February 19, 2018

Advice to a Professor Wanting a Meet and Great Before Making Wolf Documentary

*Editor’s Note* – With the permission of the author, I redacted some elements of the original email for obvious reasons. Knowing the names of some involved does nothing to alter the message in the advice given. The focus and intent of this publication is a delivery of the important message. 

As a preamble to the content of the written work of Jim Beers, let me set the stage as best I can. A university professor contacted an editor of a Western ranch magazine seeking advice as to whom he should contact before making a movie about wolves. According to the original email, this professor, along with a group of university students, intend to travel to Wyoming and Colorado to “explore the question of whether wolves should be allowed to re-populate wild areas in Colorado.”

In asking who they should talk with before making the film, James Beers offered the below advice. This advice has already been told to me that it should be “required reading for every Wildlife Management Student” as well as hunters.

Dear Professor XXXXXXXX,

I see that you are from a Jesuit school named after the great Jesuit _______________.  I further see that your Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation program is ten years old and that you are evidently quite honestly enough concerned about this modern Gordian Knot of American wildlife that you asked [Western ranch magazine’s editor] for both her advice and perhaps her presence to be interviewed by you and your students.

You cannot know how refreshing and hopeful your simple request may be to millions of Rural Americans either affected by or familiar with the wolf phenomenon of the past 40 years.

First of all a word about who is writing this.  I am a retired US Fish and Wildlife Service employee.  I can send you a resume but the simple ‘Bio” I put after most things I write is posted after these remarks.  I am a graduate of a Benedictine High School where, 60 years ago, the excellent teacher/monks communicated their misgivings that I still hold about Jesuit schools, although my son is a graduate of Wheeling (WV) Jesuit University.  I spent my first year of college in the late 1950’s at DePaul University where I learned a good deal about philosophy.  Today, I have a low opinion of DePaul that has, like Georgetown, become a hotbed of animal rights jurisprudence.

Why, you must be thinking, would someone like me be enthusiastic about a professor and some students from a modest Eastern (where the federal and state bureaucracies have not taken up the rural cudgel of wolves with all its hidden agendas as they have done in the rest of the Nation, HHHMMM) College are taking a summer field trip in 2018 to investigate, study and integrate the American wolf experience into their lives and the school’s academic life.  Quite simply, you bring “fresh eyes”, not to a biological issue but to a political/social issue that is even more basically an ethics issue.  You are like St. Peter Canisius journeying from Holland to Germany during the Reformation and after years of work there generating a Catechism that went on to evolve over 200 editions in less than 40 years.  Would that you and your students bring some resolution to this issue that so many from those affected and those wise enough to see the impacts of wolves on so many things have been unable to resolve.

My advice –

Everyone you meet or speak to, with any bona fides about wolves, will have a basic belief that is set stone.

You will meet “hunters” and “ranchers” that will appear to be pro-wolf but who upon investigation will be discovered to be politically active progressive reformers that support all manner of transformative political ends with the same sort of “think of me as neutral” approach.

You will meet both state and federal politicians that will be as duplicitous about where they “stand” and what they “believe” as they would if you were asking them about the latest budget battles or a proposed bill to place “All Waters of the USA” under federal authority.  Investigation will reveal the “golden egg” from the “Goose” of wolves to be urban votes (assuring re-elections) and lots of money from environmental/animal rights’ coffers to politicians that meet the agendas and daydreams of those unaffected by or familiar with the effects or truth about what they are creating.

You will discover that the vast majority of academics will be as enthusiastic about wolves as they are about tenure and grants that generate graduate student stipends.  Careful reading of the academic studies and pronouncements of the past 50 years about wolves and their impacts will show them to be reflections of the bureaucratic need to justify regulations, court case and Budget Requests.  They are the result of those bureaucratic needs, paid for by government funding, rather than the assumed other way around, “science” guiding concerned bureaucrats in search of wise decisions on behalf of all Americans.

