September 18, 2018

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

The Buck Stops Nowhere … One Man’s Thoughts By Jim Carrell

There is always a rest of the story; Unfortunately most people fear the facts..

The UNEP campaign to “rewild” America is not just about the apex predator paradigm that has been unleashed against the ranching and hunting industry and the rural citizens.. It is an entire economic shift designed to cause appropriation of private lands to be added to the “public” lands and relocation to cities of rural residents, and the new type of eugenics brought forth by economic warfare.. A campaign to clear the rewilded sectors of people.. It’s almost the same thing that happened to the indigenous natives, appropriation relocation and genocide for land for settlement.. Now it’s land for rewilding.. Those orchestrating this hell on earth are the financiers of the 1995 UNEP-1992 Programme of Action clique.. The World Bank, the IMF, The Windsors, the Club of Rome.. The various “conservationist” groups owned by the Rothschild’s family.. The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts or RSWT…was previously known by the names Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and Royal Society for Nature Conservation. “The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.” Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family.

“It was believed that it was better to fence off nature and leave it to its own devices, rather than practically manage it…”

World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF (formerly named the, World Wildlife Fund, WWF)
World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
Founders –
Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
Julian Huxley
Max Nicholson
Peter Scott
Guy Mountfort
Godfrey A. Rockefeller

“The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organization founded on April 29, 1961, and is working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund… It is the world’s largest conservation organization with over 5 million supporters worldwide, working in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300[5] conservation and environmental projects. WWF is a foundation,[6] in 2010 deriving 57% of funding from individuals and bequests, 17% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 11% from corporations.”

“The group’s mission is “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”[7] Currently, much of its work focuses on the conservation of three biomes that contain most of the world’s biodiversity: oceans and coasts, forests, and freshwater ecosystems. Among other issues, it is also concerned with endangered species, pollution and climate change.”

The above is a short list of the founding fathers of the early 20th century to the 21st century modern times environmentalist movement we are currently oppressed by… Fact is it is not environmentalism it is evolved eugenics..

Below in bold by Jim Carrell;

Ah, where to begin with this conundrum in a quagmire that is grizzly bear management in Montana? I can assure you that this isn’t a story that can be told with few words. For the sake of time I am going to give you the short version.

    Let us go back 30 or more years to a time before our State and Federal wildlife and land agencies took up residence with what has been deemed as “environmental” organizations. A time before nearly 100 years of sound wildlife and forest conservation was abandoned along with the North American model of hunting. A time when said agencies had the respect of the people that paid their wages, a respect that was earned based off their performance. A time when hunting organizations were actually hunting organizations, not decoy groups for environmental extremist organizations whose mantra is- “the end justifies the means.” A time when the livelihoods of all Montanans was considered. Starting to lose you? Please be patient and I will do my best to explain.

    In those days, Montana was a place that captured the heart and soul of every outdoor enthusiast, hunter and fisherman that lived there or who visited. It had it all. Wide open spaces that traveled seemingly endless across its badlands and into the Great Plains and prairies before finally being interrupted by one of multiple mountain ranges, each with its own unique characteristics and beauty, and none more iconic than or as large as the Rocky Mountain range. In all, these mountains held over 80,000 square miles and Montana as a whole encompassed just over 147,000 square miles. Streams and rivers for endless miles to the delight of many an angler and recreationalist. An abundance of wildlife, even grizzlies. It was a place whose heritage of Native Americans, hunting, fishing, ranching and farming rang so loud the whole world could hear it. It ran in the veins of so many people that called this place their home. Like grizzly bears, it was a big part the essence and pride of modern-day Montana.

    In many ways, the same holds true today but it has had a special kind of twist added to it. Moving forward now to the year 1995, when the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan was implemented. I am sure some of you reading this are wondering what wolves have to do with grizzly bear management. Stay tuned as I give my best explanation in this too short of space. Honestly, it would require a novel to give it the explanation it deserves.

    This was the transition period that changed everything. The years following this “non-essential” and “experimental” wolf recovery project began to reveal that something very different was going on with the agencies/departments that manage our wildlife and land. This was the time when grizzly bears should have been taken off the Endangered Species List (excluding grizzly in areas that should have never been put on the list in the first place) to be managed in an appropriate manner that ensured their existence in Montana’s vast landscape for all the years to come, while also taking into consideration their impact on human livelihood. A time when our governing bodies should have taken a stand to uphold the oath they took.

    Instead something very different happened. This became the time when the buck stopped nowhere. Something that continues today as an agenda seemingly from hell for many people in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington and the Mid-West, continues to unfold. A time when the ranchers, hunters and people in general were betrayed. As the years rolled by it became a time when heavy losses of deer, elk, moose, pets and livestock were witnessed in the western parts of Montana, all of Central Idaho, and into its northern regions and also Northwest Wyoming. This epidemic is now being realized in eastern Oregon as well as Eastern Washington and other parts of our nation. These losses have been well documented by many people although it rarely, if ever, makes the headlines. Calls for help have been largely ignored as the agenda of the expansion and overpopulation of apex predators continues by our powers that be, as does the havoc it wreaks.

    So what went wrong with this “non-essential” and “experimental” project? The deal that was made: 100 wolves or 10 breeding pairs (later changed to 150 wolves or 15 breeding pairs) in each of the three states (Idaho, Montana and Wyoming) was broken. This deal was stated and agreed upon by collaborators such as MT FWP, IDF&G, other state and federal agencies/departments, USFWS, and “environmental” organizations. As soon as that “goal” or “objective” was met the agreement was that management of these cherry picked wolves from northern Canada (canis lupus occidentalis), which were introduced on top of our native wolf (canis lupus irremotus), was to be handed over to each prospective state. Well, that goal or objective was met in each of the three states by the year 2002 (and that is being conservative) yet management did not begin until 2009 and it was lackluster at best. In 2010, “environmental” organizations filed yet another lawsuit and successfully stopped management efforts for that year. Between the years 2002 and 2010 these non-native and unchecked wolf numbers exploded and they were allowed to do a magnitude of damages that may never be forgiven by many people. As seen above this was not enough damage for the environmental extremist organizations nor was 10 times (at least) the wolf numbers than was agreed upon.

    This same time period, 2002 through 2010, was when the buck literally stopped nowhere. State agencies blamed the Feds and the Feds blamed the deal-breaking environmentalists, whose endless lawsuits and campaign to “rewild” America with apex predators pressed on as their in-house judges ruled in their favor 95% of the time. All the while the collaborators collaborated on, and still to this day blame one another for the fall out of the ill fated deal. Something worthy of noting is that these introduced wolves – canis lupus occidentalis (the largest sub-species of wolves in the world) are now being referred to as canis lupus irremotus, our once-native wolf that, contrary to popular belief, did still exist but has now been lost forever due to illegal introduction of a non-native species. Just one example of many of the scientific fraud that has been committed within the criminal enterprise known as wolf reintroduction. Genetic connectivity, right? Got to hand it to you all, that was a good one . I can already see the thrashing as people rush to disprove these claims with false “facts” that have been plastered all over the Internet while the truth has been scrubbed. I got a feeling there are some hard copies that are saved though.

    I am just curious, is there anyone else out there who has wondered if the real intent of this rewilding agenda was an intent to compromise the ranching and hunting industry and perhaps rural living in general? Perhaps even to destroy it all together? Just a thought.

