July 17, 2018

There Are No Secrets Here Anymore-There Is Only Those Who Do Not Know

Share

Proposed Replacement of the Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of [Fake] Red Wolves in Northeastern North Carolina

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to replace the existing regulations governing the nonessential experimental population designation of the red wolf (Canis rufus) under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. We request public comments, and announce a public information session and public hearing, on this proposed rule. In addition, we announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment on the proposed replacement of the existing nonessential experimental population regulations for the red wolf. In conjunction with this proposed action, we are initiating consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and completing a compatibility determination pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. We propose this action to ensure our regulations are based on the most recent science and lessons learned related to the management of red wolves. If adopted as proposed, this action would further conservation of red wolf recovery overall by allowing for the reallocation of resources to enhance support for the captive population, retention of a propagation population for future new reintroduction efforts that is influenced by natural selection, and provision of a population for continued scientific research on wild red wolf behavior and population management. This action would also promote the viability of the nonessential experimental population by authorizing proven management techniques, such as the release of animals from the captive population into the nonessential experimental population, which is vital to maintaining a genetically healthy population.<<<Read More>>>

*Note* – A person who lives in North Carolina and has been very active in fighting this abomination of the Endangered Species Act for many years now, had the following comment about this latest action published in the Federal Register by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I can’t say just how much I agree with his comments as history has shown those who pay attention that this is a set up to profit the Environmentalists in their pursuit of “sue and settle” tactics.

“Well, this is just a sue and settle setup by the Feds.  It will be sort of like “put and take” quail hunting.  USFWS will release fake [wolves], who will then cross the refuge property line only to be shot.  Adjoining landowners will likely even sell guided trophy red [wolf] hunts. At this point DOW, RWC and SELC will walk into the Federal court room before Judge Boyle and he will then grant this fake [wolf] the full protection of endangered status throughout our State.  This is a very shallow and short lived win for us.  The greenies still rule our USFWS…   This is a set up.”

Share

George Orwell, call your office re: Wolves

The attached news report of a presentation touting the re-introduction of wolves in Colorado is so egregious, we debated even placing it on the Wolf Education International website.  Upon further examination, it was thought to be so misleading and so full of disinformation that it might serve as a useful example of how the public is manipulated and government mislead by radical and extremist views and funding.

What follows are 10 quotes (90%?) from the news report with a short comment about each.  Upon your examination, please consider them in total and you have a composite of what wildlife management as a tool of radical government has come to….  Jim Beers

The news report:

https://www.csindy.com/TheWire/archives/2018/06/18/rocky-mountain-wolf-project-calls-for-animal-reintroduction-amid-pushback

Comments:

1). “Though native, wolves have not roamed Colorado since the 1940s, when unregulated hunting pushed populations to the brink of extinction.” 

  • Comment:  Wolves were not pushed “to the brink of extinction” by “unregulated hunting”.  They were hunted; chased by possees on horseback; trapped; poisoned; snared; and otherwise “controlled” by ranchers, bounty hunters, federal trappers and state trappers with the express goal of exterminating them for a period of almost 100 years.  This is just as they were exterminated in the British Isles, in fact, Irish Wolfhounds were bred expressly to hunt and kill remaining wolves in Ireland. Europeans were engaged in similar programs as recorded in writing since the time of Plato and Cicero.

2). “The animals are still listed as endangered in Colorado.”

  • Comment:  That is a Listing strictly by the state of Colorado.  It implies no responsibility or intention to re-introduce them in Colorado.  Wolves are not present in New York or New Hampshire, yet those states “list” them as “endangered” and only extremists call for their restoration.  This is true of many other states that “list” animals that they have no intention of restoring like cougars and grizzly bears that are especially dangerous to human safety and health as well as destructive of dogs and other pets.

3). “Though seemingly unable to shed the stereotype of the “Big Bad Wolf,” statistically, wolves do not kill people.”

  • Comment: First, this a senseless sentence.  What does “statistically, wolves do not kill people” mean?  Wolves have killed people by the thousands down through the ages.  It is documented in writings and the limited reportage since Roman Times.  It is mentioned in the Middle Ages and in recent times.  It is mentioned circumpolar in Russia, Siberia, Europe and North America.  Read Wolves of North America by Stanley Young.  Read Will Graves’ Wolves in Russia. The fact that the press and governments that introduce wolves for which they recognize no responsibility kill people (recently, like Kenton Carnegie in Saskatchewan, the school teacher on the Alaskan Peninsula, the two ladies in Craters of the Moon in Idaho, the vacationing lady in N Wisconsin and all the annual deaths and disfigurements in Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Europe and Siberia etc.) is the only basis for and belie this specious claim worded like a child’s bad English grammar homework. 

