December 13, 2019

Night, Night Hunters

I have just read an article on one of my favorite outdoor sites, Sporting Classics Daily.  The article was titled, “Conservation Funding and Firearms” by Craig Springer, External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region.

I first read this article when I was in high school (over 60 years ago) when I was memorizing articles by Robert Ruark, and every item and its cost in the Herter’s Catalog.  Today, it has been perverted into propaganda meant to seduce any awareness in hunters, state wildlife agencies and hunter’s organizations about what is happening to hunting and this once-proud program, the Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax on Arms and Ammunition.  Whether you think this article to be a simple oversight, ignorance, a bid for a bonus or a bona fide deception: I leave to you.

While the article was true those many years ago and properly whetted a young man’s imagination and energy toward hunting, shooting and possibly a job one day: today the article is a stale clip of a bygone era and a glimpse of how it is being used by that herd called “The Swamp” with their Hidden Agendas running amok.  It details all the money collected and disbursed to State wildlife programs (the only beneficiaries, supposedly, of the funds) by law.  It chirps about putting “gas in a biologist’s truck” and “bobwhite quail traps in Oklahoma” giving the impression that the increased funding does as much or more than it did for Dad or Grandpa – nothing could be farther from the truth.  The funding source itself, the use of the funds and the goals of the modern wildlife bureaucrats, both state and federal, being paid by the Excise Tax dollars are such today that a good case could be made that hunters and Rural America would be better off without the program entirely.  Other than serving as one more good reason (of many) why the 2ndAmendment must be protected and preserved; the wildlife benefits to hunters and Rural America are, to quote Ross Perot describing the loss of jobs to NAFTA, “a giant sucking sound” off in the distance.

Let me describe some of the ways this once great program has been savaged and distorted:

1.    In the early 1990’s, Congress refused a Request from US Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize and fund the capture of Canadian wolves to release in the Rocky Mountains.  When Congress refused, USFWS clandestinely “took” (stole is a better word) $45 to 60 Million from the funds and released wolves into Yellowstone National Park (from which they spread in every direction).  Leftover funds were used to open a USFWS Office in California that Congress had also refused to fund; and to give bonuses to USFWS managers involved in the illicit funding uses.  When a GAO Audit revealed the misuse of the funds to a US House of Representatives Committee, after a flurry of activity ala Lois Lerner et al, the responsible USFWS managers went on to be Directors and high-paid Executives of environmental lobby groups.  The state wildlife agency Directors that along with you, me and the state wildlife programs never asked for the money to be replaced.  I suggest that not only was this a visible flame 20 years ago of the advanced degree of corruption corroding the state/federal/radical groups “Complex” to use Ike’s term: it was a clear signal to others like ATF in Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner in IRS, and the FBI/Federal Intelligence network in the past three years to, “do what you want, nobody gets in trouble anymore”.

2.    The program has been diverted into a quasi-preservation effort of government force on behalf of animal communities that while not in any trouble should get as much attention as game animals according to New Age wildlife “professionals”.  Think of it as a sort of socialism for critters wherein Excise tax (and license revenue) is forcibly taken from the management of those animals that “have” and given to those animals that “have not”, somewhat like a progressive tax scheme that will ostensibly make everyone “equal”.  To say that game animals and hunting have not suffered greatly in this “Robin Hood-like redirection of the Excise taxes generated by Arms and Ammunition Sales” is simply an ideological rejection of truth and facts. This was made possible by some federal/state wordsmithing of regulations almost 30 years ago that no one, not even the NRA saw fit to oppose.  Words like “game” were simply transformed to “wildlife” which in a legal sense covers a multitude of sins.  When I read Mr. Springer’s piece I looked to see how he would handle or avoid this fact.  At the end of his long list (first written 60 years ago) about mule deer, bobwhite, et al; the last phrase was, and “habitats restored benefiting multitudes of organisms”.  Yo, anyone awake out there?

