to winter ticks, moose, and disease.

Marketing Maine by the Maine government to draw in tourists, hunters, anglers, hikers, etc. is a waste of time and money. Many Maine residents, who aren’t the business owners trying to make a go of it, while calling upon the government to promote their businesses, don’t want more of these people coming to the state, all for the sake of collecting more money. Any business should be geared to do their own marketing and provide a product or service good enough that “if you build it they will come.” Why should I subsidize another’s business? Who is subsidizing me? This is nothing more than an exemplification of the socialist/totalitarian society we have become.

Once again, Smith extolls the need to fund MDIFW with general taxation dollars. He even says that MDIFW should be run by “groups representing hunters, anglers, conservationists, and environmentalists.” It doesn’t take much effort to see that in other states that have done this, their fish and game departments have gone to hell in a handbasket.

I don’t understand how anyone of sound mind can encourage the operation of the fish and game department by those “conservationists and environmentalists” who have cost us millions of dollars over the years attempting to put a stop to hunting and trapping. Isn’t this a form of insanity?

The MDIFW has become overrun with “conservationists and environmentalists” and that’s one of the biggest reasons large predators have grown out of control and deer populations are shrinking to a point they’ve decided not to even bother attempting to manage deer in those areas that have lost all their deer.

Environmentalism is a planned mental illness that operates on the false pretense that “Natural Regulation” (which is an oxymoron) works better than a hands-on approach. Turning the reins of MDIFW over to the environmentalists and animal rights radicals, which is what you’ll get once the leverage of how the MDIFW is funded, is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

It might be of great interest if some who promote general taxation monies to fund the MDIFW would expend a little effort and look into what has become of other state’s fish and game departments when they lost control, turned their work over to Environmentalism and renamed their departments, departments of conservation and environment.

Granted the MDIFW needs some changes, but not in the wrong direction. Moving it more toward the demands of Environmentalism isn’t a cure unless death is what you are seeking.

Share

Maine’s Forgotten “Game Plan for Deer”

Does anybody remember? Maine had/has a deer problem. What was/is the problem? There are not enough deer statewide, and when combined with predator devastation, harsh winters (global warming isn’t helping) and grumbling began the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) figured they best do something to appease the grumblers. Thus was born Maine’s Game Plan for Deer.

The farce was devised and published in March of 2011. *Note* I would highly recommend (if you give a rat’s patootie) that you go to this link quickly and download it into your computer files for safekeeping and future reference before it disappears…again.

I wrote extensively during that time about the plan, and in those writings provided readers with a link to the Plan. Unfortunately, like with hundreds of other documents, when MDIFW rebuilt their website, which is difficult at best to navigate and impossible at times to find anything, all of the previous links became void – perhaps by design.

This morning I began to think again about this document and plan and wondered why so much time, money, and effort was put into devising this piece of propaganda. At the time I called the work a worthless document and asked if MDIFW practiced deer management as a hobby. I wrote: “The Maine Game Plan for Deer is a worthless document until a strong and united effort is undertaken. It has to be more than task force creations, meetings, talk, and rhetoric, while fractured small groups or individuals practice futility. It appears Maine has to learn how to build a coalition that brings everybody onto the same page. Until that happens the only rebuilding of any deer herds will be happenstance.”

Game management history in Maine should have taught us that the mandated 15-year management plans are nothing more than typical political bureaucratic nonsense. This is proven out because nothing ever written in these plans is followed and when game managers remove themselves and their work from those plans, their excuses are that “best available science” changes and managers have to change with those changes. Yeah, OK!

Now, we have learned that Maine’s Game Plan for Deer was another political appeasement, a worthless document designed to get the complaining idiot hunters (their perceptions) off their back. Essentially, the Plan was tossed in the garbage and disregarded. Didn’t this become evident when the pretty document was scrubbed from the MDIFW website?

And then we have the surveys that MDIFW paid ridiculous amounts of money for saying they wanted to make their management plans based on what “stakeholders” (including anti-hunters, environmentalists, and animal rights radicals) wanted and their perceptions of existing game management.

We can easily assume that all previous game management plans, including Maine’s Game Plan for Deer, became null and void after Responsive Management devised the outcome based, scientismic, Delphi Technique enhanced answers to rigged questions.

We also can only assume that the new 15-year deer management plan that calls for reducing the deer population, stopping counting game animals, and strive for hocus-pocus “healthy” deer is the result of the SURVEY! Wink-wink and Kumbaya!

What’s odd though is that spending a considerable amount of time read searching the published results of that Survey, I don’t recall any questions, concerns, or comments about “stakeholders” wanting to stop counting game, reducing game populations, and/or putting a focus on healthy deer rather than focusing on growing a deer herd that would provide better opportunities to hunt and to boost the success rate, which in turn would continue to keep interest in deer hunting stable or growing.

Or maybe the new 15-year plan is newly devised to create just the opposite because that’s what Environmentalism and animal rights perverts, saturating the department, want.

So, why do we have a department of fish and wildlife? It’s all part of the rigged system. They waste money by devising wicked and worthless documents, convincing people they have our interest at heart, and evidently, we fail miserably in not seeing the scam.