You will meet many deceitful federal and state bureaucrats: I say this as a whistle-blower and “reforming” bureaucrat.  They have agendas these days as diverse as covering up autopsies of bodies taken away quickly without investigations, and spinning nonsense about a wolf attack being due to a “deformed wolf brain”, or the Minnesota moose population (so decreased by wolf predation) disappearance and moose hunting being closed (probably forever) as due to climate change and deer (coexisted for centuries) brain worm; to concern for kid’s college bills and paying for daughters weddings.  I cannot overstress the very real adverse consequences (as bad as using a forbidden word or of being accused of sexual harassment) to any government employee not being completely “in” on wolves.  Wolves allow them to decrease land values to enable government purchase or easement.  Wolves establish precedents for eroding the Constitutional concept of animals as private property thereby enabling agendas from prohibiting killing and eating them to making products of all kinds or even keeping them as watchdogs or pets.  All of these things in this short and incomplete list are grist for more government land control and more people control but most importantly more bureaucracy with higher salaries, higher retirement pensions and increased status both professionally and within various communities.

Lastly, you will meet very radical (the correct word) ideologues that work for and volunteer with a plethora of “environmental” and animal rights NGO’s (non-government organizations).  I have a long lifetime of experience with such groups and their treachery (again the right word).  I am reminded at this point of what my Irish grandmother that raised me during WWII told me while Dad was driving a tank in Africa and Europe; “Jim, if you can’t say anything good about someone; don’t say anything at all.”

Think of what you are about to do as interviewing people going to and from a Planned Parenthood Clinic and interviewing people in a Church parking lot after a 9:30 Mass on Sunday morning about abortion.  Others without the basic belief and experience are a “general public” whose thoughts and ideas are little more than indications of how any future vote is likely to come out.  So what to do?

I would hope you see your opportunity to collect your data, impressions, facts and references as you travel about and meet who you will.  Then go back to Buffalo, sort it out, and discuss it.

Then assign some students to investigate and document the abundance of wolf history from the Greeks and Romans to modern day Siberia, Russia and Kazakhstan. Look into why wolfhounds were invented and what they did.  Look into metal dog collars and spike dog collars so popular in Medieval England and why walkers always walked between villages with dogs and why Dalmatians often accompanied carriages.  Read about America settlers from Colonial times in isolated cabins to the spread of smallpox in Plains’ Indian Villages to the problem of rabid wolves invading US Forts.  Read Will Graves’ Wolves of Russia especially about a Russian sawyer bitten by a rabid wolf WHILE RUNNING THE CHAINSAW.

Look into the 30 + diseases and infections carried and spread by wolves.  Be honest about wolves frequenting farmyards at night and tapeworms and be honest about the danger wolves present if anthrax or smallpox (both in current bio-weapon inventories) is released or if foot-and-mouth or Mad Cow Disease outbreaks occur.  Note the absence of any veterinarians willing to say anything or to be quoted as someone says, “what does he know, he’s not a veterinarian!”

Draw a picture of the “costs” (government, social, and business-wise) of introducing and protecting wolves from the millions stolen by federal bureaucrats from state fish and wildlife funds to introduce them back into Yellowstone to all the salaries, admin support, equipment, office space, grants, legal support, enforcement support, public “information”, meetings, travel, etc. spent and being spent at the state and federal level to concoct and enlarge the wolf debacle for 40+ years.  Take a shot at the costs that lie ahead.  Debate how we are to live without control of wolf numbers and how we will do it when things get intolerable

Calculate the costs to rural communities losing animal husbandry, hunting, camping and associated funds from guiding and locker plants to taxidermy and businesses from hardware to restaurants and motels as a result of wolves.  Do not be bamboozled about “eco-tourism” and “biking/hiking” et al.  That tourism is a chimera and the first time a wolf runs down a biker (like a dog chasing a bicyclist or a wolf engaging some lady with a leashed dog, etc) or kills a kid in a backyard all that euphoria will disappear in a New York second.

Document the truth about wolves and “species”.  If a wolf breeds with and has viable offspring with coyotes, all dogs and dingoes (given the opportunity) is it really a “species”?  How absolutely crazy is it to (as is happening as I write in NE South Dakota and more often all the time everywhere) to give government the power to “rescue” free-roaming dogs that disturb the neighborhood; allow legitimate and necessary managed control of coyotes; and simultaneously the power to “protect” a wolf when all three or many of the millions of genetic combinations their interbreeding begets look as much alike as clones?  How is it even conceivable, much less occurring, that a NE South Dakota coyote hunter may go to prison, pay a large fine, lose the right to vote and lose the right ever own a gun again BASED ON SOME DNA ANALYSIS CONDUCTED POSSIBLY BY SOME IDEOLOGUE (environmental/animal rights) ANALYST based on sketchy parameters and definitions?