    Through this time period, state wildlife officials really showed their true colors to the sportsmen of Montana and Idaho as well as many of its ranchers and rural Americans. There are many examples of this, but one prime example is that instead of advocating for us, they lied to us and the world about how many wolves were on the landscape and about the true amount of wildlife loss, how many were left on the landscape, and how their calf recruitment was doing (elk and moose). A loss due to depredation largely by an overpopulation of introduced wolves, but also by unchecked populations of other apex predators such as grizzly bears. This may sound like just an opinion to some, but for many it is a reality they lived, myself included. I have many personal experiences relating to this both in the field and with communication of multiple biologists and game wardens, as well as by paying close attention to what information these agencies/departments and “environmentalists” were releasing to the public at the time. What they didn’t share with the public is what concerns me the most. There are many people who can attest to this and many who have tried, only to have their voice silenced by our bias mainstream media, the “environmental” (indoctrinating the masses specialists) organizations, and of course by those who were supposedly serving us – the people. There is evidence of this that has been archived by more than a few people.

    Many people in Montana live east and north of and in Idaho south of where the impact of wolf introduction has been felt. I am sure to some of those folks and many others this all seems at least somewhat irrelevant. Anyways that has been my experience with many people I have encountered regarding wolves and other apex predators…they really never were too concerned until the impact reached them…such is human nature I suppose.

    So what does all this have to do with grizzly bear management now? Today these same entities are still collaborating together and we really don’t need any more of their “experimental” projects.

    Moving on to nowadays. Let’s do a short review of what has happened regarding the agenda of spreading apex predators across the west and midwest. I am going to put the focus on Idaho and Montana because that’s what I am most familiar with and there are others that will be offering information about other areas, but keep in mind this is a small sample. Let’s start with the Lolo elk herds of Idaho. Over the years I have been in contact with many people of this area who have lived and hunted there all or most of their life. I have personally visited the area myself. The destruction of wildlife there, particularly elk due to introduction of non-native wolves and their gross mismanagement is something that will continue to bring shame to IDF&G and their collaborators for decades to come. Where their Johnny-come-lately attempts to correct the mistake are appreciated and a step in the right direction, the damage was already done. Still, it is more than can be said regarding Montana’s efforts to rectify the mistake. The local people’s lives have been impacted to levels they will never forget and I can assure you the betrayal will never be forgotten by many of them.

    Lolo elk herds 17,000+ strong have been decimated to levels that will take generations to recover under proper management of all wildlife. The black bear population there has reached a saturation level, they have lived large over the years off the surplus kills of the non-native wolves. Wolf numbers remain strong there even after eating themselves out of house and home and even after their massive dispersal over the divide and into Montana and west to Washington and Oregon, where they have continued their destruction of other wildlife, pets and livestock. A hungry apex predator is a dangerous predator to humans.

    IDF&G and USFWS, if you are still continuing to blame habitat loss for the decimation of the Lolo herds, please stop. Leave the lies up to the environmental extremist organizations…they are much better at it than you. The gig is up on that excuse and it only serves as fuel on the fire towards the resentments of your betrayals.

    I want to touch on the Northern Yellowstone elk herds of Southwest Montana. There are others that will be covering this area in detail so I will save the space. In short, it has suffered heavy losses and I can assure you the sentiment of the people of that area is similar to the sentiments above.

    As for our moose populations in northwest Wyoming, western Montana, central and northern Idaho, and inside Yellowstone National Park and out, the decimation of their numbers due to an overpopulation of apex predators is a shame you will never live down so my advice is don’t even try… just own it and wear that badge proudly because you earned it. Forever the champions of the eco-terrorists… and believe me they are celebrating it as a great success and victory.

    As for our ranchers here in the west and the massive losses many of them have suffered, I want to remind all of you who are directly responsible for the war you have waged on them, it has been well documented and it will not be forgotten anytime soon. A legal rectification is in order.

    It is at this point where I should make an important acknowledgement. While referring to said agencies/departments both State and Federal, I have used the terms you, our and their quite loosely. Because the fact of the matter is many of the men and women working within them are some very good people. Average every day American people who are just trying to get by like the rest of us. Many of whom have recognized the dysfunction within but who also have careers, some long, with pensions and their livelihood to protect… some of whom have retired. They are people that were forced to go along or else. Something that is well documented in their minds I am sure. Then, there are others that simply belong behind bars for their contribution and involvement in the greatest wildlife disaster of modern times. Mixed in with these departments/agencies are some new age and not so new aged people that have had the finest training radical environmentalism has to offer. A weeding session is in order.

    Starting to see the correlation between wolf introduction and overpopulated grizzly bears yet? Let’s put the focus directly on the grizzly bear. First, I would like to point out that no one I have ever spoken to has ever expressed the wish to see them eliminated from Montana’s landscape, so let’s be clear on that. They will always have a home here.

    As to how these bears should be managed well, that is open to a great debate. One thing that has been made very clear is that management of grizzlies has been grossly mishandled for so many years, with the very broken, misused and abused Endangered Species Act as the excuse. (I wonder how much the Yellowstone Park Service killing of 240 grizzlies between the years 1971 and 1972 has to do with the poor decision making of grizzly bear management since?) Perhaps one of the best examples of this lies on the eastern front of the Rockies in Montana. An area that has always had an abundance of grizzly bears that were never endangered. Due to gross mismanagement, grizzly bear population in this vast landscape has exploded to numbers well over 4 times the threshold. Said bears have been dispersing for a number of years out onto the flats well over 100 miles way across human inhabited land including towns and small communities. In the most recent years, grizzly bear and human conflict has soared. Some ranchers are now experiencing heavy losses of their stock–more on that in a bit. Schools in long-established Montana towns are having to put electric fences around their playgrounds in an attempt keep the children safe. A fear of safety by many who call this area home has developed.

    The right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been compromised by the desire of some within our wildlife agencies and by “environmental” organizations who continue to push an agenda that “creates the opportunity of connectivity to other ecosystems” for large apex predators who very much pose a threat to human livelihood and safety. I want to know this: who gives these people the right to make these calls? A paid off judge? Some person working for some agency or department? Some “environmental” organization? – Or, perhaps the people they have spent millions upon millions of dollars indoctrinating with false information as they rake in their donations? People most of whom have no idea how life actually is in the places that are literally being affected.

    From the many areas in this vast landscape that are feeling real repercussions from grizzly overpopulation, I would like to focus on one example: the Black Leaf area west of Bynum, Montana. Here on one ranch that only amounts to a pin point on the map of the greater area of the eastern Rocky Mountain Front, a MT FWP confirmed (by camera) number of 36 different grizzly bears are holding this rancher’s sheep operation under siege. This is the minimal number of grizzlies in this area, with a strong likelihood of more considering game cams only cover a small portion. This rancher’s losses continue to mount up despite his large investment in sheep guarding dogs. There has been, from my viewpoint, a very lackluster effort by wildlife agencies to do anything to help this man with the overpopulation on and around his ranch. Orders to trap bears was issued and two indeed were trapped, only to be released to some other area for someone else to deal with and with a strong likelihood of returning to wreak more havoc on this man’s livelihood. Such has been the protocol for so many years by the governing bodies that “mange our wildlife.”

    It should be noted that this individual has been ranching this area for many years. Dealing with life with predators including grizzly bears has always been something of a normality for him. Dealing with an overpopulation of this level has not. He is now not only concerned for his operation’s livelihood but also the safety of his family and himself every time they step out the door. Examples like this one do not stop here, it spreads far and wide to areas of the west and it is truly a disgrace that is owned by those who are supposed to be serving us as they uphold the oath they took.