MDIFW, like all government bureaucracies, is going to do just as they damn well please. First up on that agenda is to do what is necessary to keep fake biologists and game managers employed, at least long enough to collect a pension. The art is making the people think they are doing worthwhile, commendable work is a must.

Your government at work! Nice…real nice.

Maybe we need to develop a task force to look into this.

Share

Too Many Deer? Not Enough Forest? Who Gets to Decide?

I was sent a link to an article about the woes of Wisconsin in places where someone gets to say there are too many deer and that having “too many” deer is not good for the forest and may even promote disease in animals and people. Whose perspective is right? Who gets to decide how it should be?

Perhaps the work written of in this article is all, mostly, or some or not true. Who is to say really. We read it as working class stiffs and either agree with it because it fits into our own narratives conveniently, or dispel it because it doesn’t. So what’s the problem?

If there are too many deer, who gets to make that determination and on what basis do they use to decide? The researcher in focus says that where there are “too many” deer, it’s not good for the forests. Who says?

In reality, one has to wonder how much of any of all this discussion would even be happening if our society hadn’t turned into one of hatred of man and preferred affection of animals? There was a day, really not that long ago, when it was never questioned about why game managers were manipulating herds to the benefit of consumers/hunters. Yes, people needed and wanted deer meat to eat. It was not questioned. It was actually encouraged…if today’s young, progressives can believe that.

Today, it’s a different story. Hatred, greed, anger, radical animal protection has turned the table. When you combine all of this with money available to carry out the scientism of outcome-based studies that will be used to prop up environmentalists’ groups, used to sustain their onslaught of money-making lawsuits, is there anything left that at all resembles true scientific processes?

To somebody, Wisconsin has too many deer. To others, there’s not enough. To somebody, the number of deer that exist are damaging the forest. To others, what exists is normal. But the real question should be looked at from whose perspective these statements are being created? And who gets to decide?

What I see, mixed in with all the greed and corruption, are entities like the forest industry buying whatever “research” they can afford to protect their working forests. This is not unlike hunting organizations wishing to protect the very game they desire to chase which happens to be a very lucrative industry in its own right. Toss in the billions of dollars spent by well-funded environmental groups and it’s a war.

Was it always this way? It seems that before Environmentalism reared its extremely ugly, hate-filled head in the 1970s, the forest industry and the hunting industry go along quite well. This union was also readily accepted by society as part of American Heritage.

As has become the norm, money talks and $#!% walks. Money and greed can get you anything you want because there’s enough greed to go around. Perhaps the researchers are doing their work rooted in their own brainwashed and propagandized perspectives and don’t see the corruption behind it all. We either accept it or reject it and whoever gets the most support in numbers and money, wins.

What a life!

Share

“Oh Give Me a Home, Where the Buffalo Don’t Roam..”

By James Beers:

News Item from:  THE WESTERNER

National Park Service Approves Quarantine And Transfer Of Bison To Tribes  By MELODIE EDWARDS  MAY 25, 2018

Hundreds of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park each year are rounded up and killed to keep them from spreading brucellosis. But tribes have long wanted the disease-free bison to go to reservations.

Now, the National Park Service has signed an environmental assessment that will quarantine animals for six to 12 months before releasing them into tribal care. Public lands are also interested in growing bison herds. 

In the fall of 1957, during hunting season and while I was playing high school football; I came down with a high fever, swollen glands and a spleen the “size of a baseball” according to my doctor.  I spent 5 days in the small-town hospital and a week at home in bed.  I had contracted undulant fever, the human manifestation of brucellosis.

No one could figure out where I got it and there was no County Health Department at the time so the source of the infection went unresolved.

More than 5 decades later while researching diseases, infections and other deadly and dangerous maladies carried and transmitted by wolves, I came across some OLD veterinary science. (Note: NEW vets and their researchers don’t touch anything like this for fear that those soccer moms with money and pets that they “love” like our parents used to love us might think their veterinarian was anti-wolf and probably pro farming, ranching, animal ownership, hunting, etc.)  Brucellosis, I learned is carried by dogs and wolves, coyotes and any other Canid that happens to wander into an infected area.  They can contract it from any infected item eaten, mouthed or sniffed, or from blood contact like rolling in infected material with skin lesions or oral contact with infected material.  Further reading explained that brucellosis can be transmitted by saliva to humans and livestock.

That fall I had a Chesapeake Bay Retriever that was a crackerjack pheasant-finder and duck-retriever.  I had permission over a wide farm area to wander with that dog and my shotgun pretty much at will as time permitted.  The farms were mainly dairy and corn farms with lots of edge and ditches holding everything from mallards to snipe and mink.   I am now convinced that one or more dairy cows had brucellosis in the areas we wandered through and my dog had contracted it (probably in a pasture) and I got it from his saliva.  Canids can be simple carriers showing no outward symptoms.

That dog and I were on the same wavelength and I often showered him with praise when he did what I wanted.  I would often scratch his ears and put my face close to him letting him lick my face.  I also had cuts on my hands from football, cutting wood, etc. that he would lick when he noticed them.  He and I had been hunting mallards and pheasants in the days before I went into the hospital and my mother feared I would die while the diagnosis was uncertain.

There are many other reasons than cattle infections to keep agricultural/farming areas free of animals like buffalo that can contract, carry and transmit brucellosis.