Then compare things about where wolves are now, where they can be expected to be (don’t be hoodwinked about “pack animals” avoiding suburban/urban areas: undiscouraged wolves will look for food at night in a Denver suburb as quick as they will a Montana farmyard or a dumpster behind the pizza joint in the shopping center) and just how any likelihood of wolves killing a kid by a bus stop or some grandma walking out to the rural mailbox is worth whatever nonsense being peddled like “willows along the stream” (if that was important, simply allowing hunters to reduce grazing game populations would have been done but it wasn’t; so ask yourself, why?)

If you get this far, take this from the biological/political/hidden agenda realm to an Ethical perspective.  This is the tough part since our modern secular society has demolished most common moral understanding and replaced it with a “whatever floats your boat” morality: ethics is today a relative matter where your right is my wrong and vice versa but given the University approach to relativism, you might find a way to apply a common standard as to what is ethical about aspects of wolves et al.  Nevertheless, attempt to form a basis (like Peter Canisius’ did with his Catechism(?) for dialogue and debate that avoids harm and leads a way out of a worsening  situation for millions of Americans and American Wildlife.  You and this are needed more than you can imagine.

When you are in Yellowstone you might call on Mr. Bill Hoppe, a third generation Montanan from that area.  He lives near Gardiner at the N end of the Park.  I suspect his views would be a welcome relief if you have been subjected to US Park Service bureaucrats by that time.

Good Luck.

Jim Beers

12 February 2018

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 is an advocate for a Rural American Renewal that benefits rather than ruins the culture, economy and surroundings of rural American communities and families. 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

Maine Bobcat: The Only Wild Predator in the East That “Regularly” Kills Deer?

I was reading an article this morning from Mount Desert Island, Maine about how the presence of bobcats helps to control the deer population on the island. Puzzling was this comment: “This interesting member of the cat family is our only wild predator in the east that regularly kills deer.” 

Like with any words in a written document and no author to explain, we are often left with guessing what certain words were intended to mean. Such is the case here.

First, is the author intending to refer to “our only” as meaning the bobcat is Mount Desert Island’s only large wild predator? Second, we are uncertain whether the author’s reference to “in the east” means in eastern Mount Desert Island, eastern Maine or the eastern United States. Third, what is meant when the author says “regularly kills deer?”

Guessing the precise definition really doesn’t matter in the accuracy of the claim. Either way you look at this, the statement is incomplete, at best, and also misleading, whether intended to be that way or not.

I would have serious doubts that Mount Desert Island has only bobcats as a large predator. As common as coyotes are in Maine now, it is almost certain they can be found there.

There are several “wild predators” in the east of Maine or in the east, that regularly (that’s a value-weighted perspective so this is my perspective) kills deer, although many refuse to acknowledge and understand the fact.

Excluding man, black bears, coyotes/coyote-wolf hybrids, bobcats, and Canada lynx regularly kill deer in Maine. Black bears regularly kill deer in Maine. This happens most often during the springtime when doe deer are fawning. Bears learn where deer go to fawn, as do all other predators. However, we must also remember that when any predator gets hungry enough they will take up doing things they might not normally do when food is plentiful. Black bears, under the right conditions, have been known to “ambush” a deer, sometimes taking one deer out of a traveling family of deer.

Maine’s coyotes, which we now have learned are actually a cross-breed mix of assorted coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs, kill deer sometimes at rates that leave us astonished. For ease of writing, I’ll just call them coyotes.

Coyotes and bears both can smell a fawn soon after it has been born. They often move in and take the fawn while it is basically helpless. In winter, coyotes regularly visit winter deer yards. When conditions are right, a winter deer yard can take on the appearance of a bloody battlefield.

I once spoke with a Maine Warden who told me that one particularly “harsh” winter, while conducting aerial fly-overs, several areas were shockingly awash in blood on the white snows. His comment was he had never seen anything like it before.

