September 25, 2017

Wolves in Israel Preying on Children

Below is a teaser and link to an article about how, what is believed to be 100 – 150 wolves in Israel, are now regularly attacking children in parks, campgrounds, and most everywhere else where possible.

People refuse to learn history. Because Americans refuse to learn anything, especially anything that doesn’t take place on our own soil, we have no idea of the history of wolves worldwide – only the false information echoed throughout the media in this country. That information is seriously flawed and highly inaccurate.

There was a reason that settlers in this country killed every wolf they could. Failing to do that today, Israel, and many other countries, are trying to find ways to deal with the wolf – most often resorting to failed attempts at “learning to coexist.” There is no such thing as coexisting, i.e. sharing the landscape with wolves. Wolves belong in the wilderness. Forcing the two to share the landscape is asking for death and disease

In this article there are a couple things worth pointing out. The first is that the author tries to make some sort of comparison between wolves in Israel and wolves in the U.S. by comparing numbers. The author says there are 100 – 150 in Israel and 10 attacks in four months but in the U.S. “there are tens of thousands of wolves but almost no attacks.” There are far more “attacks” than “almost no” here in the U.S. and Canada. The media refuses to publish the events. In addition, perhaps the author was better describing “tens of thousands of wolves” in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 States, than simply the U.S. The Lower 48 numbers into the thousands.

But what is missing in this comparison is the most important part. You have to examine the number of wolves forced into small, densely human populated regions. Tiny little Israel sharing space with 100 – 150 wolves is no comparison to the vastness, in comparison, of the U.S. and its thousands of wolves. Where wolves are being forced to exist in areas with higher human density, that’s where the attacks are taking place, just as in Israel. History has always shown that when man and wolves are forced together, there is nothing but trouble. Again, this is why settlers spent so much time killing wolves. It was either kill or be killed.

The second issue perhaps gets to the bare bones of why there are 100 – 150 wolves in Israel and why there are so many attacks on children. The author writes, “wardens armed with paintball guns also patrol areas and that aggressive wolves are attacked.” Sorry, but honest research has shown that hazing of wolves and large predators in general, is only good for a short period of time – until the wolves adapt to the hazing tactics. You can’t stop a hungry wolf.

“There have been ten attacks by wolves on humans in the past four months in Israel, and in most cases the animals were trying to make off with infants or babies, the Haaretz daily reported on Tuesday.

In what is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, wolves are approaching campsites to try and snatch what they can — including small children.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Man Attacked By Bear – Fails to “Look Big”

*Editor’s Note* – Even though we can continuously read, day after day of yet another bear attack on a man, they never happen, or are extremely rare.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Obviously, this man was hauled down from a tree more than one time because he failed to “LOOK BIG.”

“A bowhunter was dragged from his tree stand and mauled by a black bear recently. He resorted to stabbing the bear repeatedly with an arrow until it broke off the attack.”<<<Read More>>>

 

Share

More Bear Attack Survival Advice From Someone Who Obviously Hasn’t Been Attacked

It has always tickled me that “experts” or wannabe experts are at liberty to hand out gads of advice on how to survive an attack by a bear. To my knowledge, I’ve never heard or read anybody’s advice who has actually been attacked by a bear. But that doesn’t stop people from telling you what to do…right or wrong.

The latest, mostly nonsense, comes to us from an article found on Pajamas Media – “How to Survive a Bear Attack in America.” Are we to guess that none of this advice will work outside of America? Or is it that only American bears attack people?

The first mistake the author makes is to very quickly give advice to never “play dead” when being attacked by a bear because this act “can quickly lead to actual death.” A bit later in the article, the author advises, “If the grizzly charged you because it considered you to be a threat, you’ll want the bear to think you’ve passed on. Once the bear believes that you are a harmless corpse, the chances are really good that it’ll give up and move on.”

Perhaps the best advice is to not pay heed to this guy’s advice.