  • Just think about some dark buffalo standing on a gravel road at 10 o’clock some stormy night as you drive home from some business in town with your kids in the back seat asleep.
  • Think about pasture and field fences that are simply stumble points for buffalo.
  • Think about ornery buffalo bulls getting in with cattle.
  • Think about buffalo in plowed ground or corn or wheat or a garden or a green pasture.
  • Think about hunting as I was one fine day behind a dog in an enormous stretch of rolling hills and grass near Malta, Montana for pheasants and sharptails.  There was nary a tree in sight.  What if the dog topped a ridge and startled or otherwise bothered some buffalo out of his or my sight and the buffalo went for the dog?  Where and to who would the dog go?  If you said, “why to you”, Bingo!  So where would I and my 20 gauge with #6’s go??  Quick now buffalo can move pretty fast.

Buffalo were extirpated on the Great Plains and mountain valleys, not by “hunters” nor for “sport”.  Buffalo were extirpated for the common-sense and common-good purpose understood by men without “degrees” but with families and a hope to raise them by raising crops and grazing livestock.  They knew that you could never do those things with free-roaming buffalo in the neighborhood.  DITTO, by the way, for wolves and grizzly bears.

Our native American brethren welcome buffalo on select reservations for many reasons that are best left unmentioned, just they did and do with wolves in cahoots with bureaucrats and radicals.  Even when tribal members shoot and kill a wolf, they are “punished” like Montessori kids whose dog ate their homework, while you and I may go to prison and lose our voting and gun rights plus pay a large fine for even attempting to “take” a wolf.  Like the wolves, buffalo on reservations will certainly wander off the reservation and begin more mayhem than I mentioned here as their numbers increase and their range spreads just like wolves and grizzly bears.

While rural Americans will “howl” about all this like Atlanta under Sherman, the natives will only smile and the urban environmental radicals; animal rights extremists; urban lawyers; state wildlife agencies; and “perfessors” in search of money, graduate students and notoriety will swarm into media reports, demonstrations, classrooms and lawsuits to “save” the buffalo. Media outlets and courts of law will be platforms protesting everything from how “they” (the buffalo) were here first and how any “control” would jeopardize the precious buffalo “family” structure to how buffalo “restore” the prairies (and other) “ecosystems” while being of immense benefit to rural America (all of which is 100% BS) as the accompanying rural evacuation as in The Grapes of Wrath they are perpetrating continues.

I guess you can mark me down as a supporter of a big (8’ x 12’) professional sign I saw next to the entrance of the Catholic Church in Malta, Montana when I went to church there while bird hunting one fine fall Sunday morning a few years ago.  It read:

NO FREE-ROAMING BUFFALO IN MALTA… VOTE NO! 

Consider:

  1. Buffalo are very susceptible to being infected with Brucellosis.
  2. If not contained, buffalo will roam far and wide; and when uncontained they are, by definition, without an owner responsible for their actions or effects.
  3. When free-roaming buffalo encounter Brucellosis, they will contract and spread it.  The likelihood of cattle, canids and certain humans contracting and spreading brucellosis is significant.
  4. Who would check free-roaming buffalo for Brucellosis and how would you know which buffalo is checked as buffalo numbers and range increase?  For how long and under who’s jurisdiction and oversight would free-roaming buffalo be checked? How thoroughly and how often, as in all or annually would free-roaming buffalo be checked? How practical is that? How much would it cost?  Who pays for all this with what funds?   Who has primary jurisdiction over which (federal land/private land/state land/reservation/entire species/etc.) buffalo?
  5. Who is responsible if there is an outbreak of Brucellosis or other damage to the public by these government-introduced (GI) Buffalo?  Is it to be like government-introduced wolves and grizzly bears that kill people or destroy private property with no government responsibility while the blame is placed on human victims for not behaving correctly or for violating some bureaucratic regulation?
  6. Who, with any common sense believes that all this checking will be done for more than a few (at most) years, while Draconian law enforcement will increase and go on for a bureaucrat’s forever as the buffalo increase and spread?

The real point is the urban supporters are not harmed by buffalo or wolves or grizzly bears (or pythons): while the ruralcitizens lack both the political power and financial wherewithal to stop what is being perpetrated upon them by powerful bureaucracies for all manner of foul agendas.

If this were made into a movie it could sensibly be titled, “The Bride of Wolves and Grizzlies”.  The past 40 years of this same scheming by federal and state bureaucrats, Indian Tribes and radical organizations to similarly introduce and protect wolves, grizzly bears and now buffalo as adjuncts to Wilderness; Government Land Purchases, Government-supported Easements of Private Property; Public Land Closures to use and management; and a host of other government moves on behalf of radical groups intending to ultimately depopulate the rural West and the Great Plains.  Like wolves and grizzlies, buffalo will only increase and speed up the dissolution of local communities’ economies and safety to steadily establish unchallenged federal enclaves that destroy communities, rural families and local governments while making state bureaucracies little more than federal offices.

George Orwell, call your office.

Jim Beers

9 November 2018

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.

