March 20, 2018

To Grow Moose Burn Down the Forest

In a small corner of northeast Minnesota is where you’ll find what is left of a moose herd. A Minnesota newspaper is saying that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) blames the reduction in moose on deer and as an aside note that “some” attribute some of the loss to wolf densities. But there’s an answer to the problem. Burn down the forest!

According to some researchers and biologists, brainworm and ticks are killing moose. (Note – this is of course due to global warming, wink-wink.) If you burn down the forest, the fire kills off the ticks and snails that host the brainworm parasite.

You don’t have to be a Ph.D. to know that moose thrive in forests that are regenerating. Maine has seen the moose population explode where millions of acres of forest were cleared because of an infestation of spruce budworm. Coincidentally, this same act created prime habitat for the snowshoe hare which is the Canada lynx’s favorite food and thus the lynx has made a remarkable resurgence…for now. What happens when the hare habitat is gone? Along with the explosion of the population of the moose, so too did the moose tick or winter tick which is now killing off the too large moose population.

So now there’s an answer for those of you interested in exploiting further the moose population. Think of the money outfitters can make with moose gawking tours. WOW! All we have to do is simply burn down the forests according to how many moose people want to see or hunt.

But at what expense to the rest of the ecosystem?


List of World-Wide Wolf Attacks

For those always in need of explaining to those who trust their Media sources for “truth, justice, and the American Way, that there really are recorded wolf attacks, you can provide the following link for their perusal.



A Call for a Possible Bounty on Coyotes Because of Disease Spread

Jon Lund is the owner and publisher of the Maine Sportsman magazine. In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.

Maine got along just fine before the coyote took over the countryside and contrary to the many statements made otherwise, we don’t need them.

However, there is something else I’d like to touch base with readers about that Mr. Lund brings up in his article. This has to do with the use of chemicals and/or “natural” elements to ward off ticks and insect bites.

I’m sure that the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone else who stands to make a profit from their drugs to treat Lyme and other diseases, has thoroughly hyped the presence of ticks and instilled ample fear into the masses. After all, when the people live in fear they will do most anything.

Lund speaks specifically about permethrin. Permethrin is a common ingredient found in compounds marketed as insect repellents or killers. Basically, it attacks the central nervous system of insects.

Permethrin is a synthetic, or man-made, product derived from pyrethrin.

Most fact sheets available to the consumer paint the picture of permethrin/pyrethrin as mostly harmless even though long-term effects have not been studied. Some believe that using products that contain permethrin presents a higher risk of health issues than the odds of getting bit by a tick that will infect you with Lyme or other diseases. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. But to make that decision honestly, you should make the effort to understand the presented “remedies” and “threats.” It’s your health. Know what you are doing.

Lund takes the time to explain how ticks are spread around (I don’t find any factual claims that global warming is the culprit) and refers to a study where “…a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks.”

The same study tells us that the incidence and presence of Lyme disease are not related to the abundance of deer but to the absence of key small predators. “We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.”

This claim is in direct contradiction to the theory that predators kill only the sick of the prey species and justifies the “need” for predators to keep our ecosystems healthy. Not only is there no evidence that the presence of large predators reduces the presence of disease in ecosystems, this study seems to prove the exact opposite.

We forget or never learned history. Large predators like wolves and coyotes were not tolerated on the landscape by early settlers. And there were reasons for that, some of which include not only the destruction of property caused by these critters but it was known that they carried and spread diseases, many of which are harmful and even deadly to humans.

And yet, today, there is an all-out effort to protect these same predators. It appears that for some anyway, the demand for an abundance of coyotes at the expense of public health is just fine and dandy. I don’t see it that way at all and I’m not alone.

As the trend continues in the direction that it is headed, it should be fairly easy to predict there will be increased fall-out about protecting any animal that spreads dangerous diseases among the people. Few tolerate the presence of rats knowing and remembering the unbelievable death and destruction caused by the bubonic plague. Is there a difference in protecting the health and safety of the public because one culprit is a nasty rat and the other is a nasty wild dog?

Mr. Lund is correct in asking the question about the role of coyotes in Maine, or anywhere else, where, according to provided data, the coyote is directly affecting the growth, perpetuation and spread of Lyme disease.

If Maine cannot effectively control the population of coyotes for public health and safety with the current management strategies, then it may be time to look at something more effective.

It is dishonest by the many who blame hunting and trapping for the decimation and/or extirpation of wolves and coyotes but go out of their way to deny that hunting and trapping of the same animals today have any effect on reducing their population numbers.

