March 18, 2019

Spain Dealing With Attacking Wolves, Threat Exists for Disease

What may not be getting to these people is the information and education of the great risk they may have from diseases spread readily by wild canines. With so many accounts of so many wolves near people’s homes and along the highway, diseases such as Echinococcus granulosus threaten the health of all people. Wolves infected with the tapeworm, will leave dangerous spores in their feces. People in the outdoors and in particular domestic dogs and other animals can easily get these eggs on their fur and transport them into the homes where children and adults can easily ingest them.

Wolves attacking livestock, human beings and destroying wild animals and game, is a completely different subject than dealing with the disease aspect of wolves.

Wolves in Avila, Spain attack calf in broad daylight beside the highway.

Original Spanish edition:

“Just listen to the roars of the animal, the two men ran across the road. But despite arriving in a few minutes, allowing them to see in person the wolf, and could do nothing to save the calf, which had been attacked by the hindquarters.”

English Translation edition:

Sheep attack and kill 11 sheep in Las Navas del Marqués, in the place El Saltillo, Spain. This is the 15th attack in 3 months.

Original Spanish edition:

“The Young Farmers Agricultural Association (Asaja) Avila has denounced a new wolf attack in the town of Las Navas del Marqués, in the place El Saltillo, which caused early Thursday in the deaths of eleven sheep and caused numerous abortions in the flock.”

English Translation edition:


Independent Review of Rule Proposal to Delist Wolves Nationally

The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis was asked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review a proposal being made by the USFWS to remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list of protected animals. The link below will take readers to that 68-page report.

In short, the panel of so-called expert and independent scientists determined that the USFWS’s rule, “does not currently represent the ‘best available science’.”

While it may be that this report accurately describes the work of the USFWS in its proposed rule to delist wolves nationally, one has to wonder about the politics involved at every level. In my mind, I am highly skeptical about the overall plans of the USFWS and how they may be using this review for future purposes, some of which we know nothing about. Historically, the USFWS is notorious for manipulating “science” and utilizing court rulings to further their agenda, while taking advantage of their subsidiaries in wildlife crime, the environmental groups.

We will have to wait and see, I suppose, what kind of sinister effects this review will have on the management of gray wolves and other threatened or endangered species.

Here is the link to the review.


Problem With Wolves in Finland: More Than 9 Incidents in 2 Weeks

*Editor’s Note* – Below is part of an email I received today about dealing with wolves in Finland. Note that it states these incidents, and evidently there are more, happened during a 2-week period of time in February (2014).

To make the effort by readers easier, I have left the original link as was sent but I took the time to include the link to a translated version of the story. Please bear in mind that the Google translation is not a perfect translation but it should be good enough that readers can understand what is taking place. You can read the translated stories by clicking on the “Translation” link after each original link.

This is what we have here. And this all has happened in only February in less than two weeks time!
(There are more news links here:

Two wolves attacked and ate a deer near houses in Huittinen, South-Western Finland. In this place in picture there are 15-20 wolves living in the area.

Here are wolf tracks in Seinäjoki, middle- Finland in Western part. They were found 300 m from houses.

This is at Uukuniemi, Eastern Finland, 100 meters from Houses, wolf on the way to village center and church.

This happaned in Honkajoki, in Western coast. Man found traces of wolf in his home yard.

In this case a girl was riding a horse in Hämeenlinna, Southern Finland, when a possible wolf hybrid attacked the horse from the back side. The horse managed to kick the wolf and it stopped the attack.

Here was a radio satellite -wolf walking in village center in Ilomantsi, Eastern Finland. This wolf’s pack has visited home areas several times during January and February.

Here is a young wolf walking in Oulu city area in Northern (or middle) Finland.

This man has wolf tracks almost every week in front of his house. Some of the visits are made by the radio-satellite-wolf “Hessu”.

This is a wolf or possible wolf-hybrid in Joensuu-city waste plant area. It has visited the area every other week since summer.


The Wolves Held Back the Deer

A friend and reader sent me some information found in a book called, “The History of the White-Tailed Deer in Maine.” Below are excerpts from that book about the deer herd in the State of Maine from as early as the 1700s. Readers might note a couple of things:

1.) In early settlement times, the deer were found almost exclusively along the coastline for a number of reasons. Twice in this writing it is mentioned that deer migrated inland with the expansion of the human population due, in part, by the reduction of the wolf population by the settlers.

2.) The deer would not and did not migrate inland as, “…the wolf still held back the deer from making important gains in those areas which were beginning to be opened up.”

Odd, isn’t it, that our history books are filled with accounts of how wolves dictated the scarcity of game and yet, today, this fact is denied by every environmentalist and their phoney organizations.