When coyotes move into deer wintering areas, often they hamstring the pregnant does and, while still alive, eat through the vaginal canal of the deer and extract the unborn fetus. Evidently, this is a bit of a delicacy for the wild dogs.

Video exists of coyotes taking down adult, healthy deer. Partly because of genetic exchanges, these coyotes have learned to hunt in packs and, while perhaps not the method of choice, have proven they can take down a fully grown male deer.

The same is true for bobcats. The bobcat has a different method of killing a deer, but lethal nonetheless. Once again, photos and video readily show a bobcat latching onto an adult deer and persisting until the prey is killed.

The Canada lynx has been known to kill deer as well and shouldn’t be discounted as a threat at certain times to the deer.

Maine has several large predators and those predators will kill deer…regularly. Depending upon the conditions, a large predator may or may not kill deer. Depending on the conditions, a large predator may or may not attack a man. Nothing within a wild ecosystem is all that predictable. There are so many instances that are driven by conditions at present.

One thing is for certain. The bobcat is NOT the only wild predator that kills deer regularly.

Share

Dog owner during bear attack: ‘I stuck my finger right in its eye’

Forgetting to “look big” or believing that “bears are more afraid of you than you are of them,” and yet we are also repeatedly told how rare it is that a bear would attack anything…man or beast, yet one more “rare” bear attack. Regardless, a man stopped beside the road to let his dog take a pee. The report (linked to below) states that the man took his “11-month-old lab mix” about 50 feet into the woods and that’s where his dog was attacked and where he fought the bear off his dog. The event left the dog and the man with cuts and bruises but nothing life-threatening.

One has to wonder when you read the following nonsensical quips and quotes, what is this information being passed along based upon? – “This does not happen, except in freak instances…” and “Black bears, which rarely attack other animals…,” followed by, “The den was unusually close to a busy roadway, ‘but a younger one doesn’t necessarily know to go back into the woods’…”, and this, “I don’t want people to freak out and think they can’t go into the woods and without worrying about a bear nailing them.” and lastly, “Since the 1980s, fewer than a dozen Mainers have fended off a bear, and none have died.”

Granted, discovering a bear hibernating or otherwise next to the highway, in the dead of winter in Maine, right at the spot a man stops to “water” his dog, is a rarity. But let’s look a bit closer at the idiocy of this report.

The article, like a good echo chamber, states that black bears “rarely attack other animals.” Because this is extremely subjective, what does this actually mean? Later in the article, it reads that since the 1980s, “fewer than a dozen” Mainers (what about out-of-staters?) have fought off a bear attack. What about the many others that probably go unreported? Does everyone who encounters a bear call and report it to the Bangor Daily News? All of this brings us to the important point as to just how “rare” is it that bears attack animals? If the man did not have a dog with him when he entered the woods, would the bear have attacked the man? Would that have been okay…as in the man deserved it somehow? We know what the newspapers, prompted by the environmentalist-trained biologists and game wardens would say. Are we being responsible for continuously repeating black bears don’t attack people or animals?

We know that come Spring, black bears have learned where deer and moose go to calve their young. Attacking new-born calves is a very common thing…or is it a rare thing if you somehow feel the need to protect a predator even at the cost of human life?

I would like something more substantive from the press, and I know we’ll never get it, that supports their claims of the rarity.

I have admitted that it is unusual to find a bear semi-hibernating 50-feet off the highway, but aren’t we doing some projecting and placing human traits on an animal when we say things like, “but a younger one [black bear] doesn’t necessarily know to go back into the woods?” Many, so-called, scientists have studied varying species of animal to learn about their behavior. Seriously, have we reached a point that we now know what an animal “thinks” and why?” That is what we believe now…right? Maybe a lawsuit, on behalf of this young, improperly raised, and confused bear should be filed against the bear’s mother for abandoning it before it was mature enough to make good decisions, especially those based on weather conditions predicted in The Old Farmer’s Almanac. Or perhaps the MDOT should be sued for building a road where one day an immature, neglected, young bear decided to take a nap.