4). “[Historically] wolves don’t pose a threat to human safety,” Phillips told the audience, throwing his hands up emphatically. “That’s just a fact.”

  • Comment:  Repeating a lie (when spoken by an “expert as purported in the Introduction it is a lie); when spoken by someone that does not know better it is either misinformation or propaganda spoken for a host of reasons.

5). “But just three weeks prior to Phillips’ presentation, Mesa County Commissioners unanimously passed a resolution to oppose any efforts to expand or reintroduce wolves in the county, citing threats to moose populations and livestock, and the spread of disease. Phillips says it’s rare for a wolf to kill livestock, and if/when it does the wolf is older, or injured, and it’s not normal pack behavior.”

  • Comment:  I. Ask yourself, “who is Mr. Phillips or for that matter his coterie of national environmental extremists financing his campaigns, to ignore the opposition of the people of Mesa County opposing any wolf reintroduction”?  If the people of a County and their elected representatives oppose such action, the intentions of those in other Counties or states for that matter should respect those legitimate wishes.

II It is as rare for wolves to kill livestock as for foxes to kill mice.  They must eat and livestock has always been a good meal, far more vulnerable to capture than swift wild animals.  They kill as much livestock as they want and can get away with.  They even kill many domestic animals at a time for “fun” as in the hundred + sheep driven off a cliff recently in Idaho.

III. Wolves are no more “normal” than coyotes or the family pet when hungry or excited or just plain “wild” as when Fido runs off with a pack of dogs to harass and kill domestic animals until stopped. “Normal” means “expected”, not “only”.

6). “Between 1997 and 2015, Phillips says 117 cattle were killed by wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. That’s 0.002 percent of an estimated six million cattle during that time. He also notes that ranchers are compensated for their loss when it does happen. The 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act authorized up to $140,000 per eligible state from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for wolf loss compensation and preventing future conflicts. The Act replaced Defenders of Wildlife‘s Wolf Compensation Trust, which paid $1.4 million over 23 years to compensate ranchers. Defenders of Wildlife, which works to protect native animals and their habitats, contributes funds to help states initiate wolf compensation programs. In lieu of the Wolf Compensation Trust, Defender’s created the Wolf Coexistence Partnership, which works with ranchers on nonlethal techniques to keep wolves from livestock.”

Comment:  The Defenders of Wildlife illegitimately “administered” this public relations scheme for the US Fish and Wildlife (whose Director at the time went on to be the top person in Defenders of Wildlife after resigning when the Political Party of the President changed.  Less than 10 % of the claims were even recognized due to the lateness of investigation and the anti-livestock orientation of the DoW investigators.  Ask ranchers in Montana and Idaho about this natural resource Ponzi Scheme that was only meant to spread wolves by protecting them.  “Nonlethal techniques to keep wolves from livestock” are another chimera intended to delay wolf management to make ranching less profitable and vulnerable to buyouts like the current American Prairie Restoration land scheme in central Montana.  There is no evidence that nonlethal control techniques (Fladry, range riders, aversion agents, dogs, exploders, sheds, etc.) are not temporary at best and often quite expensive and impractical. Look no further than your pet dog and imagine some deterrent that, while he is unrestrained, he does not figure out when hungry or when he really wants something beyond it.

7). “As for the threat to the moose population and of disease, Phillips says wolves rarely hunt moose because of their size, and disease is also rare.”