Many decades ago when it was decided by governments that wolves and coyotes were destroying property and spreading diseases, one of the elements employed to rid the landscape of the nasty canines and the diseases they spread was a bounty system. Any bounty must be attractive enough to draw enough to the plan. What is the limit in the cost of healthcare?

Such a suggestion will be vehemently opposed by many, especially those who hate hunting and trapping. They are wrong that think people like Jon Lund and myself might promote a bounty system for coyotes only for improving deer hunting. Little do these people know and understand the real conservation of wildlife.

In the normal world which is being left in the dust, there would be no question as to what is the right thing to do. Normalcy tells us public health and safety take precedence over animals and the spread of disease. One has to wonder what the extent of the bubonic plague would have been like if people had known and took real action to get rid of the rats that spread the disease.

But, we live in a Post-Normal world now where many things are upside-down. Are we to wait until more and more people get sick and die before we begin to act? Are we serious about finding a cure to a problem or is there just too much money to be made along with the genocide many promote?

It appears so.


Coyote Snaring and the Difference Between Fascism and Democracy

An opinion piece in the Bangor Daily News laments any notion that trapping of coyotes by snares should be reinstated. As the old saying goes, it might be a cold day in hell before…..But that doesn’t stop a good opportunity to opine emotional, outdated, clap-trap in hopes of influencing the public opinion poll, and for what purpose?

But this isn’t really about the pros and cons of snaring. It’s about credibility or the lack thereof, and a person’s failure, it appears to understand the difference between living in a democracy and under the ruling of fascist dictatorship.

Some may know that I’m no big fan of democratic rule and am certainly opposed to Fascism. It is always said that democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Fascism, in a similar regard, is one person or government forcing both the wolves and the sheep to eat what they are told to eat.

Another misconception that exists in this post-normal world is the idea that political ideology runs along a straight line, a continuum if you will. I disagree. If you follow extreme Leftism far enough, it ends up in fascism. If you follow the far Right far enough, you’ll run headlong into the Left and fascism.

In the Bangor News opinion piece, the author attempts to make the argument that the money spent killing coyotes for predator control could have been better spent, “…passing laws to protect deer yards.”

For those not intelligent enough to understand this concept, let me explain. Whether you or I like a democracy or not, there are ways to go about promoting your fascist ideals. However, some who understand a democracy realize that it is far less dictatorial to select a method of predator control to salvage a deer herd than to take land and property rights away from private landowners. Those that promote bigger, more centralized government couldn’t care less about your property rights. Those who understand the value of property ownership and property rights see such calls as a direct effort to suppress those rights…far from the democratic rule.

But to a fascist, they want what they want without any care to the private citizen, or soon to be subject-slave should such displays of fascism, promoted by totalitarians selfishly demanding their own way regardless of the cost to others. This book has been written many times throughout history.

To suggest “passing laws to protect deer yards” is to demand that a landowner should be stripped of their rights to their land. Maine has ample (far too many) fascist restrictions placed on landowners now, that it doesn’t need another prohibiting them from doing anything with their land in order to protect the whims of misguided animal perverts and environmentalists who think it’s better to allow the suffering of animals and the waste of good, natural food, because a person fails to understand the realities of taking a life to sustain another. Fascism is the author of waste.

Maine’s landowners have done a damned good job over the years doing all they can voluntarily to protect what land they can for the deer and they should be thanked instead of asked to give more while those asking do nothing but demand more and more. That’s the foundation of Fascism.

History has shown us that fascism is only a mechanism or a tool to bring a nation under the rule of communism.

Every time someone says, “There ought to be a law….” there goes your liberties and here comes their fascism. Fascism is enabled by totalitarians. Eager and ignorant useless eaters, programmed to believe centralized government forced upon everyone equitably is justice, but is but one step away from fascistic domination, forced obedience and complete control over everything.

Think about that before you open your mouth with your emotional Leftist, Progressive nonsense. I guarantee you will not like your servitude.


Maine Deer/Car Crashes: Trying To Make Sense of What Was Said

Sometimes what someone says about something doesn’t make a lick of sense. Such was the case when I read a report about cars crashing into deer in Aroostook County, Maine.

Let’s see if we can make any sense at all over this.

The report begins by saying that “vehicle crashes with deer have quadrupled in Aroostook County in the last five years” because deer populations have grown. Seriously? I wonder how many hunters would agree that deer numbers in Aroostook County have grown so much that it has caused a quadrupling of accidents? (If we ever get the 2017 deer harvest data from MDIFW, I wonder if it will show an increase in deer harvest in Aroostook County?)

