November 15, 2018

Help for Helpless Victims of Government Wolves

By James Beers:

A Canadian colleague and I recently received the following email from a concerned friend in the State of Washington. I have eliminated names so that what I say will not cause them any needless difficulty.

I have interjected some comments in the request and the reportage about wolves from Oregon.  The situation, intrigue and government perfidy about wolves could just as easily come from Arizona or Minnesota or North Carolina.

My attempted response to his inquiry follows and is forwarded for the edification of readers on all sides of this contentious and destructive issue…  Jim Beers

———————————————————————————

The Request –

To: Jim Beers <jimbeers7@comcast.net>; YYYYY
Subject: Fwd: Wolves kill guard dog in SW Oregon

 Jim and YYYYY,

I’m going hunting next week about 10 miles from——— Ranch.  Can you please read the article below and advise me as to how I should coach the rancher?  Thanks, XXXXX

Begin forwarded message (with several inserted comments by me, Jim Beers):

 Subject: Wolves kill guard dog in SW Oregon

Date: October 2, 2018

 Wolves kill guard dog in S.W., Oregon

——- had already lost three calves to wolves from the Rogue pack in southwest Oregon back in January.

 On Sept. 24, wolves returned and killed one of the guard dogs —– brought in to protect his herd.

——-, who owns the —– Ranch south of ——-in —– County, said he was awakened early in the morning to the sound of his dog, an adult Tibetan Mastiff, being attacked in a fenced pasture 600 yards from the house.

By the time —— got up, jumped into his boots, grabbed a headlamp and rifle and ran out onto the front porch, he said the wolves were gone, though he did find the dog limping along slowly with blood on its backside. It died later in the day.

Wildlife investigators shaved the dog, finding injuries consistent with wolf bites. —– said the animal’s back end “was like grape jelly.”

The investigation also turned up wolf tracks on the property, which together was enough for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to confirm the (insert your favorite “cutesy” name here.  Jim Beers) pack was responsible for the attack.

“There’s no escaping them,” —-  said. “It seems like they’re getting pretty brazen.”

Problems with the (naming wolves, besides being disgusting is simply propaganda to fill urban kids and soccer Moms heads with.  Jim Beers) pack at —- Ranch began in January, when wolves killed three calves in a span of eight days, prompting  —- and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ramp up non-lethal deterrents  (“ramping up non-lethal wolf control” is like an urban high school teacher facing fights and gunfire in her classroom saying she will raise her voice if they don’t stop!  Jim Beers) at the property.

As part of the effort, —- was given two Tibetan Mastiffs from a family in—–, Ore., on the other side of the county.

“I do believe they’ve been a deterrent,” —— said. “Any time the wolves have been in the vicinity, they just carry on like crazy.”

 John Stephenson, wolf biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon, said the ranch is within the pack’s territory, not far from where the wolves den.

 It is common for wolves to act aggressively toward dogs, Stephenson added, viewing them as competition. (How profound!  Jim Beers)

 “If they have the number on the dogs, they can behave pretty aggressively,” Stephenson said. (Even more profound!  Where do these “experts” learn all this?  Jim Beers)

 The —– pack was started by Oregon’s famous (as in “infamous” if you are trying to make a living where they choose to roam and reveal themselves.  Jim Beers) wandering wolf, OR-7, and his mate in 2014. In 2017, the pack had seven known animals, including two new pups that survived through the end of the year.

 Unlike wolves in Eastern Oregon, the species is still federally listed as endangered west of U.S. highways 395, 78 and 95. (Let that sort of bureaucratic BS sink in!  Jim Beers)

 —- said he is working with the USFWS to once again surround his 276-acre property with electrified fladry — lines of rope with flags that flap in the wind to spook wolves from entering the pasture — and set up additional flashing lights to scare away the predators.  (Fladry was developed and used by Russian wolf controllers to funnel driven wolves through woodlands to passages where shooters lay in wait.  It was and remains effective for that purpose.  Setting it up in a static situation is about as challenging for wolves to circumvent upon watching it is similar to expecting a human baby to avoid it in the living room while Mama cooks supper.  Electrification of real fences or these gossamer threads in the open is merely something wolves quickly learn to avoid like my golden retriever [and he wore a collar] did with his electric fence when a deer ran through the yard.  Dogs and wolves and coyotes are not horses in a pasture that will avoid electrified things.  Wolves, dogs and coyotes treat them as just one more thing to learn to circumvent quickly and with a minimum of inconvenience or pain!  Jim Beers)