3.    The Excise Tax funding and the License Revenue have been increasingly diverted in almost half the states and growing in recent years into Lawsuits, depredation Complaints, propagandizing incidences, denying the reason moose and elk (and their hunting) are disappearing, teaching kids prevarications about predators and generally concocting nonsense for public consumption like, “the wolf that attacked the young man had a ‘deformed brain’” and “the moose season is closed forever because of climate change” (as though moose failed to adapt to eating coconuts and mangoes) because of forcibly imposed federal wolves laughingly called “Endangered” or “Threatened”.  This all costs millions of Excise Tax and License Revenue dollars that are purposely under-reported by unaudited state and federal agencies.  My estimate of the under-reporting (as a former National Wildlife Refuge Operations Chief, Program Coordinator, Program Analysts and wildlife biologist) is that the state and federal agencies only report 25-30% of the costs and thereby minimize any signs of hunters and Rural Americans waking up to what is going on like Rip Van Winkle.

4.    The current scam to further drain Excise Tax funding and dwindling hunting License Revenue is for the federal government to “Return Wolf Management” to the States.  This is a comedy skit in more ways than one.  Forcing wolves back into states where they were purposely and at great expense exterminated over a century ago and calling it “Returning Management” is reminiscent of the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.  In other words it takes a certain amount of chutzpah.  States will now be expected to “Maintain Wolves”; answer depredation calls; pay (?) compensation; explain why game is disappearing without using the words “predator” or “wolf”; tell dog owners to keep their dogs in or on a leash or expect a wolf to kill or (in certain cases) to mate with them; fight lawsuits; and pay for pre-determined research to explain why neither they nor the wolves are responsible for the ensuing chaos and safety concerns of Rural Americans from hunters to hikers, campers, birdwatchers, kids at school bus stops and older ladies walking to rural mailboxes or outbuildings.  This means MORE Excise Tax Revenue and MORE of the dwindling (for reasons of human safety and disappearing game) Hunting License Revenue diverted not only away from game but to expand an agenda meant to do away with game, guns, hunting, ranching and a vibrant Rural America.

5.    How many of these USFWS do-gooders are explaining that more gun controls and ammunition quotas will seriously defund state wildlife programs?  Where are the state wildlife agencies and their political overlords spreading the same truths?  Where have you seen any explanation of what all this diversion of funds is doing?  Or what wolf management or non-game handouts are taking from hunting and game?  What is the alternative after most game hunting Revenue is gone?  When gun and ammunition purchase, importation and use is all but obliterated.  Will we just close down the state agencies and simply have a federal wildlife authority funded from General revenue?  For what purpose?  Will states just start paying for the “biologist” and His/Her “truck and gas”?  Why would anyone spend anything on deer or ducks or grouse? Why would anyone spend money on frogs or snakes?  Where would any money come from year after year after year?  When the wolf kills the dog or the grizzly bear kills the camper who does what in an unarmed Rural America?  How?  Who is responsible?  Who has the answer?

This could be longer but my fingers are getting tired.  I just opened my window onto a fine spring day to hear the reporters working on the Excise Tax/Hunting License Revenue issue; the future of state and federal wildlife programs; and the role of predators in our brave new world. I listened for the Hunting, Dog and Livestock organizations fighting gun and ammunition controls, wolves and federal grizzlies.  I cupped my hands over my ears to hear the bureaucrats speaking out for the 2nd Amendment and what needs to be done about dwindling game animal populations.  I leaned out to hear the state and federal politicians fighting for hunters, ranchers, dog owners and Rural America (what’s that, they sound like their cheering for the environmental extremists and animal rights radicals?)  I tried to hear the honest scientists advocating sensible predator management, game animal use and management, and the establishment of compatible wildlife communities that enhance human rural communities rather than discouraging and diminishing them.

But, all I heard were crickets and besides, I am tired of reading 60 year-old articles about how good things are going out there so I might as well take a nap too.

Jim Beers

26 March 2019

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

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Prescribing an Opioid for a Fatal National Law

By James Beers:

My Inbox overflows with every variety of the following notice from those Congressmen and Senators that have been hiding under their desks (or having dinners with their favorite lobbyist) for the past several decades.  One even seemed to be an invitation.

RSVP –

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your Western Caucus Applauds Recovery of the Gray Wolf and Proposed Rule to Delist the Species notice.

If this were a movie, it would be appropriate at this point for the orchestra to burst forth with the 1812 Overture conclusion complete with the horns, drums, cymbals and cannons celebrating Napoleon’s defeat in Russia.