Then we are told that last year a “feeding operation” (no details about it) caused 100 crashes with logging trucks, but has since been moved (to where?) and “no longer poses a road hazard.”

A regional biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) says, “We’re doing everything we can to keep deer away from the roads. Deer numbers have swelled and more often spend their winters in towns where there are roads and cars.”

Huh? I want to know, other than educating people about the potential problems of feeding deer (accidents), what “everything” is that is being done to keep deer out of the roads. Is that kind of like doing everything to make sure bears and coyotes don’t destroy the deer herd? Perhaps global warming can resolve this problem(?) too.

I just don’t plain get it when the biologist says that deer are now spending time living in towns where there are roads and cars. I can only guess what this means but this statement appears to be contrary to the talking points always spoken by MDIFW officials that deer winter in their idealistic deer yards, which have all been destroyed, or they die. Is MDIFW now suggesting that deer adapt and due to reduced habitat and the overwhelming presence of large predators, they have moved into town where the odds of getting run over by a logging truck are less than being eaten alive by coyotes, bobcats, and lynx?

However, the same biologist attributes the growing deer population to (you have to get ready for this) “reduced coyote predation, supplemental feeding and relatively mild winters.” MDIFW evidently believes their coyote program in Aroostook County accounts for part of the increase in deer but state that there hasn’t been a severe winter in Aroostook County in 10 years. It must be like all good environmentalists would do, MDIFW changed the criteria as to what constitutes a severe winter. Perhaps it’s just the thought that global warming exists, therefore, there is no longer any such thing as a severe winter.

Maybe MDIFW knows from their ongoing deer study, which is a huge secret, it appears, that there are more deer in the North Country than they thought. But, we’ll never know that because they never share that information with anyone…unless it makes them look good.

But isn’t this report and all comments geared to address but one thing? – feeding deer. MDIFW does not like it when people feed deer. They never have and probably never will until they can find a way to tax it or somehow make money from it. Never finding anything good to say about people feeding deer, MDIFW goes out of their way to even make up reasons why people shouldn’t do it.

The news report found someone who obviously doesn’t approve of deer feeding and someone who coincidentally had a crash with a deer recently, to share his “expertise” about deer feeding programs. This person describes deer, because of being fed, “they were so fat they couldn’t get over the guard rails.” 

This same “expert,” who claims there are “[a]bsolutely, there are more deer this year,” is contrasted by what the Washburn Police Chief said, “It’s not clear if there are more or less deer-related crashes this year than in others.” Well, don’t ruin a good story injecting facts into it. Fat deer that can’t get out of their own way are dropping like flies.

In more efforts to demonize deer feeding, the regional wildlife biologist says, “In some places, the deer have over-browsed their natural winter foods such as hardwood trees.” He also says there’s nothing left to eat. Not to be just contradictory, but, if this is true doesn’t this mean three things? One, that if there wasn’t supplemental feeding, deer will starve to death. Two, deer must have grown so much in numbers they have exceeded carrying capacity, and three, deer are eating their “natural food” despite feeding programs. If this is the case then why hasn’t MDIFW begun issuing “Any-Deer Permits” to reduce the size of the deer herd. We are told that the population has been “swelling” for at least five years (and it must be longer because Northern Maine hasn’t had a severe winter in 10 years and we know that, when convenient, severe winters are the biggest killers of deer.) So what’s taking so long to get those Any-Deer Permits passed out? Surely it would be much better for everyone if the deer were legally harvested by hunters, and for food to hungry people, than to simply let them starve to death while MDIFW continues to promote the stoppage of supplemental feeding.

Or isn’t this just about injecting some more emotional clap-trap into the media to discourage them to stop feeding deer?

But most bizarre of all in this article involves the comment apparently intended to address disease…or something.

To be forthcoming, there is a threat to the spread of disease, when any disease is present and when there are large concentrations of deer. MDIFW has always stated deer feeding programs as being potentially problematic in the spread of some diseases.

However, I have tried to get my wee small brain wrapped around the very last statement at the end of the article.

“Eventually, those deer are going to share diseases, ticks, everything else. The gene pools are going to get shallower. They’re not going to be able to get their own food.”