  • Comment:  I. This may be the biggest lie in this presentation.  Wolves all but wiped out moose in Yellowstone in 10 years.  Wolves so decimated the Minnesota moose herd that moose hunting was abandoned about six years ago and will likely never be resumed.  Wolves decimated the moose population on Isle Royale, a large island in Lake Superior.  Wolves decimated the moose herd in E Washington.  Wolves kill moose in Finland and will decimate herds in 5 to 10 years if not controlled.  Alaskan periodic wolf control from planes and on the ground is done mostly for moose and the moose rebounds after a significant number of wolves are taken.
  1. As to “wolves rarely hunt moose because of their size”: it is precisely because of their size and vulnerability, especially in timber, that wolves zero in on moose.  All moose from unborn calves torn from the still living mother to cow moose and bulls are preferred prey. Moose give birth in certain habitat covers that wolves learn to frequent.  Moose caught by several wolves in timber are vulnerable to being hamstrung as the wolves feint in and out and the animal can neither flee nor defend itself.
  • Comment:   How misleading is it for an “expert” to say a state-authorized wolf management program forced on a State by the federal government to maintain so many wolves in such and such area is something wherein “wolves are considered predatory and can be killed without consequence”?   It also tells the reader a lot that, “Although Colorado Parks and Wildlife wouldn’t stop a natural repopulation” because this state agency is trying to please their pro-wolf urban constituency they aren’t opposed to wolves while telling their rural constituency that they won’t force wolves on them.  This has become a national phenomenon during the recent rise in federal power and money resulting in many, what are often called, state agencies that try to canoe down a river with each foot in a different canoe.  Mesa County and western Colorado need support, not platitudes.

9). “A recent Outside Podcast questions the theory of how reintroduction of top-down predators can create a trickle effect on an ecosystem, and how much credit wolf reintroduction should get for the health of the Yellowstone ecosystem over the last 20 years. According to Outside, the benefits of wolves are exaggerated, not giving enough credit to increases in other predators like grizzlies, or the effects of drought, which also contribute to the thinning of elk and deer herds. (Thinning herds makes for healthier woodlands, according to Outside.)”

  • Comment:  I. “Trickle effect” like the following “trophic cascade” are simply words that say nothing but are intended to assuage the consciences of those that might be hesitant to importune their rural neighbors with something that harms them and their families.  They are terms denoting “change” as in the weather changes.
    Health of the ecosystem” fits into the same category.  You either have the “up and down” chaos of a “natural” or “untouched” ((meaning NO people) ecosystem or you have the managed ecosystem of a settled and human-inhabited landscape wherein the interface between humans and “the ecosystem” is managed to be beneficial to humans and wildlife or not beneficial to either.  In our Constitutional Republic, the people should have the final say about the ecosystem THEY live in.
  • II.  As to contributing to the thinning of elk and deer herds. (Thinning herds makes for healthier woodlands)”.  If all these “Johnny Come Lately” claims of wolf benefits (willows along the stream, native plants, etc.) were legitimate, why didn’t federal Yellowstone Rangers, for instance, “thin the herds of elk and buffalo” for decades and decades?  Why were hunter’s bag limits not increased by state agencies?  Where were all these “(willows along the stream, native plants, etc.)” advocates for years? Ask yourself, where are they now?

10). “But Phillips and his colleagues counter that wolves, over time, can restore balance to an ecosystem if they exist in large enough numbers. In the Yellowstone example, multiple pack reintroduction thinned deer and elk herds and increased herd movement. That movement not only aerates the soil and creates healthier woodlands, but also increases competition between coyotes and wolves, and decreases predation on smaller mammals. This is all in line with the idea of Trophic Cascade, and the trickle-down affects everything down to waterways and aquatic life.”

  • Comment:  What is “balance”?  There are times and places where plant thinning or reductions are desired for renewal or fire fuel reduction.  What in the Good Lord’s name is the “decreases predation on smaller mammals” all about?  Should we consider reducing fox populations or hawks and owls?  My silliness here pales in comparison to the absurdity of such claims.  Ditto for ”aerates the soil and creates healthier woodlands”.

11) “Western Colorado represents a true mother-load of ecological habitat for the gray wolf,” he says. “All we have to do is put them back.”

  • Comment:  A cute closing quip for a flawed proposal and philosophy.

Jim Beers

24 June 2018

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Share

Strange Creature Killed in Montana They Say Was Not a Politician

Back in May, it was reported that some “strange, dog/wolf-like creature” was shot and killed in Montana. As soon as I saw a picture of it, I knew right away it was not a dog/wolf-like creature but a politician, probably on a campaign tour out of his/her sterile, protected bubble in Washington, D.C.

However, giving more substantiation to those suspicious of the exact science of DNA testing, officials say they have determined the “dog/wolf-like create” to be that of a wolf.