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

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Isle Royale Wolf & Moose Implications

*Editor’s Note* – The editor would like to point out that he believes it is in error to state that introducing wolves, once again, to Isle Royale is “unconstitutional” and quotes the Tenth Amendment as the sole reason for such. The Constitution, for what it is worth, operates as a complete document not by picking only certain Articles to fit a narrative. While one might argue for or against the meaning of the Tenth Amendment, Article I, Section 8 is disregarded as well as the government’s bastardization of the Commerce Clause. Beyond this, the actions on Isle Royale with moose and wolves are but a reflection of the fascist, Marxist, Totalitarian, Collectivist society/government we have grown. 

By James Beers

A fellow-Minnesotan recently read what I wrote about Isle Royale National Park and it caused him to write the following question.  My two responses follow and may prove helpful to urban residents that are unsure of the advisability of relying on federal and state bureaucracies when dealing with endangered species, government land holdings, and explanations of what they do.

  1. The Question:

Thanks for the emails.

The spin I read is that as you see in this article “more wolves mean a better chance of keeping the island’s growing moose population in check.” https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/09/first_new_wolves_released_on_m.html.

So, I’m not sure if 1600 moose on Isle Royale is a problem or not.

  1. Response #1.

There are many threads woven in this and similar wildlife issues.  I will try to unravel a few in this article I write for both the concerned public and professional wildlife professionals.

  1. Wildlife, with the exception of those species named on a Treaty (i.e. for instance the Migratory Bird Treaties with Britain on behalf of Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia) ratified by the US Senate and signed by the President of the US, are Constitutionally under the authority and Jurisdiction of the State wherein they occur.
  2. In the past 50 years, thanks to the unjust (for what it does to families and rural communities) and un-Constitutional (see ARTICLE X, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” powers granted to federal bureaucracies by 1960’s/1970’s environmental legislation (Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, Wild Horse and Burrows Act, Animal Welfare Act, etc.) that was introduced and passed by Nixon as he was “managing” Watergate and Ford as he sought re-election: federal bureaucrats seeking more money and power; politicians seeking votes and financial donations from NGO’s; and rich and politically powerful environmental/animal rights organizations and wealthy individuals in both Europe and North America have been expanding and using these powers (like naming and placing species like wolves and grizzlies) to advance all manner of hidden agendas from collapsing rural land values, making state wildlife powers more and more irrelevant, and making rural America hostile to families, rural communities, vibrant economies, private property, Local governments and any state powers that exceed assisting federal programs as laid out in federal directives.     (WOW, that must be the granddaddy of all Faulknerian sentences!  I seem to be incapable of editing it because any edit seems to detract from my intentions.)
  3. Federal natural resource agencies like the National Park Service (NPS), US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), US Forest Service (FS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have, simultaneously with #2, been expanding their regulatory power, working with Congress to “tweak” (make small amendments in concert with other legislative matters like Budget Appropriations) the laws mentioned in #2 and expanding their manpower and budgets (higher grades, more bonuses, bigger retirement costs, etc.).  Additionally, each year the federal government buys thousands to millions of more acres for the four agencies named above and, in both open and clandestine “partnership” (Grants, later purchase with markup) with the NGO’s – especially The Nature Conservancy – place untold acreages under permanent (No Use/No Management/No access etc.) Easements to both federal agencies and private NGO’s.
  4. Isle Royale National Park (Island) while a National Park is still just as much under the jurisdiction and authority of the State of Michigan as though you and I had purchased it.  The only exception is that you and I would have to pay state and local taxes on the property while NPS (like USFWS, FS and BLM) cannot pay such taxes per the Constitution and thus pays an entirely discretionary amount annually (and sometimes not) called “Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes” or “PILT that is always far less than the tax burden for a private owner.  You and I would have no more say about what animals were there or introduced or exterminated or hunted or otherwise meddled with under state oversight than if we owned a thousand acres bordering on Lake Minnetonka and thought to introduce free-roaming buffalo for hunting or resident Nene geese and Australian pochard Hardhead ducks for “safari” photography tours around the ownership.
  5. Yet, on Isle Royale NPS decides that they will manage Isle Royale for the (Non-Native) moose that were originally brought to the island by rich early settlers to provide food and “sport”.  Further, NPS decides that wolves will be introduced artificially to “control” any moose population explosion.  According to NPS brochures the wolves only came to Isle Royale in the 1940’s so they too are Not Native.  Enter the silent partners in this saga, USFWS under the illusion of the wolves being “endangered” or “threatened” everywhere in the Lower 48 States, traps wolves and cooperates in caging and transporting them to Isle Royale.  We are told that they were trapped in “Minnesota” but that is not true.  They were trapped on and transported from the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, where, as any Minnesota walleye fisherman knows, “the state has no jurisdiction”.  This little ploy was also used when Canadian wolves were caught and transported clandestinely to Yellowstone National Park (an early Park established before WY, ID and MT as States and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of WY, ID, or MT) using $45 to 60 Million stolen by USFWS bureaucrats from state wildlife funds.  Not only had Congress refused to authorize or fund the wolf introductions in the Upper Rockies, FWS additionally defied Congress by also shipping some of the wolves to an Indian Reservation in central Idaho for release despite the loud objections of Idaho residents and their State and Local governments.
  6. So, the truly “endangered” caribou that are all but extinct in the Lower 48 are ignored by FWS on this island  where they occurred naturally 100 years ago, FWS (the enforcer of the Endangered Species Act) supports and enables NPS plans to make a (expensive to get to; all but impossible to get around in due to a Wilderness Declaration; and closed 5 months of the year) National Park into a rich folks fantasy land.  If caribou were restored, wolves would even more (than moose) quickly extirpate them from the island but what business does NPS have to proceed with this moose/wolf ecosystem preference anyway?  Why is the wolf considered a wolf valid “controller’ here on Isle Royale; when it is blamed for making a once-hunted (until recently) Minnesota moose herd only a remnant that no longer can support hunting or Upper Rocky Mountain elk herds all but a shadow of their former numbers since wolves were released, the wolf is denied as the culprit by federal and state bureaucrats and environmental NGO’s that blame “climate” or “ticks” or a lack of funding for the moose/elk demise everywhere but Isle Royale?  What business does FWS have trapping wolves and helping transport them to the island?  Is the MN DNR assisting in this FWS/NPS/Native American game of smoke and mirrors?  Where is the Michigan DNR in all this?  Why are they approving (or ignoring) this NO HUNTING federal scheme?  If Non-Native Wolves are being introduced to “control” Non-Native moose; why would Michigan simply ignore a gold mine of revenue for moose hunting when the Island is closed anyway each fall until next spring?  If NPS doesn’t want to cooperate on “their” island – FWS and NPS really have NO JURISDICTION to introduce wolves on the island without a Michigan permit since it is not a valid “ESA action.
  7. Michigan like most other Lower 48 States no longer have DNR’s that even imagine standing up to federal wildlife actions.  Minnesota hasn’t met a federal action in 50 years that it did not rollover for and wag its tail.  So, although ISLE Royale is unpopulated, this sort of “Me Federal: You State” Tarzan-like wildlife management and federal land management rolling over State and Local authorities and jurisdictions are simply accumulating legal PRECEDENTS when at some future date some poor rural  schlub stands up in some “Hearing”, or writes a letter to FWS or NPS, or even goes so far as to hire a lawyer to “defend” his and his State’s Rights and is told by some federal bureaucrat, or federal politician or some judge (“from the right court”) that this was all settled in the Isle Royale moose and wolves Decisions years ago!
  8. The magical qualities of certain wildlife species (the howl of the wolf and the honking of migrating geese are two prime examples) are being dissolved by federal oversight.  Resident Canada geese were bred and released by federal biologists in Jamestown North Dakota in the 1950’s.  Today millions of resident Canada geese throughout the Northern Lower 48 States are little more than infectious vermin in cities, on golf courses, in urban waterways, urban parks urban schoolyards and urban playground  In all honesty, those early wildlife “scientists” thought they were doing God’s work with not the slightest inkling of what they would wrought   It is the same with federal “science” giving sainthood to wolves, grizzlies, and encouraging state to do the same for mountain lions.  What was once a rare glimpse or sound to stir the soul is now a note of fear for ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, school teachers in rural America where these animals are forced on a populace that has no recourse under sterile State governments and gradually disappearing Local governments to represent rural American problems (Trump?).  Giving these large predators carte blanche federal/state protection in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States is a travesty to human dignity and scientifically is like the resident geese wintering in a park or schoolyard.  Geese should migrate and any large predator in The Lower 48 States should be legally classified as subservient to and treated as subject to immediate consequences when destroying or threatening any human or human endeavor.