Substitute, in place of “Western Caucus” above, your favorite “conservation” organization; or your natural resource-dependent business lobbyist; or the names of your neighbors or relatives that have been harmed by wolves (dogs killed, cattle/sheep killed, hunting ruined, etc.); or “your” state wildlife agency that has been “helpless” before federal bureaucrats; or all those folks that think this is making “America Great Again” – but do not substitute my name.

Every one of the similar “news releases” are stuffed with every Tom, Dick and Harriet that was (and remains) AWOL in the tragedy of the federal government’s forcible imposition and ruthless protection of wolves (and grizzly bears for that matter) in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States.  These enthusiasts go on and on and on about how, “I look forward to the implementation of this rule so that the states can properly manage their own gray wolf population and alleviate the impacts this species has on our local farmers, their livestock, numerous family pets, and big game herds” and about how they and their colleagues tried and tried but their “proposals were challenged with frivolous lawsuits from extremist organizations who don’t rely on science or facts and seek to fundraise by keeping species on the Endangered Species Act in perpetuity”.  Like the bachelor relative that spent the War in Fort Dix, their tales of battles fought are but sad imaginings. If they were actually aware of and concerned about “the impacts this species (i.e. wolves) has on our local farmers, their livestock, numerous family pets, and big game herds” why did they not do anything about it for years?

The wolf is no more “delisted”, “recovered” or its “management returned to the state” than Eastern European countries were “liberated” after WWII when Russia renamed them “Democratic People’s Republic of (fill-in-the-blank).  I say this is because:

1.    The Endangered Species Act with all its unconstitutional bureaucratic powers remains intact.  This means that when the current occupant of the White House leaves, the reassertion of the “need” to declare the (fill-in-the-blank) wolves of SE Colorado or the “remnant” blue/gray wolves of the Distinct Population Segment Pack in Northern Kentucky East of Hwy 65 will once more be on the table.  The new areas filling with wolves will “need” federal protection to guarantee “diversity” and “Alpha males”. The areas first forced to accept wolves and where states are now or soon will be “managing” “their” wolves will, according to some federal “expert”, be “overharvesting”, or failing to prevent hybridization with coyotes and dogs, or anyone of dozens of concocted and imaginary reasons be in “need” of federal authority.

2.    Wolves (and grizzly bears) are the federal and radical’s weapons of choice to disable Rural American economies and communities in order to control and vacate them.  If the last 40 years have taught Rural Americans anything; it is that politicians have profited mightily from passing laws that enable radical environmental organizations to utilize self-serving bureaucrats in order to destroy ranching, hunting, trapping, animal ownership and use, dams, forest management, range management, rural economies and rural “domestic Tranquility”.  This while the politicians are AWOL and blameless once again as they struggle to no avail to enact “proposals challenged with frivolous lawsuits from extremist organizations who don’t rely on science or facts and seek to fundraise by keeping species on the Endangered Species Act in perpetuity”.  Poor babies!

3.    If the current President is unable to replace and reduce the army of bureaucrat ideologues (the odds of that sadly being longer than Old Nellie winning the Kentucky Derby), the bureaucrats that established these unethical government activities and wrote the regulations underpinning them, plus the environmental/animal rights/anti-American extremist organizations they work for intermittently, remain ready to make the wolf and associated issues like Wilderness and grizzly bears once more front and center.

4.    In the meantime, state Treasuries and State Wildlife Agencies will pick up all the costs of maintaining what the federal government created and imposed and the future costs of all the places wolves spread to from livestock and dog compensation to resolution of human safety and wildlife disease problems.  Increased lawsuits by radicals based on spurious precedents of the past 30 years will be coupled with abundant “research papers” pointing out “new data” about wolves and their travails from unproven and undisputable claims about numbers, reproduction and presence to submergence in domestic dog and coyote DNA.  Add in the lawsuits about “inhumane” violations of wolf management (snares, dogs, poisons, lengthy seasons, etc.) and the amount of authority and money leftover in any state to “manage” other wildlife will be severely depleted.

Consider the sordid record of the ESA to date:

–       Wolves were “listed” despite numbers in the millions worldwide.

–       Wolves have thousands of years of written and reported history of killing humans, devastating rural peoples’ families, economies and their communities. Like so many disagreeable historical facts of late, these facts are denied and ignored.

–       Wolves were exterminated at great time and expense throughout the settled landscapes of Europe and the Lower 48 States in the past 200 years when time, manpower and technology made it possible.  This is treated today as a genocide of greater concern to urban society than abortion or “mercy” killing.