But more than anything else, the people should be sued because of Climate Change. That’s it. There’s no way this bear would have sacked out in this spot if it wasn’t for global warming. When will we ever learn?

The Maine Warden says he doesn’t want people to freak out and think they can’t go into the woods out of fear of “a bear nailing them.” I realize that we are all trained to believe that all people are incapable of making any kind of a decision without the direction of the State – and this is probably quite true – but which is being more responsible – telling people repeatedly bears won’t harm them or properly educating them on what might happen, even in one’s determination to never demonize a predator? If we should choose the education route to go, let’s find something better than telling a scared shitless, soon-to-be bear food victim to “look big.”

Perhaps the answer lies in the next to last paragraph of the article which states: “Since the 1980s, fewer than a dozen Mainers have fended off a bear, and none have died.” (emboldening added)

It is, therefore, to protect the bear, the tens of thousands of them, because attacks on animals (and people) are rare. The insane and perverse perspectives toward large predators are reinforced when we read that someone failing to get killed by a black bear justifies our ignorant and irresponsible actions.

Game Warden Shannon Fish confirmed that there were traces of a bear living in a small den where the attack occurred.

“This does not happen, except in freak instances, and Monday was a freak instance,” Fish said.<<<Read More>>>

Share

An Example of How Scientism Has Invaded Our Lives

According to Wikipedia, Scientism is: “a term generally used to describe the facile application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.” Okay, so to understand what that means, we find that “facile” means: “1. appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. 2. easily achieved; effortless.” A Scientismist is one who practices Scientism, regardless of their cognition of their chosen path of Scientism. Forgive the Father for they know not what they do?

Scientism can be explained further to state that when the real scientific process becomes too complex, or in reality no longer fits a narrative, the human condition or human values are applied instead. It’s what most want to believe. If it feels good, do it. When we examine the “Scientific Method,” once again Wikipedia says, “The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

If this sounds complex, involving hard work, it is. And thus, Scientism abandons all of this and replaces it with something easier.

In short, the practice of Scientism promotes fantasy and mythology because it is easier to believe in lies than it is to learn the truth.

An example of this might be the tale of Little Red Riding Hood. Instead of researching the history of life with wolves throughout the world dating back as far as the 11th Century, to understand why people feared man-eating wolves, it is easier to say that people became scared of wolves because somebody made up a story about wolves rather than the idea for such a story had its roots in actual events leading up to that time.

Jim Beers, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, calls the exemplification of Scientism as Romance Biology and/or Voodoo Science.

All of the characteristics of Scientism, Romance Biology, and Voodoo Science have invaded our institutes of “higher” learning, growing exponentially like some foreign toxic fungus. The result of this phenomenon can be witnessed with the turn of each page of any news report or “scientific” journal. This epidemic now threatens nearly every aspect of man’s life.

Recently, it was reported that wolves had attacked and killed beef livestock in Oregon. An Oregon wildlife biologist and someone described as the “Oregon wolf coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” said that wolves had visited a ranch for years where the depredations took place and there hadn’t been any problems, apparently addressing the situation as though the wolf pack was a 4-H club.

This same biologist was further quoted as saying, “We can’t just trust anymore that (wolves) are going to come visit and not cause problems. Things have changed in that regard.”

Maybe the biologist could intervene on behalf of the wolves and suggest a “Time Out,” to give wolves the opportunity to reflect on their actions. The absurdity of the statement should stand alone and speak volumes of the errancy of today’s society, but it doesn’t. Someone must try to point out the error of their ways…for whatever that might be worth.

What we see is the exemplification of Scientism and the useless crap that is being used for brainwashing purposes at all levels of wildlife biology and wildlife management, and thus a filtering down throughout all society. Whom do we excuse as evidently this biologist’s bubble has been burst due to his perception that Romance Biology’s version of wolf behavior didn’t happen the way the books taught him it would. He believes that because wolves attacked livestock, “Things have changed in that regard.” Are you serious?

Historic document after historic document reveals that wolves systematically attack and kill livestock – sometimes for food and sometimes for bloodlust. I recall that during the many meetings and comments gathered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the introduction of wolves into the Rocky Mountains, all efforts to convince the Feds, even with historic documentation, that wolves don’t play fairly was totally disregarded. I said then that one day people would have to learn the hard way. And here we are. Yet, we see one biologist, a good representation of all wildlife biologists, who is of the belief that wolves attacking livestock is a “changed” behavior in wolves. No wonder nobody is willing to consider that wolves also attack and eat people.