Share

The Ruination Of The Sawtooth Zone Elk Hunting Continues

Possible Unlimited tags for the archery hunters. The gun hunters will have to put in for a draw. Right now it’s a first come first served quota for both, it is a draw, a controlled hunt quota draw.. Supposedly it’s unfair so making it a bow hunters wet dream and a rifle hunters dear john you didn’t draw again nightmare.. In what was once an unlimited elk tag hunt with various controlled elk hunt options to choose from.. All because of wolf predation. And I’m a bow hunter. The archery season never has an effect on the rifle seasons.. Unlimited archery chance opportunity won’t improve anything for the archers.. because it’s a predator pit.. I was watching wolves run elk through Stanley a few months ago.. A friend near Clayton a couple weeks ago watched one pack of wolves, 15 wolves moving through a creek bottom..

Share

Repeating False History of Wolves

The other day I was reading an article in which the author quoted a section of Maine’s Game Management Plan for deer. The portion quoted that caught my eye was: “In the 19th century, extirpation of wolves and cougars from Maine allowed deer to further expand and increase in number essentially unencumbered by predation.”

The use of the term “extirpate” is interestingly convenient. According to an Online definition and from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, extirpate is defined as “root out and destroy completely” and/or “to destroy completely; wipe out.” Upon further examination of “wipe out” I discovered: “the act or an instance of wiping out: complete or utter destruction; a fall or crash caused usually by losing control”.

It would, therefore, be safe to conclude that to extirpate something – in this case, wolves and cougars in Maine – would involve the deliberate act of men to purposely, or without knowledge, “completely destroy” and wipe out populations of these predators. Is this factual history?

I guess that depends on who you talk to and what you choose to believe according to what most conveniently fits your agenda, ideology, and narrative.

The use of the term extirpate, which points a big fat accusatory finger at evil men, is forever used when any form of wildlife disappears or more accurately within this lopsided and misinformed society when wildlife doesn’t appear in numbers to satisfy the social demands of some.

To environmentalists and to animal rights perverts, Man is evil. They cause about as much chaos as global warming – which is also caused by man in their eyes – and at the same time hunting causes wildlife species to grow. According to the expert EnvironMENTALists, hunting, fishing, and trapping has and is causing the extirpation of wildlife species every day, and yet, when convenient, that same action causes species like predators to magically perform some sort of compensatory increase in sexual activity and a boost in reproductive rates. Scientism on full display, bolstered by Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

According to the quote by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), wolves and cougars in Maine were extirpated (by men) in the 19th Century and this act caused the population of deer to grow “unencumbered by predation.”

I have not spent a lot of time read searching cougars in Maine but I have studied the history of wolves and coyotes in Maine quite extensively. It appears that MDIFW, and all willing and eager True Believers, want to believe that man by deliberate intention “completely destroyed” the wolf population in the state. And yet, there is little history that supports that statement.

History is loaded with accounts of the troubles that Mainers had with wolves dating back into the 1600s and yet little is written about many wolves being killed for those actions, not necessarily due to lack of trying.

Actual historic accounts of wolves in Maine, show their presence but, like the deer population, there was no honest way of knowing what the real population of wolves was other than anecdotal evidence. It is more convenient for us to make up population estimates pertaining to history in order to complete our narratives.

In some cases, there were bounties established in hopes of ridding the residents of depredation attacks on their livestock, but there is no history that shows a systematic approach to “extirpate” the wolf and cougar from the Maine landscape.

Aside from the fur of the wolf during the winter months, neither animal had much value – certainly, it was not a food source. It isn’t to say that the open season on wolves and cougars didn’t contribute to the control of these predators, but history simply doesn’t give a blanket cause and effect of what happened to both of these large predators, especially to be able to continue to state that man extirpated these beasts – directly or indirectly.

Sometimes we get so caught up in our angst and eagerness to blame the existence of the human race on everything, including global warming, we put aside honest historical and scientific research and take the easy way out. Such is the case here I’m afraid.

Maine’s historical accounts of wolves actually show an interesting phenomenon – or at least from my perspective based on my read search. Maine also used to have caribou roaming about the countryside, mostly found in the northern half of the state. It is either unforgotten or never learned that wolves, will eat deer but prefer elk, moose, and/or caribou. But let’s also not forget that when hungry and wolf will eat anything, including dirt to stop the hunger pangs.

Maine history tells us that when wolves and cougars were part of the countryside, deer migrated south, away from the large predators, and often took up residence on the islands off the coast of the Pine Tree State – their learned adaptation for survival.

Environmentalists eagerly want to blame the actions of man for the “extirpation” of the caribou. At the time caribou were present in Maine, there were little management and regulatory guidelines to ensure sustainability. But, like the wolf, did man “extirpate” the caribou from Maine?