    The food our ranchers raise feeds not only this country but also the world. Ranchers are very important members to our society and our economy and they are often the best conservationists of the land. In part because their livelihood depends on it, but also due to their deep connection and love of the land. They have been forgotten by many. Many of them have been put out of business by this agenda of increasing and expanding apex predator populations. Something I want to point out to those people who insist that ranchers live on wildlife’s land and that they should either just accept predators killing their stock or move – whether you folks realize this or not, the fact is that most all of us who live in this country live where wildlife of all sorts once roamed, even the big cities. Here in the west, perhaps unbeknownst to many people who are not from here, there are vast areas of land that are not and will never be inhabited by man that is more than capable of sustaining grizzly bear populations for the rest of time. The idea that they should be able to sprawl out into human inhabitance here is unreasonable and it begs the question of those who disagree: do you want them in your backyard? If so, perhaps we can arrange that because we have plenty to spare.

    This is a call out for help to all of our governing bodies to end this blatant discrimination of so many of the fine people of rural America as well as the discrimination of sportsmen who carry on a tradition that captures the essence of all of our existence. Yes, hunting has always been a normal part of human existence. This is a request to these bodies to put an end to radical environmentalism that has caused so much damage to this country’s pristine forests and cherished wildlife due to the failed policies of the past 30 or more years. We are tired of watching our forests burn and tired of breathing the smoke (to those who remember, the spotted owl saga comes to mind). Please put an end to these organizations’ ability to continue to pimp our wildlife for their political and personal gains, often times at the expense of the American tax payer. Also, PLEASE hold them accountable for their crimes, a large scale investigation is in order. Please put an end to the unnecessary expansion and overpopulation of apex predators. Please delist all apex predators that are not endangered and restore sound conservation and management for all wildlife and land. Please stop locking us out of our public lands and please stop poisoning our mountain streams with the quest of getting rid of the Eastern Brook Trout. Why are they not okay but a non-native wolf is? Creeks that once teamed with fish are now sterile. What impact has this had on the native sculpin, aquatic bugs, and the native cutthroat, who co-existed for many years with the Eastern Brook Trout? From what I have observed it doesn’t look good.

    I would like to call out to all Americans, regardless of your political affiliation or beliefs, regardless of your race or religion. Regardless of your recreation of choice. A call to all ranchers and to all stock and cattle associations, to all non-decoy sportsmen’s organizations and to all sportsmen. To anyone this reaches who can relate to the above, to anyone that wants to help people who are being affected by this war on the west. We need to come together as one voice and stand against this agenda and any agenda that stands in the way of our right as humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is time for America to once again come together, united as one. We cannot erase the wrongdoings and the mistakes of the past, we can only learn from them. Together we can forge a future that works for all of us, wildlife and land. Now is the time to let your voice be heard!

    The debate over public lands has been hijacked by “environmental” organizations and their affiliates who could truly care less about our public land rights and who vehemently appose hunting. In fact they are involved with the countless “wilderness studies” that keep us locked out of much of our public lands with gates galore. We now have so called “sportsmen’s” groups or organizations that receive most of their funding from these organizations. Do not be fooled by this decoy deception. As sportsmen, to which there are many of us in this country, we will never completely agree on every aspect of how things should be, but if we stand divided we risk losing our way of life. We must stand united as one. The gap between sportsmen and private property owners will not be bridged by these organizations. Sportsmen share way more in common with ranchers and private property owners than we do organizations who oppose hunting. Just food for thought.

    Where does the buck stop?

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jim Carrell Adds …

If you find the time, please comment during this public comment period with MT FWP regarding management of grizzly bears in Montana.

Comments are due by October 26, 2018. Comments can be submitted in writing, by email, or at the following public hearings:

Public Hearings

September 18 – Great Falls, Great Falls College-MSU, 2100 16th Avenue S., 6:30 p.m.

September 19 – Conrad, High School, 308 S. Illinois St., 6:30 p.m.

September 26 – Missoula, Holiday Inn Downtown, 600 S. Pattee St., 6:30 p.m.

September 27 – Kalispell, Flathead Valley Community College, Arts and Technology Building, 6:30 p.m. 

                                                                                                                                              Comments can also be submitted by mail to: Grizzly Bear ARM, Wildlife Division, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana, 59620-0701; or by e-mail at fwpgrizzlybeararm@mt.gov, and must be received no later than October 26, 2018.Comments can also be submitted online at: http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/rules/pn_0265.html                     

Share

THE Wolf Syllabus

By James Beers:

The following talk was given at a Wolf Symposium by Dr. Geist, a retired Canadian environment professor.  Dr Geist is an internationally recognized scholar and consultant in the subject of predators, predation and changing ecosystems; particularly as this involves wolves. 

I am proud to say that Dr. Geist, a man for whom I have the greatest respect and highest regard, has been both an acquaintance and colleague for many years. 

This “Banquet and Wolf Symposium” was, in my opinion, a smoke screen in the latest subterfuge by uber-rich Americans, non-government organizations and federal bureaucrats to introduce and protect wolves In Colorado to complicate wolf control in Wyoming, circumvent wolf opposition in New Mexico and place wolves ever-closer to The Great Plains where they will duplicate their impacts seen to date throughout much of the West.  

Utah, reportedly, has no established wolf packs and through adept political wrangling has prevented federal bureaucrats from asserting their legal intention to introduce or protect wolves in Utah. This political maneuvering is largely due to Big Game Forever, a Utah-founded and based hunters organization that for about a decade has steered a somewhat maverick role between Washington politicians and bureaucrats, and national non-government organizations of all stripes.  

A former Ted Turner employee and Montana legislator recently kicked off a campaign to introduce wolves into Colorado.  The “usual suspects” came forth (Denver/Colorado Springs/Fort Collins” “wolves only improve the world” crowd to a hodgepodge of ranchers, hunters, rural dog owners, and shepherds that saw what lay ahead but appeared powerless to stop it.  The next step was this “Banquet and Wolf Symposium” sponsored by the Utah-based Big Game Forever to bring together “experts, scientists and decision-makers”.  Fortunately, Dr. Geist was asked to speak, and speak he did. 

I believe Dr. Geist’s talk is the best comprehensive information presentation on wolves that I have read.  It is for this reason that I am forwarding this presentation.  If you or anyone you know is involved in the wolf issue or may be involved in the future with the wolf issue, or has noticed their kids being propagandized about wolves, or that simply likes wildlife and is concerned about America’s future rural environment – Please Share This with Them. 

As to the future of wolves in Colorado, a colleague recently told me that after cutting through all the “science” and smoke: if the Democrat wins the Governor’s race in November (a likely outcome in the heavily urban population and increasingly Magnet-State for liberals fleeing high-tax western states and even high-tax Eastern states) Wolves Will Be Introduced into and Protected in Colorado. 

Luckily, Dr. Geist is Canadian and one of those all-but-extinct endangered species candidates – a professor with Integrity.  He ignores the politics and does a masterful job of saying what I am sure the majority of banqueters neither expected nor wanted to hear. 

Thank you Dr.Geist. 