–       When US Fish & Wildlife Service requested money and authority to re-introduce wolves into the West in the late 1980’s, Congress refused to grant either. Despite Congressional refusal, in the mid 1990’s, USFWS secretly took $45 to 60 Million out of state wildlife agency funding from Excise Taxes and trapped wolves somewhere in Canada, imported them clandestinely, and released them in Yellowstone Park – a federal enclave with “Exclusive Jurisdiction” meaning a place where NO State Jurisdiction or Authority exists.  Once released, the wolves spread to surrounding states and then to the states that surrounded them and as they continue to do. 

–       When, four years later Congress was made aware of the theft of the State Funds by Government Accounting Office Auditors to conduct an unauthorized act, no one was even admonished much less punished and those mainly responsible were promoted and went on to very high-paying jobs with the extremist organizations they enabled as bureaucrats.

–       No Governors were ever asked if they would allow, much less wanted federal wolves, nor told who would pay for the wolves’ maintenance and damage.  Therefore no Local communities or Counties had any say in their role of hosting any and all wolves.

–       State wildlife agencies’ corruption and collusion in the entire affair from start to finish was exposed since they never even requested that Congress replace the stolen state wildlife program funds.

–       Unbeknownst to those passing Acts like the ESA and Wilderness Act, the concept of “Native Species” and “Native Ecosystem” have become recurring words in the federal regulatory lexicon.  That is a smokescreen for all manner of mischief and it will be all over bureaucrat and court demands of “State” wolf management.  Why do wolves or grizzly bears or bison “belong somewhere they were centuries ago?  Think about that.  Do bison “belong” once again in the fall-plowed fields of western Minnesota?  Do grizzly bears “belong” in Spokane suburbs?  Do wolves “belong” in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States, or on Isle Royale National Park for that matter?  What is a “Wilderness” or a Marine “Sanctuary” other than an expanding acreage of unused and unmanaged land that is not even a model of what it can increase dramatically like fires or a control-site for applied research to resolve management and use of similar natural resources?  That these terms and concepts have seeped into federal environmental operations is worrisome.  The terms and concepts should be eliminated from the governmental while being put back into applied biology and history books for serious references as to where we have been and where we are headed.

–       Because traditional funding sources from hunting licenses and permits have declined due to wolf predation on game species; and because wolf issues diverted more and more funding to lawsuits, surveys, political justification research, public media campaigns and indoctrination of children – state wildlife agency employment became more precarious and dependent on blind instructions and obfuscated explanations of the effect of wolves. Agency goals shifted 180 degrees from the management and use of renewable natural resources for human benefit to the suppression and elimination of human welfare for imaginary benefit of an imaginary environment and animals given the status of human citizens that had become a blight on the land.

Would you trust these bureaucrats to babysit your kids with a record like this?

Some facts about the “Recovery of the Gray Wolf and Proposed Rule to Delist the Species” in the three states indicate what lies ahead.  It took about 5 years for all three states to wade through radical lawsuits and recalcitrant federal bureaucrats to obtain what federal lawmakers in Congress “gave” them – not because of any “Recovery” or concern about rural America – due only to simple political pressure that the more conservative residents of those three states were insisting on.  Minnesota, a more liberal and ideological “environmental” state was supposed to get the gift with those three states but due to their political reluctance to offend the urban centers that run the state (like Chicago runs Illinois), Minnesota was dropped from the list when the backlash became too hot.  Since the three states have had wolf “management authority” “returned” (considering they had claimed no resident wolves for 50 years and then federal control was imposed with forcibly inserted wolves; “returned” is a strange word about something you never wanted and had exterminated at great expense over a long period) their experience is worth noting.

–       Initial sale of wolf licenses and the increase in wolf revenue is wearing off.  Wolves are hard to find and “sport kill” are less than hoped for (to say the least).  The novelty of purchasing a wolf license is best shown by a powerful federal legislator that when I was introduced to him he smiled, dug out his wallet to show me his wolf hunting license.  I wonder if he still has one and if he ever got a wolf?