 Stephenson said the fladry was an effective tool earlier this year and hopes it will be effective again.  (It couldn’t have been any other reason or reasons for variable predation?  No, No; wolves are supposed to be like Russians retaking Stalingrad in WW II in that they persist 24/7 until they kill all the livestock or die in the attempt?  Remember we pay these do-nothing bureaucrats to bamboozle us and put these ranchers out of business.  Is this a great country or what?  Jim Beers)

 But —– said he is becoming increasingly frustrated, dealing with the anxiety of wolf attacks at the ranch.

 “I need to have some way to protect my livelihood and not have to stress out about this, day in and day out,” he said.

 The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill Sept. 26 by a vote of 19-15 that would remove gray wolves from the federal endangered species list in the lower 48 states.  (That will be reversed in court when Trump is gone and in the meanwhile we will turn wolves over to a state wildlife agency corrupted by federal overseers, federal money, and state bureaucrats ridden with the radical philosophies if the environmental/animal rights crowd!  What could go wrong?  Jim Beers)

 The legislation has drawn sharp rebukes from environmental and conservation organizations, with Jason Rylander, senior staff attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, saying science — not politics — should decide when to delist species.  (Whose “science”: mine or yours?  There is no longer any “TRUTH” in the US; only “my” view, “your” view, and who has the most “power!  See the Kavanaugh Senate “Hearings” for confirmation.  Jim Beers)

 “Gray wolf recovery is well underway, but the work is not done,” Rylander said in a statement.  (It will never be done until ranching, farming, hunting, fishing, eating meat, animal ownership and management, private property, the 2nd Amendment and rural prosperity for families and communities are all eliminated.  Jim Beers)

 If Congress really is committed to preserving and protecting wildlife, they would spend their time finding the funding needed to recover species, not attacking the process.” (Sure!  You are already spending billions to destroy Rural America under the guise of a “process” to “recover species”.  Now with the nation over 20 TRILLION in debt you need more?  This entire sham should be cut 90% and sent packing!  Jim Beers)

Oregon currently has at least 124 wolves living across the state, according to the 2017 ODFW annual wolf report.

My, somewhat labored, Response:

On 2018-10-03 10:15 AM, jimbeers7@comcast.net wrote:

XXXXX,

 I honestly don’t know what to say.  If that sounds like I’m a phony or a liar, it is only because what I have seen over the past thirty years does not suggest anything that IS ALLOWED to work.

 Put simply:

Wolves have to eat, and they will eat whatever is readily and easily available.  Where moose, elk and cattle/sheep are available they will feed on them whenever they can.  Livestock are the most vulnerable and available prey; additionally, supplying a large meal of prime meat.

Wolves habituate readily in settled landscapes.  The more people, roads, homes and the detritus of civilization are available, the sooner wolves will habituate and their destructive impacts will multiply along with their populations and densities.

Wolves that are neither shot at, trapped, poisoned nor snared will habituate more quickly as surviving wolves will become even less reluctant to go near human activities, habitations or structures.

Wolves, like dogs and coyotes, get “used to” and “figure out how to” avoid and “get around” FLADRY, ELECTRIC FENCES, HIGH FENCES TO GROUND LEVEL, GUARD DOGS (in addition to eventually killing or outwitting them, the wolves will take advantage of bitches “in heat” and inseminate them), “RANGE RIDERS”, NOISE MAKERS, ETC.

Wolves, despite not thinking ahead like we do, live and learn both from their parents and from what they learn from other pack member’s experience.  The live day in and day out (including nights) doing nothing more than “learning” how to get the most food with the least effort.  There has never been, throughout world history, a way to reduce undesirable wolf impacts other than reducing their numbers year after year to minimize their impacts or killing (“exterminating” or as the Wisconsin DNR says about dogs killed by wolves, “they were ‘depredated’”) as was once done in The Lower 48 States, Europe and the British Isles where the Irish Wolfhound breed was developed exclusively for that purpose when they had the wherewithal and determination to exterminate them in settled landscapes and civilized society.