Jim Beers

4 September 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

Futility

I am here to tell you why the wolf does not belong into settled landscapes. Wolves do unbelievable damage to wildlife, they do great damage to agriculture, they pose a real threat to public health and safety, and they kill humans under now well-known circumstances. Moreover, after all the pain, suffering and deprivations that wolves inflict on people in settled landscapes, after the enormous public expenditures to maintain wolves, all the effort and costs are for naught, because in settled landscapes wolves degrade via hybridization with dogs and coyotes into worthless hybrids, that is into coydogs and feral dogs. Settled landscapers remorselessly destroy the real wolf. Wolves cannot be conserved as a species in settled landscapes. What is being done with wolves here and in Europe has nothing to do with nature conservation. What the US and the EU are doing with legislation is a very expensive, brutal and mindless way to destroy real wolves. We can do better!

Wildlife destruction

When wolves are introduced, they first destroy wildlife. When I worked in Banff National Park in the 1960’s there were present about 2,500 elk. After wolves returned in the 1970’s elk dropped to less than 300. Moreover, elk became invisible as they were not only hiding, but the bulls quit bugling during the rutting season. We have the same silent bull elk on Vancouver Island where I now live, courtesy of wolves, cougars and big black bears. After 1970 I was no longer able too observe the behaviour of elk in Banff. Also, the moose, which were readily observable in the 1960’s went extinct or invisible.

The same patter has been observed in the Yellowstone area after wolves proliferated following their introduction.  The famous northern elk herd went from 19,000 to about 4,000. Why not less? Because the park elk left the park and went onto private land where there were safe from wolves. I was informed that only some 600 or so now winter in the park. Elk not only went onto private ranches, but also into hamlets or small cities such as Gardiner, where they were also safe from wolves. And that’s exactly what elk have been doing in Canadian national parks for ages: go into towns to escape predation. Deer do that also. Currently in western Canada they are doing it on a grand scale and flee into suburbs, farms, hamlets and even into the very core of cities. Deer on Vancouver island are concentrated in human settlements and virtually missing in the vast back-country. They are not welcome in cities, but tenaciously, they hang on. In Alberta elk have left the forestry reserve, the home of wolves, and moved onto private ranches. Moose have gone even farther and moved far, far out into the prairie where they now live along watercourses and in coulees. They did not do so that when I was still living in Alberta a quarter century ago. In Yellowstone park, however, moose went extinct. Which was, of course blamed on global warming. In early fall 2006 I rode for a week from dawn to dusk through some of the finest moose habitat I have ever seen. And I have see a lot of moose habitat in Canada between the Montana/Idaho/ Washington and the Alaska boundaries. I never saw a moose or a track or a feeding sign. And that was during the moose rutting season when bulls are maximally active.

The very landscape I was riding through was also excellent mule deer habitat. During my week on horseback I saw two does and fawns and found one antler rub by a buck. I suppose they were also victims of global warming!

On Vancouver Island the annual deer kill dropped from about 25,000 a year to some 3,000 per year. Vast forest areas are now virtually without deer. My wife and I observed directly how deer vacated the landscape and rushed into suburbs and farms when a wolf pack showed up.  At night deer lined up body to body along the walls of our neighbour’s cattle barns, oblivious of the farm dogs. For the first time in four years they entered my garden and demolished the fruit trees I had planted. Some 80 trumpeter swans left with the wolf packs arrival, but only some 40 returned after the pack was extirpated; when the second wolf pack arrived the swans left and never returned. Nor did the geese, the large flocks of American widgeons, the green-winged teals, the pheasants and ruffed grouse. Note: it’s not only big game that vanishes!

Alaska colleagues experimentally released wolves on a coastal island. The wolves exterminated the deer, tried catching seals, and starved to death. Similarly, Tom Bergerud, the premier caribou biologist on this continent, documented caribou extinctions on islands occupied in the current spread of wolves.

Research in Yellowstone has shown that wolves kill about 22 elk per wolf per year, and that wolves begin leaving the country once the kill declines to 16 elk per wolf per year. That’s about the same amount of moose wolves kill in Scandinavia per year.

But where do the wolves go when they deplete the prey?

Outside the park, of course, in search of more prey. Here they may be trapped or shot. This has led to vociferous protests that the evil hunters are killing park wolves. A book has been written about it.  No mention of park management which allowed wolves to exceed their carrying capacity of the land. A classical failure of “protectionism.” However, more on that later.

You asked what will happen to your moose, elk and mule deer when wolves are introduced into Colorado and are free to multiply. The moose will be exterminated, the elk and deer decimated, except in so far as they can find shelter from wolves on private ranch-lands, as well as in hamlets and suburbs. However, protected wolves learn to hunt big game even in towns, as now witnessed in Germany. Game population will decline as well as your hunting opportunities. Wolf control can reverse that, but wolf control, as we shall see, will also accelerate hybridization and the genetic destruction of real wolves.

Hydatid disease

Wolves come with a number of diseases of which historically the worst have been rabies and hydatid disease.  Modern medicine had reduced the dangers of dying from rabies if bitten by a rabid wolf, but in the past it was cause for real anxiety, as the bite of a rabid wolf was fatal. As to hydatid disease, all technical matters I mention are to be found in descriptions on the internet – except for context! There had been a presentation given by myself together with Dr. Helen Schwantje, Wildlife Veterinarian for the Province of British Columbia, to the Montana Legislature’s Environmental Quality Council about Echinococcus granulosus and E. multilocularis, on April 27th 2010. Everything we said then applies to all western states. Nobody can claim they were not warned on the basis of very extensive research carried out  by the late Professor James Adams of the University of British Columbia. My late wife was a student of his, and I have seen his extensive collection of images taken in the Vancouver regional hospital of this disease. A horror show beyond description! We also were privy to  the shop talk of surgeons emanating from the operating rooms, that does not find its way into learned journals. It appears that hydatid disease was prevalent then in British Columbia as trappers still used dog sleds for transportation and were feeding to the dogs the viscera of moose, caribou etc including hydatid cyst infected viscera. This practice came to an end with the rise of snowmobiles for transportation which replaced dog-sleds by the 1960’s. Soiled dog sled harnesses were one source of infection.

Hydatid disease is a nasty parasitic disease, caused by us ingesting the eggs of the dog-tape worm Echinococcus granulosus. It can be deadly! The danger resides primarily in the family dog getting infected, and then spreading infective tape worm eggs on lawns, drive ways, veranda and in the house. However, one can also catch the disease from handling the bodies and furs of infected wolves, or from berries and mushrooms contaminated with hydatid eggs from nearby wolf scats, or by running a lawn mover or hay-baler over some dry wolf scats, or drinking water that has percolated over wolf scat.  The people in real danger are ranch families on whose lands infected elk and deer gather to spend the winter and who crowd in about buildings to escape the marauding wolves. Infected elk, moose or deer carry large cysts filled with tiny tape worm heads primarily in lungs and liver. Normally they become debilitated by these cysts and readily fall prey to wolves. These, upon ingesting the viscera, also ingest the cysts. The little tape worm heads are then freed and attach themselves by the thousands to the gut of the wolf. Here they produce masses of tiny eggs that go out with the feces of the wolf. When such dries, the eggs are blown about on the surrounding vegetation. That vegetation is fed on by elk and deer. The tiny eggs turn in the gut of elk and deer into tiny larvae that drill into the intestines and are carried by the blood to the liver, lungs and more rarely the brain of the elk, where they then grow in time into the large cysts, debilitating the elk, making it prey for wolves.

