September 2, 2014

Idaho Predator Derby Does Not Require Forest Service Permit

From an email sent by members of the Idaho For Wildlife:

NoPermit1

NoPermit2

Yet Another “Benefit” of Forcibly-Imposed Wolves?

Please read the following disease notice (titled as an innocuous “Pet Health Topic”) presented under the auspices of Washington State College of Veterinary Medicine. Note the lines I have underlined and highlighted.

If as is known, but frequently denied:
- Tapeworm eggs of all sorts found in the feces of wolves (Apex contractors and spreaders of such Canine maladies throughout their range) and other canids last for years on vegetation, in the soil, in carpets, in campgrounds, yards, places frequented by dogs and on floors in homes.
- Tapeworm eggs can be carried into homes on boots, camping gear, and work clothes as well as by infected dogs.
- Dogs, even those vaccinated or recently “dewormed”, can contract and transport tapeworm eggs into homes subsequent to mouthing, rolling in, or licking items (sticks, bones, etc.) infected by tapeworm-infected wolves and other canids that do the same things. Eggs can also be transported into homes and yards on the dog’s paws, hair and even between their toes
- Dogs contract tapeworm infections from frequenting yards and areas frequented by wolves and then bringing the eggs into homes or yards where eventually the tapeworm segments full of eggs are not only are ejected in their feces but also ooze from their anus (hence the tell-tale sign of an infected dog that drags his itching anus wherever he happens to be from a porch floor to a carpet in the home or even on a child’s bed.)

Inquiring minds might ask, “Can this ‘rickettsial’ organism infect humans, since they are known dangers to mammals in general?”

As the human threat from this “rickettsial organism” Neorickettsia helminthoeca goes unmentioned in the Pet Health Topic”, (*See Below) I can only mention its’ absence and recall what was claimed by bureaucrats and “scientists” in the early years of forcible wolf introductions. You remember, regarding Echinococcus granulosis and E. multilocularis, “You have to eat feces to get tapeworms”; “Wolves don’t transmit tapeworms”, “Tapeworm fears are exaggerations by anti-wolf extremists”, etc.

*According to the Merck Veterinary Manual, “In people, Neorickettsia sennetsu causes a disease known as Sennetsu ehrlichiosis”, this is a mononucleosis-like fever carried by fish and for which the transmitting vector to humans is unknown as I write.

Regarding the consumption of fish by wolves (in addition to documentation of wolves eating plums, grapes, watermelons, fiddler crabs, and every form of mammal including each other) , Stanley Young wrote in Wolves of North America how wolves were documented to eat fish from Hudson Bay to Alaska and British Columbia and the states of Washington and Oregon. Page 221 shows a photo of a bank full of Alaskan salmon “partially eaten by wolves.” He reports later how “Indians in Oregon hung salmon to dry on tree limbs to protect them from wolves.”

Let us simply focus here on dogs: Pet dogs, Watch dogs, Hunting dogs, Service dogs, Show dogs, Guard dogs, Herding dogs, Stray dogs, etc., that occur in what the government blithely calls “Wolf Country” and millions of rural Americans call “Home.”

Wolves have and maintain a high rate of tapeworm infection since they are;
1. Unvaccinated and never “dewormed.”
2. Stick their noses, muzzles, and mouths in to every gut pile dying critter and dead critter infected with tapeworms they encounter.
3. Move, sleep, frolic, fight, bite, travel, etc. in groups such that what one has; they all get much like bats. Additionally, those dogs they encounter and do not kill but injure are likely to have a wide range of such infections.
4. Wolves deposit feces and mouth every sort of item (often leaving tapeworm eggs) where humans live, work, recreate and raise their families.

Wolves cover large areas routinely frequenting, prowling and depositing feces in yards, campgrounds, parks, towns during the night, bus stops, garbage sites, playgrounds, outbuildings and other areas of human presence as they look for food.

Knowing all this, why is there no or has there not been any “science” or “research” or simple, common-sense observations by neutral experts (believe it or not; once, long ago experts were respected and heeded precisely because of their neutrality) spoken, conducted or made available to the common citizen about the actual and expected numerous such effects on inhabitants of settled landscapes where wolves are ubiquitous versus settled landscapes where wolves either are tightly controlled or where no wolves exist?