The wolves you are dealing with are not there for any “scientific” or “environmental” benefit.  They are there because of the political influence of powerful and rich Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s) that use their introduction, protection, spread, and the lies spread in the media and schools to implement a range of hidden agendas from eliminating ranching, farming and rural American life in general to taking control of rural America as other Socialist (I do not apologize for being political about a political matter here) agenda items from gun control to overall societal control are implemented nation-wide.  In this effort they are enabled by unjust federal laws like the ESA; a federal workforce of Socialism-advocates writing the regulations they enforce; and state governments and state wildlife agencies in particular that are no more than federal subcontractors begging for federal money and jobs like the University professors and the NGO’s.

Nothing has been done to change anything other than make it worse since the ESA gave legitimacy to the illegitimate imposition of wolves in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States.  They are NOT Endangered, Threatened, or in danger of anything except eventually being subsumed into the domestic dog gene pool somewhere down the road.  All of the “Court Decisions”; “Secretaries’ Orders”; and Congressional promises of “Amendment”, “Reform” and “Change” were and are smoke and mirrors.  Unless the ESA law is changed wherein the USFWS has no power to take private property without compensation, and the federal role vis viz resident non-treaty wildlife is returned to State Jurisdiction as provided in the US Constitution…..  What can I say?

You can’t shoot them.

There is no proven or consistent non-lethal control or protection for livestock out of a barn.

The State government that is supposed to protect you is no more than NGO-advocates disguised in state uniforms working as federal deputies under federal overlords that are salivating to make “examples” of any peasant that dares to try to “obstruct” or “resist” them.  Between their satellite collars, supportive tinker belle courts, and enforcement techniques developed over time from Al Capone to Islamic Terror Operations, one need only remember the recent Bundy Operation in Nevada and the rancher killed in the Oregon snow with his hands in the air to understand what you are up against.

I wish I could give you some help, but other than prayer, I know of no nostrum.  If you see one, let me know and I will do all I can to tell others there is an answer to this positively awful situation.

Jim Beers

3 October 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

Moose Attack People More than Wolves and Bears Combined?

I have to say this is a first. Yesterday, I read a good article about moose and moose hunting, that included some history and a bit of behavioral perspective on this large critter. As part of the picture the author was attempting to create of the moose, he began by stating that moose are not usually an “aggressive” animal but can be “provoked” or “frightened” to behave that way. I’ll have to agree with that and here’s an example:

A friend of mine who goes to deer hunting camp with me every year, one day was hunting when he came upon a young bull moose standing in the middle of a swampy area. It happened to be standing where my friend wanted to walk. He began messing with the moose putting his rifle over his head and pretending to have a rack of antlers and making other odd movements.

Consequently, the moose moved on and disappeared over a ridge at the edge of the swamp. The hunter proceeded on his way when all of a sudden he heard a loud crash. Turning, the same moose was approaching him from behind with what one would not jokingly call “aggressive” behavior.

But what was also contained in this article was a continuation of that aggressive behavior disclaimer that read: “In terms of raw numbers, they attack more people than bears and wolves combined, but usually with only minor consequences.”

That has to be a first for me. I’ve never heard, read, or anything else anything resembling serious discussion that moose attack more people than bears and wolves combined. Even with “minor consequences” we almost never hear anything about anyone being “attacked” by a moose. Wolves and bear for certain, but not moose. I’m curious where this author got his information.

I began doing some research to see what I could find to disprove or substantiate this claim. As much as I find Wikipedia to be an unreliable resource (I might use it as a starting point while researching), I ended up on Wikipedia looking for information about moose attacks on people. It appears this author copy and pasted word for word what was written in Wikipedia about aggressive moose behavior. Wiki’s words are: “Moose are not usually aggressive towards humans, but can be provoked or frightened to behave with aggression. In terms of raw numbers, they attack more people than bears and wolves combined, but usually with only minor consequences.” (More than these sentences can be found copied word for word in this article. However, because Wiki is an open source resource, it is possible the author was the one who contributed this information to Wiki.)

As with a lot of what Wiki writes, none of this is substantiated with resources to support this claim. A little read searching and we know that in Alaska, there are three times more moose than bears. Moose number approximately 175,000, bears (grizzly and black) number about 130,000, and there are around 11,000 wolves in Alaska.

When you examine the demographics of each animal, it might make sense that there are more moose attacks, especially when you consider that people attempt to approach a moose for photo taking and other stupid reasons. But I will have to seriously question the reporting of “attacks” by moose, bears, and wolves on people globally.