New Sponsors, New Adventures Highlight Expanded Season Four of RMEF Team Elk

MISSOULA, Mont.–Big bulls, the quest to find them, and other hunting and conservation adventures highlight the on-going Season Four of RMEF Team Elk, which now covers 52 weeks a year.

RMEF Team Elk is presented by Cabela’s. Other sponsors new to the award-winning TV program are Yeti Coolers, New Holland, Zeiss, Flextone, Grizzly Sleeping Bags (Black Pine Sports) and Montana Canvas. Returning sponsors include Browning, Buck Knives, Danner, Eberlestock, PSE, Archer Xtreme, Nosler, Hunt by onXmaps, Sitka, Yamaha, Budweiser and PEAK.

“We consider our sponsors valuable conservation partners,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “Their involvement and investment allows us to better highlight elk, elk habitat, other wildlife, our hunting heritage and our mission to ensure their future.”

Episodes of RMEF Team Elk air every Tuesday at 12:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Thursday at 10:30 p.m., and Friday at 11 p.m. (all times ET) on Outdoor Channel.

Season Four highlights memorable hunts in Utah, Montana, Idaho, Kentucky, New Mexico and on other beautiful landscapes across elk country. Among featured Team Elk members are host Brandon Bates, featured member Kristy Titus, country music artists Easton Corbin and Josh Thompson, Chris Sprangers of Cabela’s, former Indy race car driver Johnny Unser, Eberlestock founder Glen Eberle, PSE founder Pete Shepley and four teenage girls on their first deer hunt.

“Not only is Team Elk the title of our television show but it also represents a dedicated and passionate base of volunteers, members and our valued sponsor partners,” added Decker.


Senator Charles Schumer Calls for Ban on Chemical Used in Bread

Senator Charles Schumer Calls for Ban on Chemical Used in Bread that Obama’s FDA Says is Safe as Used

Reason: It’s Also Used in Yoga Mats

New York, NY/Washington DC – The following is the response of Jeff Stier, director of the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, to the call of Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) for a ban on azodicarbonamide after Subway restaurants removed the FDA-approved substance from its bread in response to an activist’s petition:

Subway’s move came as a result from pressure from Vani Hari, a blogger who calls herself “The Food Babe.”

The move had everything to do with public relations and nothing to do with food safety. Bread itself, by virtue of being a baked carbohydrate, has the carcinogen acrylamide in it. That doesn’t mean it is dangerous at the levels humans consume it.

While Subway is free to market itself however it wishes, the move sets a dangerous policy precedent.

Ms. Hari’s central argument against azodicarbonamide is that the chemical is also used in yoga mats. Ands shoes. Really.

If this is the new standard, obesity isn’t going to be a problem anymore – starvation is.

It was only a matter of days until Senator Schumer called for an FDA ban on azodicarbonamide. In a slap in the face to career scientists at the Obama FDA, which allows azodicarbonamide for the very purpose Subway and other chains use it. Schumer said, ‘The Subway chain has done it on its own. We’re asking other chains to do it on their own. But we’re asking the FDA to ban it so nobody uses it.

This is a classic example of governing by bullying. The government asks for voluntary compliance, but, just in case, it threatens to make that voluntary compliance mandatory.

What Senator Schumer fails to realize is that if we use his simplistic standard fairly, his approach would put a slew of his state’s businesses out of business. The Senator says, ‘When it comes to carcinogens, we can’t be too careful. Cancer’s on the rise. We’re never quite sure why. Why not be safe rather than sorry?’

We have an entire fields of science – toxicology-risk assessment – and Senator Schumer wants to throw it all out the window and demand that the FDA ignore the science and ban a chemical because activists have catchy but foolish slogans, such as ‘We shouldn’t eat foods with ingredients we can’t pronounce.’

Other chains that use the chemical include McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Arby’s, Jack in the Box, Chick-fil-A and Dunkin Donuts.

I am concerned that the activists have set the standard so low, and Subway, for one, showed weakness by not defending the safety of their ingredients, that before you know it,we’ll have calls to disassemble modern food production, going after a different FDA approved ingredient each week

When activist bloggers who call themselves things like “Food Babes” and Senators like Chuck Schumer exhibit reckless disregard for science-based food policy, one has got to wonder why we even have an FDA in the first place. It appears that activists and headline-hungry political hacks are the ones who make food policy when industry fails to defend the safety of the ingredients they’d served their healthy customers for years.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff about science policy, met with OMB/OIRA officials, and has submitted testimony to state government legislative hearings. Most recently, he testified before the science committee of the New York City Council about that city’s ban on public use of e-cigarettes.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


Ride With Carl Edwards in a 1901 Ford “Sweepstakes”



“The Real Wolf” Sells 1,800 Copies in First Week

“I’m elated and very humbled,” Lyon said when he learned how fast the book has sold. “My co-author, Will Graves and I, along with the contributors to the book are extremely happy this book is already being read by nearly 2,000 persons and sales of the book have just started.”<<<Read More>>>

Visit The Real Wolf website.