  1. Response #2.

There is one more aspect of this Isle Royale saga that I should mention.

First, I believe it is more likely than not that some NPS guy or guys trapped and transported those first (1940’s/50’s) wolves to the island.  You did not have to have “scientific” training in those days to realize that if you just bought an island full of moose and you were absolutely committed to NO HUNTING or wildlife management (only “observation”, “interpretation”, and “study”) that you somehow had to keep moose numbers down or watch the island turn into some sort of Falkland Island suitable only for seabird nesting (albeit 1,000 miles from the sea).

However, whether the NPS’ers brought wolves to the island or even supplemented their gene pool occasionally and clandestinely (if you doubt that look no farther than the wolves trapped and transported from a non-disclosed location in Canada, brought into the US without Importation Documents or declared origins and financed by stolen state wildlife program funds for release in Yellowstone and an Indian Reservation in Idaho by USFWS) is immaterial for purposes here.  Trapping and transport, probably with the willing collusion of FWS, Grand Portage Reservation managers and the MN DNR (each of whom are and were for a long time in a quid pro quo relationship over Isle Royale as some sort of scientific-tourist “laboratory” remains very likely.

When the first wolves arrived, they encountered a very robust and by all accounts over-population of food, i.e. moose.  Like German submariners off the coast of the US in the first 5 months of WWII, wolves would no doubt recall (if they could) those times as what those German submariners called “The Happy Times”.

Wolves ate good, moose meat is very healthy, and the numerous moose were and always are (see Alaska or Siberia) particularly vulnerable to wolf predation.  Puppies galore grew up without any problems.

Imagine such a high moose population after 10-20 (?) years absorbing that predation from the growing wolf population, so the moose stay numerous and the wolves increase and increase in a cornucopia of food.