–       Federal estimates of 5,000 wolves in the Lower 48 States is a low ball number; the numbers are closer to 8,000.  Think about how many wolves you would have to kill annually to just keep the populations steady (it doesn’t really work this accurately in good old Mother Nature but humor me).  At a minimum it would take in the neighborhood of 2,000 wolves throughout the range of the wolves.  One of the states got 43 wolves, another got about 35 last year.  In other words, “managing” wolves is a farce.  Between federal bureaucrats hiding until a change of Administration and state bureaucrats using the wildlife new math of lowballing some estimates and highballing other “estimates” there will be no numbers resolutions when radical lawsuits hit state managers.

–       In the meantime, livestock depredations will increase or at best stay steady with compensation being something no state can long support.  Big Game numbers will also continue to decline as the same number of wolves will need to eat and if ranchers and dog owners can shoot (or at) threatening wolves it does not take a rocket scientist to expect ever heavier predation on elk, moose and deer.

–       To foresee a recovery of big game or a reduction in livestock depredation, the number of wolves in the neighborhood would have to be reduced 40 to 70% and kept there, ad infinitum!  Anyone telling you that ANY state can or would even envision such a scheme, given the continued existence of the ESA and the now accepted precedent that any wolf anywhere has been “recovered” so a drastic reduction in wolves would be perceived as extermination and it would provoke a federal National Emergency (under the next President to be sure) and possibly the use of federal troops like Ike sent into Alabama.

–       Dense wolf populations where they currently exist are and will continue to cause expansion into outlying areas and states, as well as suburban and in some cases urban environments.  Since wolves are so difficult to control, the increasing costs of wolf control will quickly exceed the revenue pittance they will soon bring in.  Hello, state tax increases.

–       Increasing the annual take of wolves by revenue-producing (i.e. affordable) means and private citizens in every state desiring to do so involves innovation and constant change as the ability of wolves to avoid danger goes on display.  Pack animals learn quickly as a trap goes off or a bullet hits one as they come to some sort of bait.  States and the federal government will not allow this innovation: states because of fear of federal bureaucrats and the federal bureaucrats because they work essentially for radical causes and their career success depends on radical favor. Aerial hunting (periodically necessary in Alaska and Siberia) will be found “Unfair” and a violation of the Airborne Hunting Act.  Fur sale and import/export will be attacked and its use or display will be discouraged by socialists and the politicians seeking votes in the next election.  M-44’s and deadfalls will be prohibited.  Upland, bear and cougar hunting (especially rabbit hounds, bird dogs, bear hounds, etc.) will continue to emit their last screams as their owners struggle to get to the site where wolves have bush-wacked them.  Placement regulation of baits, traps or other devices will be designed to make them ineffective. Breeding and use of wolfhounds that were bred and used in Ireland to eliminate the last wolves on that island centuries ago will be forbidden.  As will the sale of expensive guided chases made available to wealthy sportsmen interested in a unique and effective chase.  Private property, especially owned by non-resident urban wealthy folks, parks and other non-hunting public lands will be closed to “management” controls of predators, especially wolves.  Unless the State is willing to impose forcible access (as some Counties do for thistle control) to known wolf denning or other such wolf habitats for controls like denning and aerial hunting, the limited access to control operations will be very discouraging when outlined on a map. Wolves will learn these areas before the “experts will even admit their role in protecting wolves. This is only a short rundown of the problems facing anyone thinking they will reduce depredations, predation and dangers from wolves once “management is returned” to their state.

–       The only possible beneficiaries of states financing this expanding federal debacle will be the occasional (too frequent instances will require those harmed to change their lifestyle) rancher or dog owner or parent that will be able to kill a wolf in the pasture or yard where family members are present.  State enforcers and prosecutors will be more lenient in most states than their federal counterparts and the penalties will, or should be, lessened after federal control is abandoned.

–       Any thoughts of large reductions in wolf densities to protect property like cattle, sheep or dogs; or to allow large ungulates to recover and maintain hunt-able populations are pipedreams.

In conclusion, this “Recovery”, “Delisting” and “Returning Wolf Management to the States” are like prescribing an opioid to kill pain while the underlying malady increases the inevitable likelihood of a very bad outcome.  The phony “Recovery” levels are now established and the States must pay to keep them there.

Lest you think I am only whining here: chew on this.