I could spend hours guessing what any of this might mean. “Eventually” we have no idea what is going to take place. If you believe the lies about Climate Change, then you might also believe that there might be more deer in the north and fewer moose, Canada lynx, etc. Historically speaking, there has never been an overwhelming number of deer in the North Woods of Maine. Experts love to be like echo chambers and when it’s convenient, tell us how northern Maine is at the northern fringe of the whitetail deer’s range. They also like to tell us, when it’s convenient, that severe winters keep the population down. If it’s convenient, as appears in this case here, the population has “swelled” and it’s because people are feeding deer AND the winters are mild – convenient truths.

So what’s to believe?

I’m completely at sea about the comment about gene pools. I’ve done a fair amount of writing and research about gene pools in deer and I haven’t run across the term that a gene pool will get “shallower.”

Maybe we’re all gonna die!!

I’m not sure, but I’m guessing the “expert” knows nothing about gene pools but it makes for good copy, as I have seen many places before.

MDIFW hates it when people feed deer. I understand their position and their reasons given. I can’t say that I agree completely with their reasoning about it. I think it has become exceedingly clear the MDIFW and the State of Maine would have a difficult time trying to stop it. The upside to deer feeding is the sense of ownership that many people take concerning their local deer herds. A lot can be said about that.

Has anyone done a study to determine how much supplemental feeding is taking place and how many deer that involves? This might tell us what percentage of the overall population of deer is being affected and whether or not any of this hubbub is worth being that concerned about. Just asking.

I recall many years ago emailing with Maine’s head deer biologist about feeding programs. I don’t have the exact quote but essentially he said (at that time) the number of deer affected by feeding was so small percentage-wise, that it wasn’t worth making a fuss over. What, if anything, has changed since then?

It sounds like, from what I read in this article, that efforts are underway to move deer feeding locations away from highways or to places that don’t cause deer to have to cross busy highways to get to them. This is positive.

Maine is fortunate that is doesn’t have diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease to deal with. If and when that time comes, deer feeding stations will have to either become illegal or designed in such a way as to limit the threat of diseases spreading. However, in those states that do have CWD, efforts to ban feeding has shown little change in the presence or spread of the disease.

I guess I’ll leave the “shallower gene pools” for another discussion.


Canada Lynx Report: An Extremely Rare Discovery

Maybe I tricked you with my title to this article. Regardless, read and consider the rarity of this report on the Federally protect Canada lynx.

It is almost unheard of these days to find any kind of written report about any animal, wild or domestic, that isn’t fraught with Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, Scientism, Environmentalism, emotionalism, animal rightism and any other “ism” you can think of.

Nope! Sorry that this report might be disappointing to most but what a breath of fresh air. It contains only what one man observed when he went into the forest to collect some data about Canada lynx. He followed paw prints in the snow, backtracked on them and discovered the lynx had caught and killed a ruffed grouse and carried it 0.37 miles before eating it, perhaps sharing it with lynx.

No talk of global warming. No talk of we’re all gonna die. No talk of any of that nonsensical crap almost always found in such reports.

Thank you to wildlife biologist Scott McClellan, for filing such a report. Thanks to Emily MacCabe for posting this report and thanks to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for allowing this rare event to take place.

Please send more just like it.


Give Them The Wolves They Force On Others

*Editor’s Note* – The House of the State of Washington has approved a bill and sent it along to the Senate that would give the Department of Fish and Wildlife authority to transport some of the “too many” wolves in the eastern sector of the state to the western portions.

A bit ironic is the fact that the majority of those House members who voted for this action live in and represent urban areas and those opposed live in rural areas where it is known that wolves will destroy it.

But, perhaps this is a very good thing. It is difficult to figure out how to force wolves to live in city areas, but if there were enough of them it might happen. Consideration might be made of forcing the government to create “green” wolf places scattered strategically throughout each urban setting. Forcing wolves to “coexist” with those who are too stupid to understand the ramifications is exactly the remedy to cure their ignorance. Give them a taste of their own medicine and certainly, in short order, they might be looking at things a bit differently.

“The state House this week showed strong support for redistributing wolves in Washington, except from lawmakers whose districts could be candidates for taking in wolves.

The House voted 85-13 on Tuesday to direct the Department of Fish and Wildlife to study moving wolves from Eastern Washington to Western Washington. The “no” votes, three Democrats and 10 Republicans, were cast by westside legislators whose districts include expansive tracts of wildlife habitat.

Okanogan County Republican Joel Kretz pushed the bill to relieve his district from having a vast majority of the state’s wolves. His alternative proposal, giving wildlife managers more leeway to control the wolf population in four northeast counties, has gone nowhere.”<<<Read More>>>



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

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

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

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

Dear Professor XXXXXXXX,

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

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

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

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

My advice –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Luck.

Jim Beers

12 February 2018

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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