Scientism disregards the complications of gaining knowledge through truth. It is easier to accept the false belief that wolves don’t attack people or livestock. When events reveal real wolf behavior, somehow this is perceived as a new event, a change in behavior that somehow must be dealt with. To them, it is not the wolves’ fault. Lacking, by choice, any knowledge of what it is and has been like for centuries to “learn to live with wolves,” ignorant and misled people think wolves attacking livestock is a rogue event.

Real wolf scientists, for centuries, have related the dangers associated with aggressive wolf behavior. For those interested in truth, libraries abound with books and documentation of wolf attacks on people and livestock. It is obvious that over the years, man’s knowledge and the processes used in employing that knowledge have changed. These changes have resulted in what I now call Scientism and some call Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

How anybody chooses to perceive wolf behavior, will not ever alter the historic behavior of wolves. Perceptions have changed but wolf behavior basically remains the same throughout all time.

 

 

Share

Failing to “Look Big” Florida Man Mauled By Bear

It was a very unfortunate event. A Florida man, stepping outside his home to let his dog out, was attacked and mauled by a black bear. The resulting attack left him with 41 stitches on his face.

Those “experts” who have never seen a bear, let alone experienced an attack, tell everyone that when a bear attacks you need to “look big” and “make a lot of noise.” Evidently, this man didn’t have time to do any of that.

They will also tell you that a bear is more afraid of you than you are of it and that attacks are rare. Polar bear attacks are rare in Florida too, but if the state had them, thousands of them, attacks wouldn’t be so rare. Is that so difficult a concept to understand?

Evidently, it is.

Share

Wolves Kill 154 Cows In Just One Northwest Minnesota County

Share

Money Talks and Bears Get Shot

Transplanting “problem” bears to another location sets the stage for a negligence lawsuit that could cost governments, universities and private entities millions of dollars.<<<Read the Story>>>

Share

They Say It Don’t Happen: Coyotes Eating Buck Alive

Share

Of Course It Was Presence of Garbage Cans That Caused “Coyote” To Attack 3-Year-Old Girl in Washington

“On Thursday, father Douglas Lucas says his three-year-old daughter was attacked by a coyote who came up to the front porch of their home and pounced on the child.”

“The city of Snoqualmie suggests that people keep trash cans inside their garage until garbage pick-up day. They say the smell of food is the main thing that lures animals to homes.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Words of Wolf Wisdom from Hay River, NWT

By James Beers

Words of Wolf Wisdom from Hay River, NWT

The sort of incidents reported by THE HUB newspaper in Hay River happen in The Lower 48 States and now in Europe more than is reported.  This is so for a host of reasons.

The fact that this took place near Hay River, NWT in Canada (South across the Great Slave Lake from Yellowknife) makes it different from The Lower 48 States only in the fact that wolves are harassed more (hunting, trapping, protection of property, self-defense) in NWT and therefore are less likely habituated to people that never threaten them in that sparsely settled landscape.  Recognizing that fact, should give pause to Lower 48 State and other rural residents in settled landscapes that are increasingly living amongst wolves that go near homes routinely and through towns at night as they forage and explore communities and residences much as happens in the settled landscapes of parts of Russia and (now) Europe.  If wolves in very sparsely settled landscapes like Hay River and the (mentioned) Alaskan Peninsula will attack humans; how much more likely are more habituated wolves in Wisconsin (Green Bay lady?), Minnesota (USFS Campground on Lake Winnibigoshish), Saskatchewan (Kenton Carnegie 2005), Idaho (Craters of the Moon?), Oregon (elk hunter one week ago), Greece (see my Wolves and Pillows article of 21 OCT.), Germany (some being investigated currently) and elsewhere to attack and kill humans (especially the elderly and the young)?

Note the sentence in the article by “a carnivore biologist with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Yellowknife” that, “In general, I’d say a wild animal that hasn’t been close to people is pretty leery, pretty cautious and stays clear.”