If hunters shoot an infected elk on a ranch and leave the viscera behind, there is the possibility that the ranch dogs will find it, feed on it, become infected by the dog tape worm and begin shedding eggs around farm buildings, barns, and lawns within about seven weeks. People will step into the infected dog feces and, inadvertently, carry it into veranda and house. Here the eggs spread over the floors, but may also drift onto tables and furniture. The dog, licking its anus and fur, transfers tape worm eggs into its fur. The eggs are most likely to infect babies crawling about on the floor, veranda or lawn. They child will lick its hands, or eat contaminated food, and the eggs will develop into cysts. Since re-infection is likely, numerous cysts begin to grow in the liver and lungs. Cysts in the brain are normally fatal. The cysts develop initially slowly, so that not much may be notices till the child is a teen. Then, while playing sports, a cysts in the abdomen may burst. Some children die right then and there of anaphylactic shock. Those that survive need to undergo extensive operations. Should even a tiny bit of parasitic tissue lining the cysts survive surgery, it will grow into another cyst. A terrible, debilitating lifelong condition.

The primary danger comes from dogs which have fed on infected gut piles of elk, moose and deer. Also from farm and ranch dogs that have found an infected dead elk in a coulee and fed on its innards. Since in winter elk will seek refuge also in suburbs and hamlets, any resident dog finding dead elk is likely to get infected, and infect its owners in turn. In short any dog, hunting dog or companion dog that finds a dead deer or elk or an infected gut-pile will bring the disease into the home and to the neighbourhood of its owner. And that will include school yards.

So, where elk winter on ranches, de-worming dogs regularly is a necessary precaution. So is the removal of all dead elk. It is essential to insure that during hunting season hunters bring in the infected viscera for destruction. The real problem will be teaching hunters to dispose in the field infected viscera.

And be weary of people belittling this disease! The claim of a benign parasite is flatly contradicted by Delane C. Kritsky; Professor Emeritus, Idaho State University, who was Associate Dean and Professor (35 years) within Department of Health and Nutrition. “We should be asking who (the U.S. government, the Fish and Wildlife service, the wolf advocates) will be paying the health bills and funeral expenses for those who will ultimately become infected as a result of wolf introduction into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming?

Wolves are also known carriers of bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, Neospora caninum (causes abortion in cattle) and, of course, rabies. In Yellowstone, by dispersing elk far beyond the park, the park elk met elk infected with brucellosis, and became infected themselves. In Wood Buffalo National Park wolves have not eliminated tuberculosis and brucellosius in bison. Wolves may not even bother taking down old diseases bison bulls, but looks to young bison instead,

Chronic Wasting Disese CWD

Chronic wasting disease is a juggernaut descending onto American wildlife. Because of its prevalence it has been suggested that predation would wipe out this pernicious disease. In short, introducing and spreading wolves within areas where this disease is endemic among deer and elk, would eliminate the disease. Not so. It would spread the disease.  Wolves generate panic among deer and prey leading to desperate long distance flight as well as desperate searches for locations free of wolves, primarily due to human presence. I have personally witnessed this wolf-induced panic among deer. And I have observed it personally also among livestock. Secondly, because wolves in dispersing go great distances, they would spread ingested CWD prions via feces and urine over very great distances. And they would disperse it in concentrated form. More ranches would wind up CWD infected, let alone public lands. And who in his right mind would buy a ranch infected with CWD, or even a ranch adjacent to an infected ranch? And the trouble is that, generally, we have been trying to contain CWD locally instead of eliminating the root cause of its spread: the commercial trade in wildlife.

Attack on humans the escalation model. While real wolves do indeed attack humans rarely and are very shy, they kill humans none the less under predictable circumstances. Historically wolves have killed in Eurasia tens of thousands of people, and are know as belonging to the “beasts of battle”,  who occupied battle fields and devoured the dead.  Medics noted on battle fields in modern times that wolves vastly preferred human flesh to that of horses and other domestic animals. Fortunately, when wolves begin targeting people, they do so in very diagnostic fashion. They sit or stand and begin watching humans at a distance. They close the observation distance gradually. They continue their exploration by pulling on clothing, licking exposed skin before trying an initially clumsy attack. Not only food shortages trigger exploratory behaviour, so do well fed wolves frequenting garbage dumps. The key factor to watch for is the steady, consistent observations by wolves of humans. Wolves, unlike dogs, are sight-learners, very intelligent sight-learners, I might add. And steady observation of humans by wolves signals an intent on behalf of the wolf to attack people as potential prey.

Why American wolves – were – “harmless”

A prevailing myth is that wolves are so shy as not to attack people, especially North American wolves, which had for the longest time no recorded attack on a person by healthy wolves. When the student Kenton Carnegie was killed by wolves, it was blamed on black bears by a scientist ignorant of tracking, but widely accepted by environmental interests. Totally ignored was the investigation by two educated native people that had exceptional qualification in tracking. That follows a pattern of ignoring the experiences of native Americans. The myth itself can be traced back to a number of North American wolf specialists in the 1950’s who then lacked the understanding of wolves we have now, and who dismissed historical accounts as “tall tales”, precisely because of the scarcity of attacks by wolves on people in north America. It remained a puzzle for a long time even to great specialists in wolf behaviour, such as the late professor Erich Kinghammer of Wolf Park, Battle Ground, Indiana, with whom I discussed this puzzle many times in the decades past. However, I now know the answer: In the 19th Century, the wild spaces of Canada and Alaska were not only occupied by hamlets of rural and native people, and the wilderness widely exploited seasonally by an influx of hunters, while vast private lands were secured from predators by government predator control officers. Moreover, wolf control included the areal dispersal of poisoned horse meat. However and most important of all: vast areas were divided into trapping territories and trapped over by – in the case of Canada – by about 60,000 trappers. These desperately poor, hard working men depended on wildlife for survival and on dog sleds for transportation. Since wolves disperse wildlife, follow trap-lines destroying fur and kill dogs, trappers were usually not well disposed towards wolves. The wolf population of Canad is currently estimated at 60,000 and was probably less than half that in the 19th century. Note: for every wolf alive there were one or two trappers, and that does not include the armed no-trappers occupying that land. Granted the huge territories wolf packs roam over, all wolves in 19th century Canadian wilderness were thus in constant contact with very hostile human beings. That is, all wolves were being continually educated to shun humans. Moreover, because of wolf control there was a super abundance of wildlife – which I still personally experienced. That is, wolves surrounded by a a super abundant food supply grew into shy giants of almost unbelievable body size. I still experienced that personally. Because of reduced density, hydatid disease was relatively rare, attacks on livestock very limited and attacks on humans unheard of. Moreover, by keeping wolves out of settled landscapes it retained the integrity of packs as well as the genetic identity of wolves. Giant wolves living in functional packs will not hybridize with coyotes or dogs, but annihilate such. The wolf kill by trappers, however, was limited. It amounted only to about one wolf per five trappers per year, judging from bounty records.  

Replacing the little wolf with the big wolf.

North America has two species of wolves, a little native wolf who survived the incredible predation hell-hole that characterized North America during the ice ages, and a big wolf who came from Siberia, repeatedly, who did poorly in the native North America fauna, and who spread and multiplied only after human had exterminated most of the native megafauna some 12,000 years ago. The little wolf is a very smart, adaptable little fellow, who does poorly in the presence of the big wolf, but explodes in numbers in settled landscapes and follows humans closely. With human aid it spread into Alaska as well as central America and is still expanding. And it is obnoxious enough to have triggered large scale control measures. In the US coyotes are killed at roughly1000 per day.

You have also legislated via your endangers species legislation and endorsed by the courts that the big wolf will be placed where the little wolf is now.

Has anybody considered what this replacement will mean?