Not according to many historical documents. Perhaps more accurately we see an interesting phenomenon that happened in Maine. It is written by some historians that suddenly the caribou, for reasons at the time unexplained, simply migrated out of the state and likely found their way into Canada. Whether directly related or not, along with the departure of the caribou, disappeared the wolf – the common sense explanation given that the wolves simply followed their preferred food source.

As a society, we tend to hate men and their actions, while at the same time near worshiping animals and extolling their intelligence. Some animals are quite crafty and to ensure survival, these animals learn to adapt.

Man, on the other hand, was given a brain, and while at times I might question whether we know how to use it, generally speaking, we have used our brains to figure out there must be limits and plans devised and carried out in order to maintain wildlife populations. For the most part, these actions have done remarkable things where most negative consequences seem to be the result of actions by environmentalism and animal rights groups, i.e. perpetuating and protecting large predators at the expense of other more valuable species such as game animals as a useful resource.

I might suggest that it would do a world of good if men would learn to use that brain a bit more to discover the full truth of historical wildlife accounts and stop repeating what somebody else said simply because you like it or it sounds good. That does no good for anybody.

Share

Strange Dog/Wolf-like Creature Shot in Montana Turns Out to Be Politician

A strange dog-like creature was shot and killed on a ranch in Montana. As is usually the case with such “crypto” creatures, there is much speculation along with complete idiotic nonsense about what the creature might be.

A report from the Great Falls Tribune describes the creature as: “Several things grabbed my attention when I saw the pictures,” said Ty Smucker, wolf management specialist for Montana FWP. “The ears are too big. The legs look a little short. The feet look a little small, and the coat looks weird. There’s just something off about it.”

The only descriptive features that were left out that can be seen in the below photo are the sloped forehead, the blank look in the creature’s eyes as though there was nothing but emptiness behind them, and a big fat ass. It doesn’t take a crypto-creature specialist to determine that this is nothing but a stray politician from out of the Halls of Congress. They all look alike and act alike. It was a good thing somebody saw fit to shoot it.

 

Share

What We Don’t Learn From The Natural World Around Us

Two appropriate quotes attributed to Mark Twain that might stay in context with the following information are:

“I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the “lower animals” (so-called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the results humiliating to me.”

“Each race determines for itself what indecencies are. Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.”

At my summer camp in Maine, I have a fair amount of wildlife that comes and goes and a lot that comes and doesn’t leave. Some of those that don’t leave present a bit of a problem.

I put out a couple of bird feeders because my wife and I enjoy seeing a variety of birds, some regular visitors and others very occasional. I also understand that this contributes to some of that wildlife that seems to much emulate the welfare recipient that would prefer to get free food than work for their own.

Putting out bird feeders in Maine can also attract really unwanted visitors from the forest. Black bears being one of them. I’ve not had black bears messing with my feeders but I’ve found a few droppings of scat within just a few feet of camp. I bring my feeders in at night.

The animals that present the biggest potential of nuisance are the squirrels. Gray squirrels and red squirrels come and go depending on the level of hunger and bravery. Some have figured out I will chase them off, and others don’t much care what I do. They will be back when they are ready.

It’s the chipmunks and ground squirrels that seem to be taking over. Seemingly they are quite unafraid of people. They are constantly cleaning up under the bird feeders, which I guess could be a good thing, but even as “cute” as some may think these creatures to be, they are a rodent and when winter time comes I don’t want them getting so comfortable they decide to winter in my camp or associated outbuildings.

As minor as that might seem to some, I value my property and if you’ve never had the pleasure of experiencing the damage and destruction squirrels and chipmunks can do to your house, it may not be all that minor.

There are “created indecencies” that present more of a problem than there should be. To many, they would tell me to take down my bird feeders. I know that but it will not cure completely the problem. Others might offer that I move out of the forest where my camp is and let the animals be. The lame adage being, “They were here first and I’m encroaching on them.”

Hogwash! What sat on the land New York City sits on before it became a concrete jungle? Give it rest already.

Going along with those “created indecencies,” even if I suggest “getting rid of” the chipmunks, ground, red, and gray squirrels, I would probably be threatened with my life and warned of jail sentences.

So, I try to find some sort of mediocre sharing of time and space and hope for the best when it comes to sharing my quarters with them. But there are limits to what I will put up with.