What goes unsaid in this doublespeak found even in the Far North is, that “a wild animal that is close to people (as is the case in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States) is not ‘pretty leery, pretty cautious and stays clear’”.  In other words, the more habituated to people is the wolf; the more dangerous is the wolf to the people!  Therefore the more settled the landscape, the more dangerous are wolves or bears or cougars in such landscapes for that matter.

The reason this is not believed by the urban public is due to more than years of animal rights propaganda about benevolent wolves being somewhat like unicorns flitting about the countryside eating only non-native plants while protecting lambs, calves and little children.  The reason this is not believed is because it is neither reported nor discussed.  On the rare occasion of being reported (see my Two Lucky Kids article of 1 Oct.) the encounter is presented as a rare glimpse of a benevolent Mother Nature worthy of mention on Sesame Street.

It is not mentioned whenever possible because to recognize its existence is to question allowing  the government to forcibly plant and protect wolves in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States and then having to ask yourself, “ Who is then responsible” if:

–           A single Human is maimed and/or killed?

–           If livestock losses to wolves decimate livestock producers’ livelihoods?

–           “     “            “         “   “       “            “      rural families and economies?

–           “     “            “         “    “      “             “     local government revenue and the political power of local people?

–          If meat prices spike and become prohibitively costly due to wolves”

–          If dog owners’ property (watchdogs, guard dogs, hunting dogs, pets, show dogs, guide dogs, etc.) are killed or maimed by wolves?

–          If game animals from moose and elk to prairies chickens and grouse are no longer able to support hunting and hunters along with their license fees (that support the “Conservation/DNR/F&G” agencies), disappear?

–          If hunting and trapping are then so rare that there are no longer young men enthused about paying for or profiting from applying thenecessary annual  (and prohibitively expensive) controls of wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes, and wintering herbivores?

–          If dog packs that trail deadly predators after a human attack/death are no longer available when such animal needs to be tracked down?

–          If (actually when) the truth ever emerges that wolves are not only very serious carriers and vectors of over 30 deadly and debilitating (to humans, livestock and wildlife) diseases and infections ever begin spiraling into an outbreak?

–          If it is realized that the increasing cross-breeding between wolves /dogs /coyotes is not only the most real threat to the very existence of the wolves of such faux importance in The Lower 48 States, but the Raison D’etre for the emergence of a new breed that is even more dangerous or destructive than the current breeds of this large and varied species?

The ANSWER to “Who is then responsible”, is; No One!

The state guys (many of whom have been lying and dissembling for years about wolves) will blame the federal guys that forced wolves into “their” state.  The federal guys that have been profiting big-time (unlimited powers, promotions, bonuses, enhanced retirements, public adulation in the press, etc.) will blame “the law” and “the politicians”.  The politicians (who made millions fro9m lobbyists and who reaped urban votes) will blame the scientists for faulty “science”.  The “scientists” (who have profited for years from grants and tenure thanks to wolves) will blame the Non-Government Organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, Wildlife Federation, Center for Biological Diversity et al for “distorting” and “manipulating” the “science”.  The “Environmental”/”Animal Rights” NGO’s will simply shrug, count their money and go to some secret meeting with the federal bureaucrats and politicians about how to ease, buy and “take” the remaining remnants of private property left in The Lower 48 States abandoned and unused except for the wealthy in their mansions with views no longer marred by timber cutting, grazing livestock, crops, canoeists, campers, or the sounds of rifle and shotguns.

So Lower 48 State newspapers and news shows either avoid (when possible) or dissemble any negative incidents much like terrorism reports or select descriptions of urban perpetrator characteristics.  They do this with the attitude once spoken by Jack Nicholson and here only directed to the general public about wolves in this instance, “You can’t handle the truth”.  Like all those in the preceding paragraph, after years of distorting the truth about the costs and dangers of wolves and the constant denigration of those challenging the government/NGO version of wildlife in settled landscapes; the media is a major conspirator in the wolf debacle and, like some Chicago Police Lt. during Prohibition that cannot tell the truth for fear of indicting himself, they chirp duets with the powers-that-be and do whatever it takes to survive.

Jim Beers

4 November 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