Do you think you will be happy having replaced the unprotected little wolf with the highly protected big wolf?

Do your legislators talk to one another?

Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

The real wolf versus the dog, destructive hybridization.

Protecting grey wolves in settled landscapes and letting them multiply freely leads in the long run to wolves hybridizing with other canids in the settled landscapes, with coyotes in north America and Golden Jackals in Europe, and with domestic dogs in both. That is, or will be, the fate of real wolves to be genetically degraded into extinction as a species. The end product of current American and European “wolf conservation” – so called – is to loose the real wolf as as species and produce a human-caused artifact, a worthless hybrid.

The real wolf is s a species. The dog is not. A species it is the product of Nature sculptured by such for millions of years.  By contrast the dog is NOT a species, but an artifact of human creation using the genetics of the wild wolf and other canids. The dog is a very great, highly useful, but also artistic creation, one which I would not want to live without. And I thank providence that the dogs I have are not wolves! Dogs have been created by humans to fit with human needs, our habitations and professional activities. They are a great treasure, as dog owners can attest to.

But so is the real wolf. And there is no question that we must insure the perpetuation in modern times of the real wolf. However, it cannot be done the way it is practised now in the USA and the European Union. For trying to maintain wolves leads remorselessly to slow, but certain, hybridization with dogs and coyotes and thus the loss of the real wolf. Hybridizing wolves with dogs and coyotes is a way to exterminate the real wolf by destroying its genetics. Of course wolves and dog are closely related genetically. However, very nearly the same basic genetics generates totally different animals. The dog is not a wolf, no matter what.  Similarly, humans and chimpanzees are also very closely related genetically, but are very different organisms.  Pigs and whales are closely reflated genetically, but you do nothing for whale conservation by protecting pigs. Placing dogs into the same species as wolves is a profound confusion of categories.

Consequently, after all the trials and tribulations of introducing wolves into settled landscapes, after all the cost to the public and private purses, after all the destruction caused by these wolves, after all the pain and suffering that befalls humans, livestock, pets and wildlife, after the loss of a grate public treasures such as wildlife, at the end, the wolf is exterminated genetically and replaces by a worthless artifact of hybridization.

Some achievement, some nature conservation, something to be really proud of!

Ecological management for native biodiversity and productivity: The fiasco of “protectionism” advanced by good, but mindless nature lovers.

Right now the national park service is bemoaning the fact that in US national parks the bio-diversity is plummeting (species are going extinct) while at the same time the parks have now over 6,500 invasive plant and animal species in the parks. Management in national parks is primarily protection – that is, doing nothing! (after all, “nature knows best”, it will restore ecological ” balance”  and etc. etc.). However, in reality, doing nothing allows the extinction of sensitive native species, while the hoodlums of the plant and animal world, the invasive species, thrive and prosper under total protection. Is this nature conservation? Is the national park service intellectually capable of differentiating between degeneration and evolution? To make my point another way: In one project in California, Wildergarten, one gentleman, Mark Vande Pol, in fierce opposition to national parks and their ruinous do-nothing policy, bought 14 acres of ground on which there were only 60 species of plants total, currently visible and reproducing. After 28 years of hard, intelligent, insightful work the count  today is some 245native species, while he controls completely another 125 exotics that were once in the seed bank.  Uniquely, the project has a special emphasis upon small annuals.  In fact, he is actively replacing an exotic seed bank with natives!  Have you ever even heard of such a public, foundation, or university project?

Do you see what I am getting at?

The publicity making lament of the National Wildlife Federation about the state of affairs on “protected” areas, is in good part due to the self-infliction of dogmatic, uncritical protectionism, in which even monitoring would be shunned as it smacks of intervention. Ergo, no science, no scholarship disturbs the fundamentalist religious view that “protection” is the salvation of nature. In reality, its exactly the opposite! Protectionist policies lead to the unwitting degeneration of nature, the longer and more effective the protection, the greater the degeneration.

Has the Wildlife Federation, let alone the Sierra Club or humane societies ever learned any lessons from the great and – when it is allowed to work – wonderful North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?

Turkeys were virtually extinct. How about their numbers today? And turkeys cannot exist without a diverse, productive habitat!

Wood ducks were virtually extinct, but no more. How come?

In 1974 bighorn sheep across the US were in decline, despite all attempts at “protecting” them, and that for over a century in California. All to no avail.  Well, the cause of the decline was identified publicly in 1974, a society to implement the rescue was called into life by 1976, and within 25 year the population of bighorns increased by almost 50%.

How come?

How come we have today so many more elk than three decades ago? Though of course not in Yellowstone National Park! There, the “within-park do nothing policy” has driven the park elk almost entirely onto private ranch land. What a success!

Oh, I must also add this one: place wolves into Yellowstone park – where everything is “protected“. And the moose went extinct. How come? We area about to loose the woodland caribou in North America forever, courtesy protectionism of same and of “habitat”. How come?

The natural “regulation” paradigm of the nature protectors is an intellectual failure, as it has to be if one understands that ecosystems, unlike individuals, are subject to positive, not negative feed back. Trusting nature to do it “right”, whatever that may mean, leads often enough to impoverished landscapes of low productivity and biodiversity. Letting “nature” have its way does not always lead to the productive, the diverse and the beautiful. Quite the contrary. And we have missed the obvious right under out noses: The revolutionary North American System of Wildlife Conservation not only saved species from extinction, but its knowledgeable hands-on policies created a landscape full of life, full of productivity, full of awe and beauty, as well as to high benefits to society while proving that the public ownership of land and resources did not lead to the” Tragedy of the Commons”, but quite the contrary. It led to the triumph of the commons. Tragedy resulted from pecuniary interests undermining the public good.

Must we abandon policies that generated productivity, richness and beauty, but also a humane treatment of wildlife? The fate of wildlife is to be changed form being killed quickly and humanely by a hunter’s bullet, to being torn to pieces bite by bite, tortured sometimes for hours by wolves tearing and ripping their way towards their unfortunate victims slow death. Which hunter ever left wildlife torn savagely? Which hunter chokes his prey slowly to death? What inhumanities are the protectionists and their ilk imposing on our unfortunate wildlife?

We have to make it clear that we can vastly improve on Nature. In fact we are doing so every day in our daily lives and dealings. We have improved on bird flight, and can transport humans in masses to distant earthly destination or to the moon and beyond. We can see so much farther in the night sky than the natural eye can achieve, and we can conserve nature on the smallest pieces of land, where as national parks fail in part because they are too small. So their lament! And where a continued existence of predators and prey is achieved in the “do nothing model”, it is on sizes beyond comprehension. Like some 150 wolves and 2,500 bison in Wood Buffalo National Park, which exceeds Switzerland in size! And I am thrilled that we have such an area for comparison. See the wonderful books of Lu Carbyn on bison and wolves in said park. Read and learn!

Not everything “Natural” is good, not everything “Natural” is beautiful, not everything “Natural” is worth fighting for. Quite the contrary! Wildfires are natural, so is tuberculosis, Lyme disease and septicemia. We are asked to abandon landscapes rich in wildlife with a proven and humane treatment of wildlife, for one that is so thoroughly impoverishing vast landscapes, while subjecting wildlife to the horrid cruelties and inhumanity of death by predation.

Is that a goal worth celebrating? Is that a goal worth striving for?

I do not believe in reincarnation , but should I be wrong, all I can say is “Lord please do not let me come back on this earth as a BISON IN WOOD BUFFALO NATIONAL PARK’. Here is my story why.” Dr. Lu Carbyn, Canada’s primary wolf biologist.