It also appears that this guy has full faith and confidence in bear spray as the only way to ward off an attacking bear. I wonder if he’s ever used it? Hope that the wind isn’t blowing when the attack happens. However, read this insane explanation about which kind of bear spray to use: “Both bear spray and normal pepper spray contain oleoresin capsicum, the chemical found in chili peppers that gives a nasty burning sensation when sprayed in the faces of humans and bears, but the difference is that bear spray contains 80-90 percent less of the noxious chemical than regular pepper spray. That’s because pepper sprays aren’t intended to incapacitate a grizzly, it’s designed to surprise and scare the hulking creature away from you; using pepper spray that was made for use on human goons on a bear is overkill!”

Seriously? Think about it for a minute. I agree that if I were being attacked by “human goons” I would want the most powerful spray available, or better yet the most powerful handgun on the planet today. But the same holds true for a damned attacking bear. Why would I care if I was using “overkill” to stop an attacking bear? The damned bear is probably about to rip me to shreds and I should be concerned over whether or not I’m using too much of a deterrent? Only an idiot thinks this way.

You can’t make this stuff up. Only a willing participant in this animal-perverse society would be concerned about harming the bear and not giving a rat’s hind end about harming another person.

According to this clown, if you are being attacked by a polar bear, you might as well pull out that most powerful handgun in the world and blow your brains out. He suggests that if the non “overkill” bear spray doesn’t work (huh?), “use whatever weapon you have available.”  Isn’t that “overkill?” If there’s a chance the bear spray isn’t going to work on a charging bear, why not carry a weapon that will?

I love this suggestion. Okay, so you are being attacked by a polar bear. According to this guy, “Avoid the enraged, starving polar bear’s powerful jaws and massive meat hook claws.”

Yes, the last time I was having a fight with a polar bear, I survived by using Mohammed Ali’s famed, “Rope a Dope.” I was able to avoid the powerful claws and jaws, kicked the bear in the nuts and while it was bent over in pain I remembered the advice to “back away slowly and cautiously.”

I am especially amused when experts give lip service to the reasons why bears might attack a person. It seems that in their pea brains the only reasons are either they are hungry or pissed off at you. Evidently this author suggests that the tactics you use against a hungry bear are different than from an angry bear. However, the author doesn’t expertly tell us how to tell the difference. Perhaps you could just ask the bear.

Always the advice to “scare off” an attacking bear is to “LOOK BIG!” This author in question doesn’t actually give that advice. The closest he comes is to tell readers to “stand tall.” Once you’ve calmly taken up the “tall” stance, then commence to kick the shit out of the bear. Works every time!

If you encounter a bear, any kind of bear in any kind of setting, it’s a crap shoot. If you come armed so as not to harm the bear with “overkill” then chances are you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of the bear. God bless you! No matter how much experts want to pretend they know something, they don’t. Animals don’t think like humans and the more humans pretend to believe that animals rationalize things like people do, the more trouble you are likely to get into. When a person tells you that, “bear don’t like surprises,” what, exactly, are they basing that premise on? I can tell you. It’s Romance Biology and Voodoo Science. We want so much to rationalize a bear’s behavior based upon our own. It just doesn’t work that way.

Remember, after all this advice, consider the idea, BEFORE heading into bear country, that perhaps a bear will attack you just because it wants to.

Share

GawblesMurka!

Share

Professional runner outruns 2 bears while training in Maine woods

*Editor’s Note* – Evidently this runner “DIDN’T LOOK BIG ENOUGH!”

AUBURN, Maine — A professional runner from Kenya who was out training on a nature trail in the woods near his home in Maine says he encountered two charging black bears but was able to outrun them during a frantic sprint to a nearby vacant house for cover.

Moninda Marube said when he saw the bears early Wednesday his instincts kicked in and he did what he does best: run.<<<Read More>>>

 

Share

Predators: You Built it Tarzan! You Climb it!