The Sierra Club Hates………..

The Sierra Club is not only lying to its members, it is lying to all of us when it says: “Getting all of the energy we need without using fossil fuels is no longer a question of whether we can—but whether we will.” We can’t, we shouldn’t, and we won’t…but we must wait until Obama is no longer in office and, as early as the 2014 midterm elections, we must rid our nation of his supporters in Congress.<<<Read More>>>


Mental Health and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Next Thursday the Montana Legislature’s Law and Justice Interim Committee will hold a hearing to consider whether or not Montana should do more to capture mental health records and feed those into federal electronic systems, such as the NICS created by the Brady Law. Here is my written testimony to the L&J Committee:

Montana Legislature
Law and Justice Interim Committee
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and Mental Health
February 13, 2014

Testimony for Committee, by
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Will improved mental health evaluations, and data collection and reporting of mental health information decrease violence, especially gun-related violence?

I. Qualifications to provide information.

Mr. Marbut is accepted in state and federal courts in civil and criminal cases concerning firearms safety, use of force, legitimate self defense, and related topics. Mr. Marbut is an active self defense instructor and has graduated over 3,800 students from curriculae concerning Montana laws, and the tactics and methods of defense. Mr. Marbut is a member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and a follower of and sometimes contributor to the Force Science Research Center.

II. Precursor, background issues.

Before the question posed above can be effectively answered, some foundation issues must be addressed.

1. Are people with mental health issues commonly prone to future violence? No. A 2009 study found that individuals with mental health disorders no more likely to commit acts of violence than the rest of the population; rather, future violence was indicated by other factors, such as substance abuse and a prior history of such acts. One explanation is that some individuals with severe disorders are too disorganized or afraid to commit crimes. For example, individuals with severe schizophrenia may have delusions – for instance, a belief that they and others around them face a danger of attack or threat. This leads some persons suffering from this form of delusion to seclude themselves from the outside world and to express extreme caution toward others…

2. Is gun-related mass violence by persons with mental health issues increasing and is it a pressing national problem? No and no. Despite obsessive media reporting when such incidents occur, the number of those incidents and the number of victims claimed in those incidents remain static, this notwithstanding an increasing population size and increasing levels of gun ownership.

3. Is there an increased national murder rate that can be attributed to mental health failures? No. Actually, murder rates in the US are dramatically down, again despite increasing rates of firearms ownership, increasing population, and stressful economic times. Because overall murder rates, including murder rates with firearms, are in a definite downward trend, there is no rationale’ to claim increases because of people with mental health problems, or inadequate mental health reporting.

4. Is the state of the art in psychology capable of correctly identifying people with mental health problems who are prone to violence. No. This answer only repeats what many professionals and experts in the field of psychology insist, that the art of psychology simply does not possess the tools at this stage in the evolution of the art to accurately predict violence. Much better predictors of violence include drug use, and history of violence.
“Skilled and practiced mental health professionals have gotten a lot better at predicting short- term dangerousness,” said Dr. Steven E. Pitt, a forensic psychiatrist who consults with the Phoenix Police Department and directed the Columbine Psychiatric Autopsy Project after the 1999 school shootings. “But who’s going to commit violence in some unspecified future? You might as well consult a Ouija board.”

5. Is there any connection at all between mass shootings and mental health? Yes. Besides that we’d consider crazy any person who would take the lives of innocents, there is another connection between mass shootings and mental health. That connection is psychotropic drugs. All of the mass shootings in recent memory have been done by people who either were actively taking prescribed psychotropic drugs, or who were supposed to be taking psychotropic drugs but quit. In order to obtain these psychotropic drugs, these people perpetrating mass shootings were under the care of a mental health practitioner licensed to prescribe the drugs. See:

6. Base Rate Fallacy. A well defined and important but little known phenomenon is base rate fallacy. It has to do as much with statistics than with psychology, but it is essential for psychology. There is an excellent article on Base Rate Fallacy in Wikipedia at:
Anyone contemplating the issue of mental health and persistent mental health records would be wise to learn about and understand the concept of base rate fallacy.

The essence is this: Any widespread screening for a condition (e.g., mentally unstable person prone to violence) among the general population is guaranteed to turn up many more false positives than true positives, just because of an unavoidable error rate, which would be especially pronounced in the fuzzy field of psychology. The false positives would outnumber the true positives by one or more orders of magnitude. Thus, people not prone to violence would unavoidably be stigmatized and likely lose civil rights because of an error rate that cannot be eliminated.