The only path I see to be a valid solution to this growing problem is:

1.    Amend or Repeal the Endangered Species Act.

2.    If amended, it MUST REQUIRE any Federal Action in any State of the United States to:

A.   Be described in a 10 Year Proposal that specifically describes the reason for the proposal, the proposed federal expenditures and actions required, and any expected ancillary effects of the proposed action to save and or protect a Species (and no lesser biological entity) determined to be Endangered.

B.   Such Proposal shall be submitted to the Governor of the affected State for his review and written concurrence or rejection.  The federal agency should fund a public meeting in the Capital of the State, if so desired by the Governor, before he decides on the Proposal.

C.   Such Proposal, if approved by the Governor should be opened to the public in two Public meetings in the affected state and the findings of those meetings shall be attached to the Proposal and submitted in the Annual Federal Budget for Congressional Review, Approval and Authorization.

D.   Any work needed beyond 10-years would require a New Proposal and a repeat of the above process.

Rural communities should have a strong say in what sort of environment they live in.  Ultimately, in a just system of governance the basic framework and what constitutes a just environment should be decided by Local government.  Local governments should be protected and honored by State governments.  State governments should be protected and nourished by the federal government.  In other words, if the Local community wants NO WOLVES, that should be it, no matter what state or far-off federal politicians say or do on behalf of urban voters or those that covet control of rural landscapes.  This will never be renewed (yes it once existed to the great “domestic Tranquility” joy of rural people) as long as states are bound and threatened by federal overseers beholden to unaffected voters with no dog in the fight. “Returning Wolf Management” should be treated like Clint Eastwood’s infamous observation to his political boss who screamed in his face asking, what do you think?” to which Harry (Eastwood) simply snarled, “Your breath mints ain’t cutting it”.  It is only designed to give everyone dreams while things fall apart.

For these reasons and more I do not regret I will not be able to attend the celebration of the “Return of Wolf Management to the States”.  My wife and I play cribbage on that evening of the week.

Jim Beers

16 March 2019

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.netIf you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

The Rotten, Cheating Government and Their GI Wolves

Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is a division of the Department of Interior (DOI) and is a government entity, there’s no need to mince word but to cut straight to the chase. They are a bunch of crooked, lying, cheating, stealing, evil, rotten bastards that don’t deserve the time of day. But we give it to them anyway. Go figure.

The lying, evil bastards stole money, cheated, lied, gamed the system, broke their own laws they will enforce against citizens, and dumped diseased wolves throughout the United States – Northern Rockies, Southwest, Southeast (many of these wolves hybrid semi-wild mutts paraded as pure wolves) and even Isle Royale (all done illegally), and now, after contaminating the land with disease and inflicting millions of dollars in losses to private property, these worthless bastards want to walk away from responsibility and force the states and tribes to pay for their Valentine’s Day Massacre-like escapade, while at the same time tolerating wolves and “learning to coexist” with them.

I say, take your wolves and shove em!! In case you can’t tell (politicians are incapable of any sort of perception toward their CONstituancy. They are not even human.) I’m a little bit mad and very disgusted with government and those who enable the cheating bastards by going along with their house of cards con games, i.e. turning “management” over to the states.

We know these criminal sons-a-bitches play games like this in order to pave the way for their PALS at selected Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to pad their coffers by filing lawsuits. It’s a no brainer if you have one at all. The USFWS/DOI go public with their proposals and within hours the environmental NGOs lick their chops and move in for the money kill. Then the case is tied up in court while hand-selected fascist judges rule to stop the delisting process. The rigged system, complete with crooked, brainwashed judges, provides millions of dollars for the NGOs to continue their criminal enterprises and in the meantime the business of wolf destruction remains intact.

It’s bad enough that the USFWS/DOI is either so damned crooked they are emboldened so deeply they don’t give a hoot anymore or they know exactly what they are doing. Regardless, it’s a direct kick, right between the legs, when ignorant “anti-wolf” groups think they’ve won a battle because the Feds have placed the cost and responsibility for their terrorist act in the laps of the very people whose backside they had the wolf shoved up in the first place. Can’t you see this?

This is typical government BS and you keep voting for these criminal bastards who never change.

WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REMAINING INSANE?