The fact that there is no such information available (as we are invited to “submit comments” only to be marginalized as ignorant, speaks volumes.

In the Sherlock Holmes mystery, Silver Blaze, the following exchange takes place:

Gregory: “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

He (Sherlock Holmes) was referring to the fact that a watch dog didn’t bark and wake the family, which implied that the villain was someone familiar to the dog.

Like the characters in the mystery, we must consider the absence of any mention of actual wolf effects just like the dog that didn’t bark in the night. It is a clue to the hidden agendas that continue to be carried out under the table as we listen to romance biology and lies concocted to divert our attention.

Jim Beers
1 Sep. 2014
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

Who are wolf hunters in Yakutia, Russia’s Siberia?

As you might remember, in the early January of 2013, the President of Russia’s Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) Yegor Borisov announced the state of emergency in the Siberian region with regard to the increased number of wolves. He ordered the goverment to take measures and decrease the populatation at amount of 3000 wolves in the following year.

Since that moment, I have started receiving many questions and even international calls about wolves in Yakutia from varies people, news agencies, TV production companies and documentalists, who wished to come and make a film.

Further, find answers to questions describing who wolf hunters are and why they hunt wolves.<<<Read More>>>

Related: Hundreds of wolves shot in east Siberia during hunting season

Bill Hoppe: Eye of the Hunter (Video)

The Realities of Limiting Bear Management Tools

Driving down the freeway in the wrong direction, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and most of their non thinking, brainwashed followers, are working feverishly to stop hunting. In Maine they’ve chosen another attempt at ending hunting bears with bait, hounds and traps. And in their campaign to deceitfully convince the Maine voter that bears shouldn’t be baited, hounded or trapped, the radicals continue to present wrong information that in states where they have banned these hunting methods, bear populations have remained stable. HSUS will never convince voters about THEIR idea of ethics and hunting. HSUS is moving toward a head-on collision.

Once headed in the wrong direction, some states are looking to reverse the trend from when they banned baiting or hounding or trapping bears as they cannot control the bear populations in their states.

Let’s peek into what’s going on in other places now having to deal with bear problems.

In British Columbia officials there have been forced to kill 240 black bears between April and August of this year alone.

Since April 2014 there have been 7,314 calls to Officers about black bears and they have attended 1,062 of those calls. That number is much higher than the number received for grizzly bear sightings in the province, there were 229 calls made over the past four months, with 46 of them attended by officers.

In Wisconsin, officials there have stepped up the number of bear permits to issue all in an effort to reduce bear populations in hopes of mitigating conflicts between bears and humans.

The DNR says the bear population continues to rise in northwestern Wisconsin. That means more conflicts between bears and people in areas that become increasingly residential. Now the DNR is increasing the number of bear hunting permits to decrease those conflicts.

We also discover from a report filed by Deirdre Fleming, in Maine’s Portland Press Herald, that in at least two states that banned or limited the methods of hunting bears, not only has the bear populations risen, in Massachusetts the population has gone through the roof.

In Oregon, where voters approved a measure to ban the use of baits and hounds in bear hunting in 1994, the black bear population has increased by 40 percent. In Massachusetts, where a ballot measure to ban hounds and traps in bear hunts passed in 1996, the bear population has skyrocketed by 700 percent.

As traffic passes by HSUS going the wrong way, it doesn’t deter them and their followers of spewing false information. In a report I filed a couple of days ago, we saw where one follower condemned the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) because they didn’t have a specific study to prove that baiting bears plays no role in the health and habits of black bears. As was pointed out in comments left by readers, MDIFW has been studying bears in Maine for 40 years. During that time they have collected perhaps more data on bears than any other entity. One would think that in 40 years biologists would have taken notice of changes in population growth and average bear weights that don’t coincide with proven science of weight and reproduction variances due to natural conditions.

The fact is now very clear to voters. HSUS has no data to support their claims about black bear management. And now, the realities of what is taking place in state after state across this nation, where limits were put on methods of harvesting bears, is hitting home destroying the claims made by HSUS and their blind mice followers. All HSUS has left is arguing hunting ethics and that has never been a successful argument to end hunting.