Then the wolf predation starts to overtake moose production disrupting the equilibrium and the moose decrease as the wolves keep increasing because there are still plenty of moose around albeit growing harder and harder to find.  Moose begin to decrease steadily.  Wolf competition and deadly aggressive encounters increase as food availability decreases.  Moose numbers begin to “plunge” and soon wolf stress increases as wolves begin to decrease while NPS, FWS and MN DNR burble about “interbreeding” suddenly appearing and concern about moose “recovering”.

The low wolf numbers and an apparent slow moose increase becomes fantasy fodder for kid’s books and tales about “Mother Nature in Lake Superior, Gaia be praised”.  In actual happenings, the moose start to slowly recover because the remaining wolves (the last of a dwindling population without food, i.e. moose) must expend more calories finding and killing a moose.  Recognizing that the public expects more than “slow” or “no” moose recovery, government stands ready to “do something”.

This scenario was the culmination of the moose population “plunge” that began with the first “ice-crosser” wolves back to the mainland, where at least one was shot on the Indian Reservation, in the late 1990’s.  It finally became undeniable over the last 10 years.  It took 60 (?) years.

Now the Romance of Large Predators obsessing urban Americans today gets a boost from the current government program to “Save” the Wolves of Isle Royale to great fanfare.

I probably won’t live to see this, but you may, otherwise I would make a bet that this next “bring in the wolves and watch the moose disappear” cycle will (without any more clandestine government intriguing) take 30 years or less.  The reason being that these few wolves are being released on an island with a recovering moose population that will, much sooner than when last wolves “arrived” on the island, see its increasing moose numbers losing ground to wolf increasing much sooner due to a lower food supply for wolves.  The period of quasi-equilibrium will be shorter because the moose population will be starting from a lower level than those Post-WWII years arrivals.

None of this is “natural”.  The irony is that it will be heralded as such (as well as legal) and be used for propaganda in the schools, legal precedents for more federal government mischief (too weak a word), and by a plethora of NGO’s bent on destroying Rural America as part of the Socialism apparently sweeping the country and bent on mimicking the likes of Cuban, Venezuelan and Russian governance.

Jim

Jim Beers

5 November 2018

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.

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

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Animals Are NOT People

Recently, an animal protectionist voiced concern about the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Maine. We all should be concerned about the spread of this deadly to animal disease (it has of yet not proven that it can jump over and infect humans). But, animals, as much as we care about their welfare, even those animals given to us by our Creator as a natural resource to enjoy from viewing to table fare, are not people and should not be treated as such. In doing so, lines of priority in the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all get blurred even to a point of perversion.

The article begins by making an association of equality or even preference of the animal over that of man by stating: “If we had a chance to help a human or an animal, why wouldn’t we do it? If we knew that the situation could easily get worse — in some cases, far worse — why wouldn’t we do what we could now instead of waiting?”

The first priority, in a natural setting of existence understanding, should always be that of man. Because Man was granted “dominion” over all the plants and animals by our Creator, the first concern is with people. Animals become secondary and of concern in this case because man’s existence is directly affected.

The perversion shows when the author uses the relative pronoun “who” in reference to a deer or deer collectively: “I would have thought that the DIFW biologist’s primary concern would have been the suffering and death of the animals who might contract CWD.” and, “…the feeding of deer who might have been exposed to CWD…”

The importance of this misuse of pronouns isn’t so much that the writing is grammatically incorrect, something a “published author from Bristol” should know, it is the exposure of the indoctrination that has perverted the minds of millions who insist on categorizing animals at the same existence level as that of man. How sick is that….really?

It is impossible to rightly attack any problem or establish any kind of rule or regulation in the management of any animal when the animal is not placed in the correct hierarchy according to relative importance based on the existence of Man. Because our animal-perverse society has muddied the differences between man and animal, such distinctions of utmost importance are lost and decisions rendered ended up being acts of perversion in their own right.

This misguided perversion shows when the author takes issue with comments made by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) about the concerns of the hunting industry should CWD have a devasting effect on the deer and moose. The author chooses to disregard the common sense association that their concerns over the health and welfare of the animals exist in unspoken words from the quotes that were handpicked.

Perhaps the upside of this is that the MDIFW sees the potential risks of the spread of disease as being first and foremost a concern for that of the people and their welfare and secondly to the animals and their health…or maybe not.

But, make no mistake about it, CWD is extremely problematic and the author does bring up some good points to consider.

It is impossible to stop the spread of the disease but steps can be taken to slow it down. The MDIFW already has mandatory regulations in place to help in that regard. Some of those steps may need to be strengthened if the disease shows signs of actually making its way into Maine.

Because CWD prions can find their way into the commercial marketing of urine-based scents and lures, I agree with the author that they should be banned.

I think the jury is still out on feeding of deer as to whether or not congregated feeding actually causes the spread of disease any more than in a natural setting due to the make-up of the disease itself. There are some trade-off issues that need to be considered when it comes to feeding deer, but the bottom line is that CWD will destroy the deer and moose herds and thus destroy the hunting industry as well as wildlife viewing.

As might be spoken by any avid totalitarian, animal rights activist, the following statement should be of concern to all: “It needs nothing less than the force of law.” 