Officials from the town of Cape Elizabeth in Maine have issued a warning to people who walk trails in the region because a couple of coyotes were spotted by a walker. Reading some of the comments left by readers underscores the ignorance of dealing with predators. It should also drive home the fact that social demands by ignorant Romance Biologists and Voodoo Scientists should not have sway over wildlife management. But, now that it has and does, they don’t know how to deal with it, they don’t understand any of it, and the best they can come up with is childish, snide comments that range anywhere from “beautiful animal” to “I’m not sure what the fuss is.” In addition, some readers scoff and ridicule the fact that, for whatever the reasons, police have to warn people to be vigilant of predators while walking in the woods (this term is used loosely). One reader wanted to know if the coyotes “behaved in an un-natural way” – as if they understand and could recognize what a coyote’s “natural” behavior would be.

With all of this brought to the forefront with media reports, the events of people regularly encountering coyotes, or any over protected large animal predator, are of their own creation and it appears those who demand protection of predators, such as coyotes, run scared when they encounter the results of their own actions and demand government do something about it. Perhaps a zoo would work better for these people.

I was asked just the other day if I thought people were as stupid as they are being treated. An example would be printing on the bottom of water bottles, “Open Other End.” Well, each of us will have to decide that for ourselves, but it did set off a period of story sharing of real life events that prove the stupidity. But, it is pointless to actually share those events because if you’re not that stupid, you already know of such events. If you are that stupid, my telling you that certainly will have no effect.

Therefore, enjoy your creation. Perhaps you can make friends with your neighborhood coyote; bring him food daily and love and cuddle the little “beautiful creature.” “He has every right to live where he wants to,” I read in another report this morning. And, not that it would matter to you, but watch out for the 50-some diseases, viruses and parasites them beautiful creatures carry and are more than willing to share.

There’s an expression that goes along with a physical display of one’s First Amendment right that says: You built it Tarzan. You climb it!

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

Alaska Mountain Runner Fails to “Look Big”

Being reported from Alaska, a 16-year-old boy, a participant in a mountain climb running race, texted his mother about half way through the race saying he was being chased by a black bear. His dead body was latter found off the trail.

Share

Living In Lock-Down Because You’re An Idiot

In San Mateo, California, during the wee hours of the morning, a mountain lion entered a residence and made a meal out of a small dog. Authorities have stated, “… to secure their doors and windows before sleeping.”

Jim Beers comments on this event: “The human parallels between mountain lions, grizzly bears and wolves are many and large.  From the human excuses to justify their actions i.e. “unusual” and “young animal” to “they belong in settled landscapes like this because”…(?) to the media, professors and bureaucrats that sell this abomination as the “new normal”.  While the dog is valued property, the undeniable fact that the next time it could be an American child or adult in what was once termed the families “castle” is evident to the most blind supporter of California’s evil policies and laws regarding these animals.  What are the “tolerable” consequences; a child per year, two joggers a year, three attacks and serious injuries per year, ten horse per year, 20 dogs per year ???  The fact that hundreds of millions of tax dollars have already been spent on establishing these deadly predators in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States and that millions of our tax dollars are being spent annually to establish, mythologize, excuse and babysit these predators only points out the cultural decline and moral vacuum that is hollowing out America today.

“Cougars, wolves and grizzly bears do not belong in settled landscapes and it will, hopefully, one day again be seen and understood  as a travesty of justice and the value of human lives in totality that we allowed one group of people (be they voting blocs, pandering politicians, self-serving bureaucrats, radical organizations with anti-human values or world government enemies of our Constitution) to impose on rural, suburban and other persons and their families these deadly dangerous animals.  There is no acceptable legal or moral excuse or justification for this situation of encouraging and tolerating such animals where many of those being forced to live amongst them DO NOT WANT THEM.”

Jim Beers

To read some comments about this event, some have great entertainment value, follow this link to Instapundit.