It is a bit dishonest to copy and paste information that is not substantiated (and spending a fair amount of time on this subject I could not come close to proving this claim). The claim is so broad it is impossible to prove. It might have been better to simply state that moose can become aggressive and perhaps offer some sensible tips on how not to piss off a moose.

Share

A “True” Newspaper Wolf “Story” From 1856

Ok so back in the day of the best trackers and woodsman a wolf pack kills a girl and all that can be found is a shoe and part of a dress.. No blood trail, no partially eaten corpse no bones just a shoe and part of a dress.. Ok.. Uh huh.. This BULLSHIT is believable..Those wolves ate up the bones… Nobody could track down the remains of the girl aye? Sure… Now maybe this is a true tale and maybe it isn’t.. But it is nothing but a lousy piece of so called proof.. Besides, all large carnivores will kill and eat people.. We know this.. That’s inarguable, large carnivores will do that.. But I wonder when they stopped swallowing the bones.. Same thing with the boy, no blood trail on the hard frozen ground and no remains located.. Sounds like something else entirely..  This is your proof? Ok, onto your next whiskey soaked speculative evidence Scotty… And and and we’re all emotional because the media is still lying to us about everything.. Lincoln complained about the bullshit newspapers back in his day amigo…

 

Some of the worst appeals to emotions BS I’ve ever read…

I wonder if the editor of that 1856 piece thought the populace was really this stupid? Hell an argument could be made that a serial killer did those killings based on so little evidence as that paper presents..

I should say here that having collected many books and journals from that era, evidence with factual explanations and sources back then by professional historians were then and still are excellent works that can to this day still be vetted on their accuracy.. Newspapers are only good for lighting up wood…

Share

Bursting the Bubble of “Normal” Bear Behavior

If anyone might be interested to return to my seemingly endless commentary on bear behavior and bear attacks, they would discover that I’m a broken record when it comes to the sickening echo chamber of “bears don’t ‘normally’ act that way” and “bears don’t ‘normally’ attack people for no reason.” etc. And of course the most childish of all lame comments, “Bears are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

It never ends. When children don’t act the way we WANT them to, or what the indoctrination institutions and doctors consider “normal” behavior, we feed them chemicals to alter that behavior to make them “normal.”

“Normal” is a subjective issue that we have willingly given over to centralized authority and as such are slaves to their perspective of normal. Whatever doesn’t fit the “normal” mold is left either unexplained or simply passed off as an anomaly regardless of the frequency of not normal (by chosen perspective) behavior.

We can’t harness and drug bears. Instead, we insist on sticking to human-projected behavior patterns, framed around the bio-perverse obsession with protecting wild animals (large predators like bears) even at the expense of human life. In short, we want animals to be human-like and therefore project human characteristics onto animals.

A recent attack by two bears in Wyoming on a guide and his client has created a bit of a stir. The Media including Social Media and Internet websites have, once again, revealed to us the very reason we should NEVER believe ANYTHING we read on their platforms. Written accounts of the event have proven over and over to be inaccurate and yet the bad information gets embellished and passed along – and worst believed.

The brain trust – those who know more about everything than anyone else and has an “expert” opinion – have provided all the answers to any question asked and even those that haven’t.

In all of this, once again we are subjected to the vomit of the Media as they try to choke back their regurgitated nonsensical misinformation about bear behavior – and refuse to change.

I read this evening in the Newscentermaine.com website how we will probably never know why these two bears attacked two men attempting to retrieve a dead elk. The entire article is rife with terrible information that is formulated in the manner in which I described at the beginning of this piece.

Based mostly on the perverse need, having been indoctrinated into the minds of most American’s these days, to paint a completely positive aura about bears and other large predators, officials, brainwashed in their strong delusion that “bears don’t normally act this way,” now want to tell us we’ll never know why these bears attacked. Could it be that they attacked because they are BEARS??? Geez!

Here is a laundry list of nonsense repeated in this Online Media article:

“Wyoming wildlife officials say we may never know why a grizzly bear and her cub killed a hunting guide in an unusual and unprovoked attack.”

We are to believe that this attack was “unusual” because it doesn’t nicely and conveniently fit the narrative used to protect large predators. We are also to believe the attack was “unprovoked.” Try to understand how stupid that statement is. Because we refuse to understand that all animal behavior is unpredictable, this attack is called “unprovoked.” Obviously, something provoked the bears to attack, even if they were provoked by the simple fact that they are wild, unpredictable, large animals. Geez!