As our collectivist society works harder and harder at destroying their own free existence, avidly calling on a fascist government (force of law) to rule with an iron fist should be of concern for all…but isn’t.

As with any of this talk, based on utter ignorance of facts, media echo chambers will continue to repeat misguided claims and false information without actually doing any real research to understand the creation and history of CWD. It’s a shame really but nothing more than a reflection of the automatonic existence that has been created for all of us.

As a brilliant man recently shared, with Collectivism comes collective ignorance and stupidity. Collectivism ensures like existence. How frightfully boring!

Share

Frigid weather and extended snow cover once kept the ticks in check.

BULLPUCKY!!!!!!!!!

As is typical of Environmentalism’s propaganda machine and brainwashing throughout all of Academia, another BS article in the Bangor Daily News, when discussing the problems with winter ticks and moose, states that “Frigid weather and extended snow cover once kept the ticks in check. But with climate change resulting in winters starting later and less snow in some places, winter ticks have more time to find their hosts.”

This is utter nonsense – propaganda fomented by environmentalists to promote their lies about global warming. It’s also ignorance about the winter tick itself. Even existing studies don’t support such nonsense.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!!! GEEZUS MAN!!!

So, is Maine now backing off their claims of earlier in the year when they were leaning toward attributing the large growth and presence of winter ticks to an inflated moose population? Maybe there are more grant monies available to those promoting Climate Change?

This is what Maine’s moose biologist Lee Kantar said about the differences in moose between Northern Maine and those in Western and Southern parts of the state: “I’m trying to strike a balance here between concern for moose in parts of the state and then the idea that in other parts of the state, in northern Maine, the population appears to be quite stable…We’re trying to do our due diligence in understanding the moderating climate, winter ticks and moose densities.”

If they believe in their nonsense about climate change then why can’t they see that attempting to grow moose in Maine to levels that are too high to sustain a healthy population, in time will force moose further south into climates that might attribute to better survival of the winter tick? But then again, weather and climate play such a minor role in the existence and perpetuation of the winter ticks that biologists are wasting their time trying to figure it all out.

It’s all hocus pocus – biology 101. If you want to get rid of the winter ticks and thus the high rates of mortality among moose calves and female moose, reduce the population. The longer wildlife managers remain befuddled by the BS lies of Climate Change, nothing will ever be learned.

God, the insanity!!!

Share

At What Point Will Maine Hunters Simply Hang up Their Deer Rifles?

In Bob Humphreys’ article this week, he does a very respectable job of explaining to his readers about the politics of deer management. His basic premise is that as the deer management goals are changing, opportunities to hunt deer will continue to diminish, a result of attempting to sustain a deer herd at “social carrying capacity” rather than biological carrying capacity.

In his article, he writes: “In other words, some areas (central and southern Maine) could support between 40 to 60 deer per square mile with no deleterious effects on the natural habitat, and would be well within the limits biologists strive for under the precepts of sound deer management. But then current management objectives for those areas were 15 to 20 deer per square mile.”

Environmentalism’s powerful lobby has extended to a point where not only have their objectives become an integral part of our basic education curriculum, but the continued effects have successfully bred environmentalist-minded young wildlife biologists/managers who now are the majority with our fish and wildlife agencies.

A major problem exists as we attempt to look into the future of deer hunting in Maine and elsewhere. Brainwashed by Environmentalism, it is impossible to understand or acknowledge the vital importance that hunting plays in managing and sustaining a deer herd. Without hunting, there is no way to control growth…period. It doesn’t take a Ph. D. to understand that in places where hunting is not permitted, there are eventually problems with too many deer and with too many deer there are problems with disease and the spread of it – diseases harmful to humans.

I repeatedly have heard the claim from animal rights people and environmentalists that they are not trying to stop hunting. Well, perhaps not directly. The ending of hunting is one of their major goals. Through propaganda and lobbying efforts if environmentalists can convince enough people that there is a need to reduce the deer population to levels that will limit automobile collisions, reduce Lyme disease, and stop them hungry critters eating their expensive shrubbery, bringing the herd to numbers low enough to achieve that might effectively put an end to deer hunting, at least as we know it and certainly as it used to be.

There exists a line of effective interest, where if that line is moved further and further to the point where the effort at deer hunting yields few or little results, interest in the activity will evaporate. At what point will it have to reach in order that so few will want to hunt deer anymore that hunting as a management tool can no longer be usable?

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service surveys, the number one reason fewer people hunt is that they don’t have the time. This may be true but doesn’t it become harder to justify taking the time to hunt if the hunting is poor?

I can only speak for myself. I have always loved to deer hunt. In my prime, I hunted in any weather for the majority of days that deer hunting season was open. I most often took home a deer by end of the season. Today, the effort is no longer there. I believe the biggest contributing factor is that in the past 10 years of deer hunting, I can count on one hand how many deer I have SEEN in the woods. Granted, some of that lack of success is due to aging and reduced effort, but a lot of that reduced effort has become perpetuating. In other words, it becomes harder and harder to yard this tired aging body out of bed at 4 a.m. to be in the woods before it gets daylight because the motivation to see deer and have an opportunity to bag one is gone. As a matter of fact, it seems I look for excuses not to go out, especially if the weather is threatening.