Share

Speaking of Sharks, Grizzly Bears, Wolves, Cougars & Such

*Editor’s Note* – I am reminded of Leviticus 26: vss 14 and 22 –

“But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; …..I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.”

An article by James Beers

Question:  What do sharks, grizzly bears, wolves, cougars and similar large mammalian predators have in common?

Answer:

1.) They attack, injure and kill humans.

2.) Their presence in locations of human presence varying in density from the lightly inhabited to densely inhabited by humans is rightly controversial.

3.) They compete with humans for renewable natural resources like various marine species from seals to bass, and game animals from moose and elk to antelope utilized for human consumption and recreation like fishing and hunting.

4.) They depress human activities from bathing and biking to hiking and simple day in and day out actions of families and other residents where such animals are allowed to occur.

5.) They depress economic activities from tourism and animal husbandry to pet ownership and all the subsidiary economic activities they spawn thereby shrinking both employment opportunities and local tax revenues that are the lifeblood of both local governance and a political voice for rural residents.

6.) They destroy private property from dogs to cattle.

7.) They are “loved” by mostly urban people and little more than constant problems for rural people and others forced by governments to live with them.

8.) They are political vote fodder for central government politicians forever spending scarce dollars and implementing the laws they are forever passing to “protect” and “save” these “charismatic mega-species”.

9.) They are central-government bureaucrat’s ticket’s to more power and authority (resulting from the manipulation of regulation-writing for all the laws mentioned under # 8); more personnel and bigger budgets leading to increased career opportunities leading to larger retirements and public adulation; and they are an introduction to after-retirement opportunities with the Non-Government environmental Organizations (see # 10 below).

10.) They are the primary tools of the self-aggrandizing “environmental”, animal “rights”, and faux “conservation” lobby groups collecting millions from the general public that they use to “influence” the politicians, woo the bureaucrats, and give the urban population a false sense of doing something “good” while being “involved”.

11.) Too often the government schemes to “save” or “restore” such species are thinly-veiled hidden agendas for other campaigns from population control to gun control and further erosion of local governments and the political voice of rural people and their issues.

Now, lest you think I do not “like” or “want” such animals; I assure you I am committed to their preservation and conservation.  I say this with full recognition of the following:

1.)  These animals DO NOT belong wherever they want to be or where they simply existed 20 or 200 years ago. They belong where their negative impacts are tolerable primarily to those communities that government’s target to coexist with them.

2.)  The formal acceptance by local populations should be a prerequisite of any government protection, introductions or increases of these animals for reasons of both justice and morality.

3.)  While the “public” et al (see the foregoing #’s 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) knowledge of words like “decreasing”, “endangered”, etc. are rudimentary at best; their rejection of terms  like “too many”, “destructive”, “dangerous”, or “necessary lethal control” are also clouded by bureaucrats, teachers, politicians, and the influence peddlers mentioned under the foregoing # 10.

4.)  The proper and just challenge to preserving and conserving these animals lies not with destroying human society or humans as is happening in Africa and India as I write.

5.)  Lethal controls are necessary and right in areas of human density and activity.  For instance, sharks should be excluded as far as is possible from beaches with moderate to heavy use.  Until the lobby groups or private enterprises come up with a workable and dependable way to exclude dangerous sharks from such beaches in Australia, the US or South Africa or on similar beaches worldwide, that means lethal control.

6.)  As someone living in a country with a $20 TRILLION debt, I do not believe that government funding should be spent by the millions on things that would certainly appear to be no more effective than fladry or electric fences for livestock being ravaged by wolves, or bells being worn by hikers or workers in grizzly bear country.

7.)  Government funds directed toward sharks (like government funds directed toward other mammalian large predators mentioned herein) should be directed toward enactment and enforcement of laws that allow local control in certain areas and protection in other (not all) areas.  Leave it to the Universities and NGO’s to “investigate” “sonar buoys” shark “face recognition”, “electronic and magnetic shark deterrent devices”, and “cameras attached to sharks”.  The government role is to first protect its citizens.