“We’re very fortunate that bears usually behave like bears should… But there are occasions where bears don’t behave like other bears.”

Once again, we are supposed to believe their inconsistent mantra that bears’ behavior is “normal” and predictable.

“Grizzlies don’t typically attack humans like that…”

Says who? Well, the authorities, that’s who. They don’t want anyone to have any ill feelings toward grizzly bears so they repeatedly tell us bears are afraid of us and are harmless except if you “surprise” them or meddle with cubs. B.S.!!! They even tell us bears are so harmless we can effectively protect ourselves by arming ourselves with bear spray – the same bear spray the guide used and died anyway. And note these same authorities who want you to carry bear spray so you won’t harm bears had to kill the same bear that attacked the guide and hunter with a rifle. Hmmm.

“Attacks are more commonly associated with either a surprise encounter… or if the bears were defending their food.”

None of my comments are intended to tell people this information about bear behavior isn’t true – it is just incomplete and saturated with the human condition foisted onto an animal. Each and every time authorities go out of their way, and the press becomes their echo chamber, to tell us how RARE it is that a bear, a wolf, a fox, a mountain lion, a bobcat – you name the animal – attacks someone, it’s unusual and not “normal” behavior. The truth is they don’t know what’s normal or abnormal behavior. If it fits their determined narrative, then it must be “normal.” Anything outside of that convenient narrative is just “unexplained,” as though it never happens but once in a million years. And yet we are always reading about those “unusual” and not “normal” attacks on people while refusing to change our understanding of wild animal behavior and do and say responsible things like, “______ attacks are considered to be not man-created normal behavior. All animals, wild and domestic can be and are unpredictable. You should always approach every animal in every situation as though just about anything will happen…including one of those ‘unprovoked’ attacks.”

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to change what they say.

Share

The Gun Didn’t Work Excuse Won’t Fly

Arm chairing the unfortunate event in a Wyoming forest…

All right here we go… Bring on the donkey… Now the predator cult are claiming the gun didn’t work either.. Uh huh…

“And we can also look at the bear spray/gun debate. Actually neither worked as the bear spray was not utilized in time, and the gun could not be fired, at least from accounts provided. We weren’t there, so the chaos that was experienced by men and bears likely something none of us will ever experience.”—Immer Treue

The gun would have to be in the possession of a skilled shootist to have not worked in this situation.. Not in his back pack some yards away from his position.. The client failed to control his panic.. Then throwing the gun away.. And running away…

Speaking from experience most of the clients that can’t go into the back country on their own and get it done on their own are greenhorns who want to go home with an elk so they can brag to their greenhorn friends and appear to be modern day Davey Crocket’s rather than what they really are, babes being baby sat in the woods.. This particular client tossed away the best defense they had and ran off to dial 9/11…

 

Share

The Bear Spray That Didn’t Work

It was November 15, 2007, when I wrote an article on my former blog titled, “Bear Spray Versus Bullets.” This article came at a time when government authorities and members of so-called conservation groups (environmentalists) were claiming that bear spray was a better deterrent to saving your life than a gun when being attacked by a bear – specifically a grizzly bear. This difference of opinion has never really been resolved and probably won’t be.

I recall that it was only a couple days after I published that article I got a phone call from one of those “authorities” who was pushing the bear spray for protection meme. I assumed, and still do, this person had a financial stake in bear spray among other personal agenda reasons.

Regardless, I agreed to give him my mailing address and he promptly sent me a garbage pail full of propaganda that upon reading no more convinced me that spray was better than bullets than playing in the middle of Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania would be.

Most have heard by now that an experienced guide and an elk hunter were attacked by two grizzly bears in Wyoming. Both men were heading back into the woods to retrieve an elk the hunter had downed. The guide, Mark Uptain, was killed in the attack. The hunter was injured but not with life-threatening injuries. Exactly what happened at the scene remains to be known.

As is typical, reports as to what happened began making their rounds and what is also typical many of those reports turned out to be false. However, according to a report published in Ammoland, one thing is certain: “Mark Uptain appears to have relied on a can of bear spray to deter the attack. A can of bear spray, with the safety off, was found at the site. The adult sow grizzly had bear spray on her at the scene.”