Where once Maine set herd management goals for deer to approach 400,000 animals, their latest management goals call for 210,000 deer by the year 2033. Simple mathematical logic might tell us that in theory if there were the same number of hunters 20 years ago as there are today, the odds of bagging a deer have been cut in half. It takes a person completely in love with the act of hunting to pursue an animal that gives a hunter a less than 20% chance at filling his freezer. Some say the challenge increases which is some kind of a draw, but that is not the interest of the majority of those looking for meat. As chances shrink so does interest.

What kind of a conundrum will the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries (MDIFW) be in when, due to environmentalist-spurned deer management, they have successfully driven away enough hunters so that they cannot depend on hunters and their long-standing “Any-Deer Permit” system to deplete the herd to “social carrying capacity?”

Regardless of whether deer management is paid for with license purchases or through general taxation, if the deer hunting sucks, nobody will want to hunt anymore and then what?

Share

Politics May Cause Focus on CWD Spread to be in the Wrong Places

Chronic Wasting Disease has been found in deer in Ontario Province in Canada. Some in Maine and other New England states have taken up a panic or semi-panic mode while saying and doing stupid things. One thing is for sure. Few of us know anything about the disease…even those pretending to be an authority.

As with most things like diseases that are serious, why does it seem the focus is placed on the wrong aspect of the problem? It seems an American thing to avoid the real issue and place the focus on emotional and political BS. We see this in discussions about AIDS and the Second Amendment. With AIDS, instead of addressing the immoral lifestyles that most greatly contribute to the spread of the disease, we only focus on a cure in order to permit the perpetuation of homosexuality.

In speaking of guns, Americans almost never focus on the real issue of what causes a person to resort to violent behavior that is deadly to other humans. So much effort is placed on ensuring that law-abiding citizens have their right to choose how to protect themselves taken away.

And now we see Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) sneaking up on us. Many admit that scientists don’t fully understand the disease. They have a better sense of the end result – almost – than the cause and the spread.

As is typical, with diseases such as CWD, brucellosis, Echinococcus granulosis, Neospora caninum, etc., where both wild and domestic animals can become infected and infectious, often the blame, if you will, is placed on captive animal facilities as being the culprits in the growth and spread of these diseases to the wild population of the same animals. This has never been proven as fact and is next to impossible to do so. To state otherwise is dishonest.

In an article I read in the Berkshire Eagle of Massachusetts, it was written that: “If you have regulatory authority over captive farms you could require really high fences, double fences and require tags on your deer.”

Part of the argument being expressed here is that an agriculture department will not be strict enough in regulating captive cervids and that authority should be given to fish and wildlife agencies. There is serious political corruption that exists within both departments that we should never consider one government agency as being better at regulating than another. History has shown us that fish and wildlife agencies can be just as corrupt in their wielding of authority for political reasons as any agriculture department.

By directing the focus of the problem on captive cervid ranches, we may be doing ourselves a real disservice when it comes to serious efforts to understand this disease, for without the right knowledge proper control if there is such a thing, is impossible.

For those who don’t know, I will tell you that captive cervid ranchers would put up “high fences” and “double fences” if they could afford it in order to protect their herds from the spread of disease from outside into the ranch. It’s been several years now since I last spent a great deal of time learning about elk and deer ranching, but the last time I recall discussing double fencing the cost ranged somewhere around $1 million a mile. The argument for high and double fencing is to prevent any kind of contact between captive animals and wild ones.

It is sometimes lost in these emotional discussions that ranchers absolutely do not want any disease in their herds. It’s stupid to think differently. CWD within a herd of captive elk or deer would put the rancher out of business.

Because some choose to believe that diseases like CWD originate within the fences and is spread beyond the fences through contact with other animals outside the fences, they fail to understand that it can just as easily happen in the reverse. There was a time when in areas where CWD occurs, no instances of CWD had been detected in captive cervids. That should tell us something. It seems the real issue is in regulating the import and export of captive cervids, especially across state lines.

I visited domestic elk ranches in the West a few years back and was impressed with how conscientious they were about every aspect of their business, including the threat of disease. Again I say, any serious disease will destroy that business and none of them want it.

The author of the article linked to does a pretty good job explaining to readers about how easily and quickly CWD can spread in the wild. He writes: “Deer disperse out, and in studies they have found 75 percent of yearling males will disperse from two miles on up from where they were born. Stainbrook cited that one yearling disperser in Pennsylvania, which had a GPS collar on it went over 90 miles. This could be a major contributor to how CWD can spread across the landscape. There are ongoing studies to try to determine the average distance that deer will disperse. If the average males travel four or five miles, one can estimate after 10 years how far CWD has been spread.”

Captive deer are captive, enclosed behind fences, and unable to “disperse.” It, therefore, makes a bit of sense that they are less likely to be the chief culprit in the spread of the disease. Any agriculture business needs to be responsible for disease spread and for the most part, I think that is the case. We can do many things to reduce the risk of the spread of disease, or at least perhaps slow it down, but short of a cure, there is little hope of completely stopping it. Ensuring that we keep our focus on the problem in the right places, prioritizing them from a scientific position rather than a political one will go a long way in addressing a serious disease spread.

Share