But there is a lesson to be learned here if only people would pay attention. But they don’t. Yes, there is much disappointment when comparing the “traits and dispositions” of the rodents around my camp with the animals that walk on two legs and are supposed to have the larger brains and intellect to rightfully put into place the pecking order from the man on down.

Unfortunately, this present coagulation of mislead members of society, have created their own ideas of what constitutes and indecency. Therefore, they demand that I must acquiesce to animals because they are of equal or greater importance in their existence and to hell with my property and/or my health.

Whether the human race ever fully understood the concept of the role of the man and the role of the animals, is debatable. For certain they have failed at this present time. But nature has it figured out.

While debating what I should do about the overabundance of rodents taking over my property, mostly out of fear of retribution from the animal lovers (of which they are more overabundant than the squirrels) a very natural thing happened.

I noticed one day that the chipmunks and squirrels were essentially gone – a least from immediately around my camp and buildings. What happened to them I did not know. Until…

A few days later as I came around the corner of my pump house, sunning himself in the corner of the building and the deck was a big ole garter snake looking quite fat and happy.

He jumped me at first, as you might imagine, but then I approached the snake a bit closer and began to make a pact with him. I said, “I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t bother you from being around my camp so long as you keep up the good work and keep those rodents out of here.”

The snake hung around for most the rest of the summer and then disappeared, probably eating himself out of house and home.

I have an open invitation I’ve extended to the snake as I am in need of him again.

This is all very simple.

Share

One Man Killed One Injured In Mountain Lion Attack – He Failed to “Look Big”

The insanity is fully entrenched. We’ve been convinced that we MUST coexist with such man-eating predators like mountain lions, grizzly bears, wolves, etc. and that these animals rarely bother anybody.

In this report of a man, out mountain biking in Washington State when attacked and killed by the lion, it is stated that: “People who encounter a mountain lion should not run from it, Mountain Lion Foundation officials said. Instead maintain eye contact, stand tall, look bigger by raising your arms or opening your coat, wave your arms slowly, speak firmly and throw items at the animal if necessary.

“Most cougars will move on if given the room and opportunity, according to the foundation. A person who is attacked should fight back; most people succeed in driving the big cat away.”

Who are they trying to kid anyway? “Most cougars” will move on? Right! That’s because the cat is offended by the smell of human waste as the person, who has been instructed on how to fight a cougar, just shit himself and the cat doesn’t care much for the taste of the excrement.

It is rare that a person being attacked by a mountain lion, grizzly, or wolf has the collective wherewithal to follow the instructions of looking the cat in the eye, looking big, waving your arms – slowly of course – speaking firmly, and throwing things.

And all of this for what reason? To protect the damned cat? Why? That cat is in direct conflict with the existence of these two men who got attacked and one died. Don’t you get it? You’d rather DIE, mauled to death by a vicious predator, in order to protect it? Something wrong with your head if that’s what you think.

The advice suggests to “throw items at the animal if necessary.” What? Is that like an absolute last thing? God forbid somebody throws an “item” that injures the poor cat?

Sane people, choosing to go into the woods to recreate where there are large predators, historically known to attack and kill people, regardless of what the perverted animal rights people and environMENTALists say, should go prepared to “throw items if necessary” like 240-grains of lead out the muzzle of a .44 magnum pistol.

I like living. I’ll be damned if I’ll give up that life just to protect an animal.

Share

What’s This? Wolves to be Removed From Protection Nationwide?

*Editor’s Note and Update* (5/21/18) The below link to the Appropriation Committee’s Draft Bill does not work at this time. I was able to track down a copy of that Draft at this link. Once reaching the PDF of the Draft Bill, scroll down to “Gray Wolves Range-Wide” 

Appropriations Committee Releases the Draft Fiscal Year 2019 Interior and Environment Bill

GRAY WOLVES RANGE-WIDE – SEC. 117

(a) Not later than the end of fiscal year 2019, and except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior shall issue a rule to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in each of the 48 contiguous States of the United States and the District of Columbia from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in section 17.11 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule.

(b) Such issuance (including this shall not be subject to judicial review; and shall not affect the inclusion of the subspecies classified as the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) of the species gray wolf (Canis lupus) in such list.

 

Draft bill:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP06/20180515/108314/BILLS-115HR-SC-AP-FY2019-Interior-SubcommitteeDraft.pdf

 

Press release:

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395297

Share