So, the guide discharged his bear spray, and it got on the bear (although this report doesn’t say what part of the bear had spray on it, one would assume that bear spray placed anywhere except the face would be ineffective.)

Again, we come back to the burning question as to which is more effective in warding off a charging bear – spray or bullets. Maybe the real answer is contained in this same article: “The bear was shot and killed as she attacked investigating Fish and Wildlife personnel.”

It certainly looks like that while authorities were at the scene investigating this event, at least one of the two bears attacked Fish and Wildlife personnel. Why, as I pointed out in my 2007 article that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was heavily promoting spray over bullets, didn’t the FWS officials whip out their cans of bear spray and ward off that attacking bear? Did officials even have bear spray with them? Whether they intended to kill the two bears or not should have been of little concern. How did investigators know this particular bear was the bear that attacked and killed Mark Uptain?

Obviously, the agents doing the investigation believe bullets are better than spray.

Unfortunately, we now have evidence that in this one incident bear spray did not save one man’s life.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the irresponsible claims that spray is better than bullets. As I said in 2007, it depends upon many circumstances and each person has to decide for themselves how to protect themselves. Unfortunately, our own government is doing all that they can to force us to do it their way. Not necessarily the way they would and do it but how the government demands we do it.

The big question then should be this: If bear pepper spray is better for warding off an attacking bear, why did a government official(s) use a gun to do the job?

 

Share

Authorities Kill Two Grizzlies Thought to Have Killed a Wyoming Guide and Wounded a Hunter

As a result of a grizzly bear attack on two men in Wyoming attending to their elk kill, authorities have killed two grizzlies in response. A necropsy might determine if they are the bears responsible.

However, the media and the animal rights advocates who control it took the opportunity to further promote lies about the grizzly bear and its history.

According to a report published by Newscentermaine that came from USA Today, an advocate for the bears states: “…to protect the last of the tens of thousands of bears who used to roam the territory between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Plains.”

There’s plenty wrong with this statement. First of all, the person quoted refers to the grizzly bears in human terms when they state “bears WHO used to roam.” Bears are not whos. They are animals. A proper usage of our language would be “bears THAT used to roam.”

I also take issue with the statement that there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears that roamed the territory from the Pacific to the Great Plains.

I don’t believe there are “tens of thousands” of bears roaming that region today, but certainly, there are thousands with advocates doing all they can to bring the grizzly population to hundreds of thousands if they could. The difference that exists today vs when, according to some, tens of thousands of bears roamed is that there are millions more people living in this area than did when supposedly tens of thousands of bears did.

But did tens of thousands of grizzly bears ever exist in this region? My reasoning and logical conclusions tell a different story. If there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears in this region as is stated when Lewis and Clark undertook their exploration, it would seem that their journals would have contained stories of bear encounters.

If my memory is correct (and it hasn’t been that long since I read the journals last) there is one incident recorded of a man in the expedition who thought he had a hand or a foot “swiped at” by a bear during the night as it hung outside of his tent.

Forcing the existence of large predators into human-settled landscapes is criminal and in certain circumstances, death and destruction of private property by these predators should be the responsibility of those promoting the growth of tens of thousands of these animals where history indicates never existed in the first place.

One more issue to discuss. This same person was quoted as saying, “Killing more bears will not prevent other bear-hunter conflicts, but it may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population around Yellowstone.”

This ignorant, heartless, and senseless statement digs at the heart of the animal protection movement. It does make sense to reason that if there are fewer bears – the result of hunting them – logically, the odds of an encounter with a bear decreases. Will it end all encounters? Of course not.

The sad part of this statement is that it clearly tells us where this person’s priorities exist. They deny a simple math problem of reducing bear numbers but even at the expense of human life, doing anything about the problem “may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population…”

Just this morning I was reading one man’s perspective on the government’s forcing of grizzlies and wolves into areas where people live, calling it “unjust and evil.”

At the crux of protecting “endangered species” is the false “best available science” that there once roamed “tens of thousands” of grizzly bears or wolves and that they MUST be restored to those numbers regardless of the human population. That is “unjust and evil.”

The countless journals from explorers and trappers from years ago simply do not support the idealistic theory that wildlife was abundant in the tens of thousands.

Evidently, one man’s life is worth saving two bears. Unjust and evil? You bet!