Share

Florida Wildlife Commission Doles Out Tax Dollars to Support Fascist Town Governments

Disguised as a program to promote the coexistence of over-protected black bears and humans, the Florida Wildlife Commission is doling out taxpayers’ dollars to communities that mandate people’s trash must be secured from bears.

According to The Outdoor Wire, one community with such a mandate, Apopka, and obviously no way to pay for their fascist mandate, is getting $85,000 from taxpayers who did not ask that the city force residents of their city to secure their garbage. In turn, all taxpayers are forced to pay for the fascist mandate. The money will be used to buy bear-proof garbage cans. I say if the town government, elected by the people of Apopka, want to mandate bear-proof garbage cans then those fascists should pay for the cans and not force the rest of us who had no say in the matter to pony-up money.

This is typical action by the governments in forcing the servitude to pay for their pet projects. Like with wolves, grizzlies, and all other “protected” wildlife species, governments mandate protection and then force the masses to pay for it. You just got to love this democratic fascism that ignorant progressives have brought us to.

Yeah, yeah, I know. All you progressives will say this is a small price to pay to protect bears…yada, yada, yada. But, clueless to most, this isn’t really about protecting the bears now is it?

LOVING YOUR SERVITUDE????

Share

552 Pound Black Bear Tagged in Allagash, Maine

I am told that this 552-pound black bear was tagged at Tyler Kelly’s Camps in Allagash, Maine.

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

I Pay Taxes And I Don’t Want My Tax Money Subsidizing This That or The Other

I pay taxes and I don’t want my taxes subsidizing public lands ranching;

“I don’t want my taxes subsidizing”.. It’s fascinating reading complaining tax payers gripes about how that money is used by someone else, specifically the government.. What nobody seems to comprehend is the taxation negotiable debt instruments taken out of the citizens pockets is not the citizens negotiable debt instrument credits, it’s the negotiable debt instrument collectors credits.. The citizen is paying a fee, more like is charged a fee for using this system, this corporate system which is someone’s intellectual property.. They own it. It’s registered with Manta..

It’s a business.. The citizens name is not on those negotiable debt instruments.. The government is allocating and spending those debt instruments which belongs to the federal reserve and the government which belongs to a group of private owners, however they want it spent.. It’s no different than saying this, “I don’t want my grocery store negotiable debt instruments subsidizing” the grocery store owners… Or like this, “I don’t want my motor vehicle money subsidizing” the motor vehicle factories..

Because once you give over those negotiable debt instruments they’re theirs to do whatever they want with not what you want them to do with them.. It’s theirs, it isn’t yours. The employee never possess those credits either, the credits are withheld from the employee. The Citizens do not own the public lands nor that corporation called the United States.. Citizens are owned by the corporate entity the citizens don’t own it… Goddamn people today are stupid.. Fken fairy tales in this country are getting out of hand..

I pay taxes and I don’t want my taxes subsidizing that lying NASA…
I pay taxes and I don’t want my taxes subsidizing welfare bums driving around in $100,000 vehicles..
I pay taxes and I don’t want my taxes subsidizing to big to fail banks, corporations or whatever..
I pay taxes and I do want my taxes subsidizing public lands ranching and the agricultural community because a famine in this country would be horrible…
I pay taxes and if we do have a famine I certainly want my taxes subsidizing the clean up of all of those dead people…Especially the dumber ones who are asking for it.. They advocate for the downsizing of the agricultural infrastructure that feeds them, and for REWILDING, which means relocation and depopulation of people..

Advocating for that is not just stupid it is insane..

“The ultimate ownership of all property {Federal state and private} is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e, law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate{property taxes, lease agreements for federal and state} of the State.”—Senate Document #43; Senate Resolution No. 62 {page 9 para 2} April 17 1933.

ALL PROPERTY! GOT IT! You wanted a big daddy you got you a big daddy…

The only thing the tax payer pays for is the fee for using this privately owned corporate system, it’s their intellectual property and they’re charging you for using it.. They do whatever they want and have since the IRS was assembled..

Share

Polish Pythons & Colorado Canids

By James Beers:

As I write this; helicopters, drones, a private detective and a lady dressed as a snake are part of a government posse on the hunt in a Warsaw suburb for the former user of an 18-foot python’s freshly shed skin.  Thus far, numerous people have been interviewed about how scared they are for their children and their pets; “three other exotic snakes” were “nabbed”; the home of a dead man suspected of having advertised anonymously to give away a large python called “Bertha” last winter has been searched; and “an erotic-art photographer who specializes in shooting women wrapped in snakes” has been detained.  Poles have been informed by government not to worry since, if not found by autumn, Bertha’s “coldblooded life will end with the summer”.  All in all, the entire affair is somewhere between a fiasco and a circus.

When I was the lone US Special Agent in New York City, deadly snakes were a constant worry because of the danger not only to import regulators like me, but to children in homes with the snakes, neighbors, and the general public when they escape or are released clandestinely like “Bertha”.  Using what used to be called “stereotyping”, then “profiling” and now may not be either used or mentioned; I found the majority of those keeping such snakes to be either anti-social or un-social.  They refused to accept any responsibility for what they were doing or what it wrought and, more often than not, they exuded hostility to the society or community in which they lived.

The python is a deadly danger to children, adults and pets.  Bertha would most likely die with the cold weather but what if “Bertha” finds a cave or abandoned deep foundation in which she overwinters in a state of torpor?  Female pythons like “Bertha” can reproduce without males (it’s called parthenogenesis) so the trauma of getting through a winter or going into a winter could trigger such reproduction leading to other possibilities.

Poland has extensive wetlands, several are UN Ramsar sites, many are state-protected and most (except for winter temperatures) could support pythons. The following map, though of 1939 vintage, is the best representation I could find to show historic marsh areas (the blue dot pattern), and the at-or-below water levels (the dark green areas) where water stands or floods.  Warsaw is right in the middle of both. Tell anyone denying that releasing 1 or 2 pythons, or 3 or 4 “exotic snakes” annually might eventually adapt to such a climate, that you believe in climate change and global warming, so it is possible if you are a believer. The point here is that if every couple of years snakes escape or are dumped and that happens to combine with a warm period (take note Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, et al) the danger of adaptation of pythons or “exotic snakes in a food-rich environment is not outside the realm of possibility.

Then there is “the Facebook user” that has written, “Poor animal” “The system fails again”.  Evidently, even Poland with its hardnose attitude toward immigration and a dictatorial and unresponsive (think wolves) Brussels (the European Union seat of power equivalent to Washington, DC) has ladies of the “Poor animal” stripe.

What to do?  The EU allows deadly snakes to be imported, Poland allows people to keep snakes and does nothing to find illegal or dangerous snakes and get rid of them.  When one gets loose like “Bertha”, even the urbanites in the capital of Warsaw move heaven and earth to find them and get rid of them.  Would that they shared this attitude with rural Poles that feel similarly about wolves and additionally are losing their livelihoods to wolves.  Even a snake like “Bertha” is pitied by some, while a wolf or wolf pack is simply an opportunity for the same urban folks and EU bureaucrats that are responsible for allowing the snakes in, in the first place, to tell the rural rubes to suck it up; the wolves were “there” first; wolves are important to the mythical ecosystem; wolves bring back willows along streams; etc., etc.  To call it (not just “Bertha” but the entire central government ignoring deadly wildlife dangers like snake importation and possession while manufacturing and mandating other deadly and destructive wildlife dangers like wolves) a mess, is an understatement.