Three years ago I wrote several articles comparing the “conservation” of mammalian and marine predators like sharks, wolves and killer whales.   The two articles below [link (WSJ is a PayWall and link] indicate to me how far astray we have come in just the short time since I wrote those articles.  I submit that we could take this shark article and this grizzly bear article and just use them in the future for the next wolf or cougar attack that kills or maims a human in the US.  For that matter, the next Nile crocodile that kills an African woman doing her wash or an African kid playing by the river; we can use these article by just erasing “shark” or “grizzly bear” and scribbling in “lion” or “tiger” or whatever misunderstood critter evokes our mercy by causing us to equate such animals with hapless humans offered up by the government druids for their notion of what the “ecosystem” should be.

Here are a few comments on what appears in these recent news items.  These items are highlighted in the articles and are not meant to be snide or to condemn either our Australian or Canadian cousins that like us emerged from the British Colonial system.  Truth be told, American concepts of wildlife management, human justice, and rural economic concern are as far or farther astray than either of these articles tell us about Australia or Canada.

1,) “The effort is being closely watched around the world—especially tourism-focused places like Réunion, a French territory whose economy was devastated after sharks killed seven people in recent years.”

Comment: While this is about sharks, the same thing is happening in the Lower 48 US States with forced introduction of grizzly bears (the latest in central Washington state) making de facto wilderness areas due to the danger from the bears as are forced wolf introductions exterminating elk and moose hunting along with ranching and rural residences.  Denying it as we do, fools no one.

2.) “Where some of these species of sharks bite people, it becomes more of a social issue, whether the government should be responsible for the safety of their citizens when they go into the ocean.”

Comment: What chutzpah!  As a former colonial and as a US Constitutional supporter, I can only marvel at any representative government being perceived as neither concerned nor responsible for the safety of their citizenry utilizing THEIR beaches.  Yet, the US government mimics this attitude by their wolf and grizzly bear activities being no one’s responsibility when they go horribly wrong and even California’s government behaving similarly with their sanctification of cougars within that state.

3,) “Record keeping on shark attacks is fragmented and inconsistent,

Comment: See, sharks are just like wolves and grizzly bears.  Nothing is for sure so only the government wizards know the “truth” and thus the courts will believe only them.  For those unfamiliar with this lingo, “fragmented and inconsistent” means you must believe whatever we say it is about “how many”, the “danger” and what to expect or who is responsible. If we say moose and elk disappeared because of “climate change” or that persons or cattle killed by wolves were killed by “undetermined animals, possibly dogs” then by golly that is the truth so move along citizen, there is nothing to see here.

4,) “Thousands of underwater video tapes showing that sharks are much more abundant in northern Australia than in unprotected waters like those surrounding Indonesia—the world’s biggest shark-fishing nation”.

Comment:  What a mysterious assertion.  Could there be a connection?  Can sharks prosper in one place (like Australia) while evidently hammered unmercifully relatively nearby (like Indonesia)?  Could this be duplicated on a scale such as lightly-used Australian beaches v. heavily-used beaches?  Inquiring minds want to know.

5.) People for some reason have a real fear of sharks,” Geoff Harris, the club’s president and a veteran lifesaver, said as he surveyed the town’s deserted white-sand beach one morning. “I think it’s the fear of being eaten by something.”

Comment: Ya’ think?

6.) “But you don’t want to jump to the conclusion that the bear’s hungry and it attacked an individual.  Norris also said it’s “never cut and dry that a bear will be destroyed because it attacked someone.”

Comment:  Indeed, animals have “rights”!  Their motive is important!  You never know when there are extenuating circumstances that justify releasing him or her like Americans are doing with criminal illegal aliens that only return and repeat offenses until they stand accused of homicide.  I am reminded of that satirical Jewish definition of chutzpah being the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.

Jim Beers

27 March 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.

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

 

 

Share