7. Persistent records/improper records non-correction. There are not good, affordable or comprehensive mechanisms in place or available to get persistent records corrected if a person is incorrectly identified as prone to violence, or if the person gets treatment and is cured of any tendency towards violence. This is especially true of the National Instant Check System (NICS). People who are marked on NICS as ineligible for firearms transfer find it difficult or impossible to get records corrected.

Summery of a Texas legal case is in order here (US v. Bean, 537 U.S. 77(2002) ). After attending a gun show in Texas, Thomas Bean drove to Mexico. When Mexican officials stopped his vehicle at the border, they found ammunition, and Bean was subsequently convicted in a Mexican court of importing ammunition. Because of his felony conviction, 18 USC section 922(g)(1) prohibited Bean from possessing, distributing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. Bean applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for relief from his firearms disabilities, but the ATF returned the application unprocessed, explaining that its annual appropriations law forbade it from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications such as Bean’s. Bean then filed suit, asking the District Court to conduct its own inquiry into his fitness to possess a gun and grant relief from his inability to possess, distribute, or receive firearms or ammunition.

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the absence of an actual denial of Bean’s petition by ATF precludes judicial review. Because Bean’s application for relief from the firearms disabilities was not considered due to appropriation provisions, Justice Thomas reasoned that the court could not grant relief since the statute only permitted judicial review of an affirmative denial of an application.
Thus, Bean could not get his rights restored, notwithstanding that what he was convicted of in Mexico is not a crime in the US, simply because Congress had not funded the BATF’s process to correct records swept in from other countries, and restore Bean’s rights. Not only was Bean, a competitive trapshooter, unable to purchase new firearms, he was ineligible for life to possess any firearms he had previously purchased legally.

8. Barking up the wrong tree; “Gun free zones.” Besides psychotropic drugs, the other common denominator for mass shootings in schools, theaters, and other places, is that they ALL happen in purported “gun free zones.” These alleged “gun free zones,” of course, are NEVER “gun free,” but only gun free for the victims. People bent on mayhem never respect “gun free zones.” In fact. perpetrators of mass violence seek out disarmed victim zones, for obvious reasons. Only those who respect the law and have no murderous intent comply with such silly zone rules and are thereby rendered defenseless. Thus, “alleged “gun free zones” are demonstrated to be very dangerous places, places where deranged perpetrators are assured of a resistance free killing field. Collection and sharing of mental health records will do nothing to address this glaring problem.

9. Will a system-reported mental health deficiency prevent deranged people from acquiring guns? No. Almost universally, those who have committed mass shootings have acquired the guns they used through means that would not be interdicted by a NICS check. A mental health disqualification for firearm purchase will only affect those who obtain guns through legal channels. That is, mental health evaluation and disqualification would have zero effect on the class of people intended for interdiction, perpetrators of mass shootings.

10. Will the prospective loss of civil rights dissuade possibly needy people from seeing mental health professionals? Yes. If there are people who need psychological intervention, the expected loss of their civil rights via data sharing will certainly persuade many of them to avoid any contact with the mental health community. See:

III. Conclusion

People with mental health issues have no greater rate of violence than the public at large. Any mental health search for violent people would assuredly turn up far more false positives than true positives (base rate fallacy). These people tagged because of false positives would likely be stripped of their civil rights for life, with no practical way to get their records cleared or revised following treatment. Within the arena of psychology, experts disagree about whether the art has evolved sufficiently to provide tools allowing practitioners to correctly predict an individual’s future violence. Even if the violent people could be identified and documented through mental health screenings, and disqualified from firearms purchase, that would not interdict the ability of such individuals to obtain guns and commit mayhem. Integrating mental health treatment with civil rights denial systems will persuade many people who may need treatment to avoid treatment. Nor would any such system address the dominant twin problems with mass shootings of psychotropic drugs and the low-hanging fruit for violent people of “gun free zones.”

Finally, there will be those who will respond with some version of, “… but if it saves just one life …” Criminologist professor Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million people in the US defend themselves every year with a firearm. In most cases the mere display of a firearm is sufficient to make assailants go away and save the defender, since Kleck says shots are fired in only 9% of these cases. Causing a significant percentage of these 2.5 million people to be disarmed (revisit base rate fallacy) would certainly end up costing far more lives than might be saved through the fuzzy and problematic process of mental health screening and records sharing.

Will improved mental health evaluations, and data collection and reporting of mental health information decrease violence, especially gun-related violence? No. But it can destroy the civil rights of too many innocent people in a fruitless quest to “do something.” That would be especially unfortunate and unwise if the “something” were so easily predictable to be contraindicated.

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
Author, Gun Laws of Montana