In recent weeks I have read of two more current examples that further expose the environmental craziness and corrupt government manipulation of wildlife in our modern world.

First is the arrival of wolves in ?land, the Finnish islands at the mouth of the Gulf of Bothnia separating Finland and Sweden. These islands, in salty water that does not often freeze hard or for any distance, are about 70 miles from the wolf-infested mainland.  Additionally, the islands are somewhat densely settled with small family farms.  Wolves are increasing rapidly and displaying alarming habituation (familiarity and no fear) toward rural occupants.  Wolves belong on such settled islands just like pythons and “exotic snakes” belong in high-rise apartment buildings.  I agree with a European colleague that the probability of the wolves arriving on the island via ferry (in a trunk?) by unknown persons is the most likely scenario for this purported miracle of long-distance swimming.  Nonetheless, the central government bureaucrats in Brussels protect the wolves despite local objections and stand poised to pounce on any resident that literally disturbs a hair on any of “The poor animals” the same as if they suddenly popped up on Aran Island in the mouth of Galway Bay in the Republic of Ireland.

Lest our European cousins imagine that this American is somehow biased toward Europeans, European governance or the equal treatment of wild animals and European humans under EU law: I move on to the second recent expose of wildlife insanity and hidden environmental agendas that is the actual subject of this article – The Proposed Introduction of Wolves into the State of Colorado in the good old USA.

Colorado, is prime wolf habitat though it has not hosted wolves for 70 years.  Wolves were purposely and at great time and expense exterminated from Colorado because of the danger they pose to humans; the destruction they wreak on livestock, game animals, and pets; and the impediments that their presence imposes on rural communities, rural economies and state conservation revenues necessary for fish and wildlife programs.

Wolves were forcibly imposed on the State of Wyoming that borders Colorado on the North and the State of New Mexico that borders Colorado on the South.  The New Mexico wolves are constantly fizzling out as stiff local resistance and shootings attest.  The Wyoming wolves have been the object of fierce state opposition to federal wolf imposition and recently the state has forced a political compromise and exception that allows the state to kill wolves at their discretion across most of the state while maintaining an area of limited wolf distribution and numbers.  There is no wolf presence to date East of Colorado in Kansas.  West of Colorado, in Utah wolf arrivals seem peculiarly to be few in number and quickly dissatisfied with their new habitat as no wolf population seems to have become established.

The powerful and rich environmental/animal rights Non-Government-Organizations that are the clandestine allies of federal and state bureaucrats had been counting on (for at least 30 years) wolves swarming into Colorado from the North, South, and West as their protected numbers swelled.  Such has not been the case.

Additionally, the current political climate in the USA under the Trump Administration has been discouraging to any federally-supported wolf expansions to say the least.  Thus, we have the current situation of the radical organizations and federal bureaucrats initiating a public relations/legal move to coerce state acquiescence to introduce and protect wolves that will surely harm their rural communities in many ways.  Arguing that wolves are “Endangered” or “Threatened” in this climate and at this time is akin to taking coals to Newcastle.  Wolves need government intervention today about as much as mosquitoes, minnows or marmots.

A good friend in Colorado has explained to me that the Democrat or Progressive Party has made it clear that if they win the Governorship, hold the Assembly and take control of the Senate that the State will release and protect wolves.

Several factors are at play in this matter.  First, while Democrat has been the preferred and majority party of environmentalists and animal rights voters; Republicans have mostly been tepid opponents that usually prefer to appear supportive of such agendas and rarely oppose proposals or advocate reforming established government programs in these areas.

Second, rich Democrat donors have made political contributions and sponsored a professional campaign in Colorado to soften any opposition to releasing and protecting wolves.  This will serve another hidden agenda.  Wolves scattering from established Colorado packs will likely go North and undercut Wyoming wolf control programs; West and establish wolves in Utah; and South into New Mexico to further frustrate New Mexican efforts to keep their state wolf-free and their wildlife programs federal-free as much as possible.  Now keep in mind this is being pulled off as the federal government is not in a wolf-expansion mode and this will be done with Colorado wildlife program funds and private donations to key state politicians.  A national hiatus in radical environmental agendas is only an illusion.  Given a federal Democrat House and/or Senate the federal government will once again shift into high gear and the results will only get uglier and uglier.

Summarizing all this, Europe has much to learn from the US and the US has much to learn from Europe.

  • Allowing possession of dangerous snakes creates not only threats to human safety; the threat of repeated clandestine releases flirts with the establishment of snake populations that could cause untold dangers.  Pythons and boa constrictors in Florida were allowed to be imported by federal bureaucrats despite laws empowering them to prohibit it.  These snakes have become firmly established and are slowly expanding their range and destruction northward as state control programs prove to be ineffective and prohibitively expensive.
  • Confidence in federal bureaucrats to either prohibit importation or releases is greatly misplaced.  Not only pythons and constrictors were  imported, Asian carp species that are destroying central US watersheds were allowed in for catfish farmers; snakeheads that are taking over Eastern rivers were brought in by Chinese restauranteurs; monitor lizards and iguanas were brought in for the pet trade and escaped; exotic birds were brought in for pets and escaped and are established in certain areas; many exotic trees that have become established pests were imported for landscaping purposes and the list goes on. No federal bureaucrats or politician that has allowed this slipshod wildlife importation enforcement has taken any responsibility for the impacts of the resulting harms.  Like wolves and grizzly bears introduced and protected by federal bureaucrats, the federal government dictates and then pirouettes off the stage leaving it in the State or Country’s hands as they look for the next communities to claim as their own jurisdiction.
  • There are no “miracles” in wildlife management.  When wolves pop up 70 miles from the mainland on small islands it is due to either radicals drugging and transporting them or some clandestine government program.  In either case, why is there no investigation or “transparency”?  Who can you trust about predator numbers or distributions or what animal is becoming established?  Who is responsible?  Why have we given government the freedom to ignore importation laws and the ability to tinker with animals and a natural environment that is strongly objected to by those forced to live in and with it?  Why do urban high rollers have the authority and wherewithal to tailor the lives and surroundings of rural citizens to fit urban imaginings?
  • Federal efforts should be directed toward controlling importation of Injurious and harmful wildlife and plants, plus working with other Nations to assure healthy ecosystems that meet the needs and desires of all citizens to live in peace and prosperity.
  • State and national governments should work with their Local governments to determine and then maintain the best numbers and distributions of wild animals and plants desired by the local population.  State governments should protect Local integrity just as nations like Italy should protect their local governments; because they are protecting their own people not remote, faceless numbers on a page.
  • Be they what others call “Native” species or “Non-Native” Species; their presence, abundance or absence creates the “Ecosystem” most appropriate for the people living there and not some imaginary fantasy.  Truly endangered species should be the matter first of Federal/State/Local negotiation and only as a last resort the subject of specific legislation that least disturbs the balance of governance and assures that those concerned pay for what must be done.  If you want certain species in certain areas where the locals do not want them, then work to convince them of the desirability of your wishes and be prepared to pay ad infinitum for the local people to approve and tolerate what you ask them to do and tolerate.

Pythons in Poland and Wolves in Colorado are only two recent examples of the abuses, complexities and challenges ahead for all of us as we contemplate just government and a healthy natural environment for prosperous human communities to prosper worldwide.  All-powerful central governments have proven to be the enemies here and accountable Local governments with authority are the only real solution.

Jim Beers

4 September 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