Perhaps if HSUS wants to discuss ethics, they should look in the mirror and see themselves as being extremely unethical in the methods of conning the public out of money to pay the inflated salaries and benefit packages going to HSUS staff and administration.

Odd “Critter” Spotted Along Maine Roadside

RoadsideCritter

Have we cracked the nut of individual strict liability for gov’t bureaucrats involved in releasing dangerous animals in America?

It’s time to ask the question: Are wolves the chosen and specially selected de facto agents of the lawless bureaucrats? Shouldn’t the principle of strict liability apply to the individuals in their individual capacities for the negligent release of dangerous wild animals? Prof. Hamburger’s 2014 book “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” sets out considerable legal research with court precedent and history questioning every aspect of bureaucratic overreach of the burgeoning Administrative State and also deals with holding individual bureaucrats in government liable. And don’t forget the deep pockets of the NGOs who are also instrumental in the release of dangerous wild animals. Also don’t forget the deep pockets of a lot of donors who have specific knowledge about wolf releases, going on hikes in the wilderness to see the wolves, verbally encouraging the wolf releases, an activity that many rightfully compare to criminality. Aiding, abetting and encouraging unlawful behavior, behavior they should have known was very risky toward innocent victims such as ranchers and their property, can have legal consequences.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/25/u-s-government-releases-predators-against-its-own-people/

Check out 3. in the link below summarizing Gerry Spence’s use of strict liability to make Kerr-McGee liable for the negligent release of a dangerous substance. How difficult could it be to apply strict liability for the classic purpose, that is, the intentional release of a dangerous wild animal……………….

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550604574360481932632724?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203550604574360481932632724.html

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

One Person’s Dispute Over Scientific Fact Does Not a Scientific Fact Make

God, I’m confused this morning. Thank God, we can still submit letters to editors of local and national newspapers. And, thank God, he gave me a brain to understand nonsense and avoid it.

In another letter to the editor of the Bangor Daily News, a writer states that a statement made by representatives of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) that baiting bears for short periods of time over many years in a row, has no measurable impact on bear populations. The writer claims the statement was, “nothing more than an untested hypothesis.” And to prove that this is an “untested hypothesis”, the writer uses an untested hypothesis and states that if a department that most believe operates under the pretext of scientific approach can’t produce a scientific “study” the claim is no good. There! That’s settled.

Let’s not consider a 40-year ongoing bear study by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries as a “scientific study.” What nonsense!

Confused Man Hates on Humans, Adores Bears

In what can only be described as the ramblings of a confused man, a letter to the editor in Maine Environmental News, describes the human being as anything but…..well, human, even going to the point of saying there are just too many humans. And yet, he chooses to live and add to his perceived problem.

Dare I say, though, that while the writer of this letter points out many truths in what has become of our society, he becomes confused in his thinking that bears and humans need to live “harmoniously.” I think, if you listen closely while reading his creation, you can hear in the background, “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.”

And so what’s really wrong? What’s wrong is, mostly what Mark Twain said about being successful; “You need two things: ignorance and confidence.” While this person exudes the confidence to express his beliefs, he somehow thinks he can find his answer by living “harmoniously” with bears (ignorance).

Nope! Nothing wrong here. Move along now. Move along.

GettingAlong

Washington Authorities Target Sheep-Killing Wolves. Wolf Protectors Use Event to Fundraise

According to a Spokesman Review article, authorities in Washington State have decided to order helicopters and shooters to kill four members of the so-called Huckleberry Pack because of persistent depredation by wolves on sheep in the area. This is why forcing large predators into human-settled landscapes is a non-starter.

As is ALWAYS the case, those groups who make a living pretending to care for wild animals, went to work to feverishly do all that they could to raise money. Wolf pimps is what they are, and if it isn’t a wolf, it’s a grizzly bear, a piping plover, a Canada lynx or any other species that can be exploited for profits.

In an email that was sent out by Predator Defense Fund, the effort to stop the destruction of private property by wolves, was called “a secret operation” because Washington officials didn’t take 10 years to consult with the fascists of predator protection first.

The remainder of the email if full of balderdash aimed at playing on the emotions of ignorant people eager to give their money away to fraudulent groups like Predator Defense Fund. Isn’t that why these criminals jump on every opportunity to make money?

Hat tip goes out to Shake, Rattle and Troll