 

Share

Experienced Guide Killed by Attacking Grizzly

And the “brain trust” that have never been attacked by a bear have all the answers.

An experienced guide, while leading a hunter in Wyoming to retrieve a dead elk shot earlier, was attacked by a grizzly and killed. The hunter ran for his life.

Details of what specifically happened are lacking at this point. Some information can be found here, here, and here. At the last link, you can read all the comments from the intelligencers who have all the right answers and who have probably never seen a grizzly bear let alone be attacked by one.

Share

Dead Sheep And Who Done It

“What animal kills this much prey at one time”

Man does… The shepherd could walk among those sheep and kill them all one by one… A picture such as these are only evidence of dead sheep.. And a French news outlet saying wolves.. No other solid data to confirm cause..

Above metaphor 1.

A picture of a dead sheep is not a dead sheep thus is not evidence of anything but a picture of dead sheep. It is a picture first and foremost. It has ‘aspects’ of a dead sheep, and is symbolic of the idea of “dead sheep” and yet, it is NOT a dead sheep.. Nor does it prove cause of death of the dead sheep… So anyone skeptical of the pictures is using their head and simply implying they need more data.. But data in language is also a problem because all human language is metaphor whether it is recorded or in written symbols, pictures of words and numbers…. Wolves might have done this to those sheep, and people might have done this to those sheep to give the impression that wolves did this to those sheep.. But if you want to be gullible about it go ahead… Now those folks in the Alps have been having wolf troubles for years.. So why no mounted camera’s showing sheep standing around being slaughtered by wolves, or a wolf… So if these pics are your evidence supporting your argument you’re failing miserably to prove anything… This is beyond miserably amateurish…

Metaphor 2.

“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”~Thomas Henry Huxley

Metaphor 3.

“God people are uneducated” —CMB
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Coming from her thats priceless….

So these pics are an argument? No they are nothing.. You brought the pics forth as your argument and you left out any other irrefutable data in support of your argument.. Thats on you not on those who need more evidence…

So the bottom line is SWW like the WLNs and other groups are relying upon appeals to emotions for their arguments…

Share

Bears: Looking Big and Making Noise Not Always a Working Solution

I’ve always ridiculed the advice given by people, mostly from those who have never encountered a threatening bear, that when you are encountering a bear, even an outright attack, “look big” and “make loud noises” to frighten a bear away.

Over the past weekend, I was part of a discussion that included a woman that I went to high school with. I had known for several years that she was once treed by a bear near her home while she was out for a walk. It seems that in the past 25 or 30 years, she and her husband have had several encounters with bears at and near their home.

The woman told us that the area around their home has historically been ideal habitat for bears and seeing the animals around their home is a common occurrence.

The day she was treed by a bear, it happened quickly, as one might suspect. She tried the “slowly backing away” approach which only afforded her time to reach a small tree a few feet away. The tree was small enough that she could shimmy up the tree just far enough out of the reach of the bear and also small enough that the bear could not climb it.

The bear persisted to a point where the woman was slipping and losing her grip but she hung on.

She didn’t realize at the time that the bear, once realizing it couldn’t get her from the tree, tried a different tactic – it retreated but only far enough to hide behind a tree. The woman emphasized that in many of her encounters with bears, this seems to be a common method of attack – to hide and wait in ambush.

When she got back down on the ground, she spotted the bear attempting to hide behind a big tree. She quietly snuck away and when she thought she was far enough away from the bear, she ran like hell for home.

What is most interesting is that in telling of the several other bear encounters, most of them right around the house, she was emphatic in saying that the advice to “look big” and “make a lot of noise” is quite ineffective. On multiple occasions, particularly once when a bear forced both the husband and wife into their garden shed, they did their best to “look big,” yelled and made as much noise as they could only to witness the bear basically ignoring their actions.

It is important to note that both of these people, who are not your typical “scaredy-cats” felt threatened by this and all other attacks. They find the advice always given worthless from their own experiences.

I would suppose the takeaway from all of this is that one probably should not completely abandon the advice given but to realize that it is ALWAYS under the circumstances of the moment that determine the actions and reactions of a bear. Perhaps it is for that reason, if someone is regularly hiking in bear country and/or seem to have regular bear visitors to their home, they should consider having at their disposal some other tool to deter a bear other than remembering to “look big” and “make noise.”

Share