Share

Removing the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

Proposed Ruling:

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS),  have evaluated the classification status of gray wolves (Canis lupus)  currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the  Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our  evaluation, we propose to remove the gray wolf from the List of  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We propose this action because the  best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the  currently listed entities do not meet the definitions of a threatened  species or endangered species under the Act due to recovery. The effect  of this rulemaking action would be to remove the gray wolf from the  Act's protections. This proposed rule does not have any effect on the  separate listing of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) as  endangered under the Act.<<<Read More>>>
Share

Isn’t Man a “Natural” Predator?

I was reading a very interesting article yesterday about how authorities undertook a deer cull on Mount Desert Island (Acadia National Park, Maine) back in the 1960s. It seems that once hunting was halted in the 1930s, deer grew unchecked and became a real nuisance to where something had to be done.

A couple of things caught my eye while reading that somebody needs to point out because it contributes to the problems associated with wildlife management that has become more of an act of Scientism as well as Romance Biology.

In the very first paragraph, we find: “Lately the most frequent “predators” of deer on Mount Desert Island have been motorized vehicles. But for several years in the 1960s, before coyotes migrated to the island, Acadia National Park rangers used rifles and live traps to fill the role of natural predators and cull the herd.” (emboldening added)

Lost in this quest to “save the planet” of which environmentalism is centered around, is the fact that man is a predator and a natural one. The CREATOR did not put plants and animals on this planet for the sole pleasure of environmentalists. As a matter of fact, it was the CREATOR’S intention that Man should have “dominion” over the plants and animals and to use them as a resource including sustenance.

This active Romance Biology believes that man should be removed from any equation about balance within an ecosystem and that the task can be accomplished with just letting things run their course…excluding man. Just how do you do that?

The NATURAL PREDATOR, Man, assumed their role as an “apex” predator and did what was perceived by Man, that natural predator, as a necessity; even though how the culling was done was not the intended way and best use of a natural resource.

It was around 1957 when a park “naturalist” estimated the deer population on Mount Desert Island (MDI) was between 1,000 and 1,500 animals. (The author of the piece chose to incorrectly call the deer “individuals.”)

It was thought that something had to be done to reduce that overgrown population of deer. It was decided to “live trap” and “shoot” the deer (no hunting) in order “to bring the starving herd into proper balance with nature.”

Even when misguided groups and individuals choose to assume the belief that Man is not a part of anything to do with Nature, it is impossible to get away from the very foundation of the need to manage and control certain aspects of our ecosystem in order to bring things into a socially determined “proper balance.”

Because there is no such thing as a “balance of nature” as is presented in propaganda and scientismic Romance Biology, man, who according to the environmentalists cannot be a part of the equation, always steps up to manipulate the existence to bring it in line with perspective ideals of whoever is in charge at the moment. And therefore we have the current definition of “proper balance.”

The hypocrisy here is that even those espousing to a “natural balance” cannot really believe it possible because they are always at work to bring that balance in line with their ideals. It makes little sense.

It is also inexplicable how, to some, it is acceptable to torture an animal, to capture it, or pay men to slaughter them, and yet see hunting, fishing, and trapping as inhumane, unfair, cruel, and something that needs to be stopped.

I think when push comes to shove it really isn’t about whether there is a natural balance, or whether man should be a part of the nature of things, but that a perverted sense that animals should share in the same existence as man, and thus hunting them for sport, food, or trophies, is wrong; but slaughtering them to fulfill ideals is acceptable.

Strange.

Share

Advice and Suggestions to the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife

A reader sent me a copy of the Maine Sportsman, specifically George Smith’s article about his “advise” to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). After reading it, I thought perhaps I would offer something similar. Sometimes I am accused of being only critical of the MDIFW seldom offering constructive criticism or even suggestions on better or different ways in which to do things.

Smith writes of the need to “unlock that door” that prohibits visitors access to the commissioner of the MDFIW. I understand the concept and how convenient it would be to just “drop in” someday and chat with the commissioner. I would like to think that the real situation playing at the offices of the MDIFW has more to do with security than a want to lock themselves up and separate them from the public. I might be wrong. We do live in a strange time in which most people are always aware and subjected to enhanced security measures.

TURKEYS

George writes about what he would do about turkey management and the role that hunting plays in that management. For the most part I think he brings up some good points, i.e. too many turkeys, too few hunters, and the barrier of license fees that prohibit more people from trying or getting involved in turkey hunting and harvesting a turkey that would aide the MDIFW with their management goals.

Originally, I had thought that Smith’s idea of including turkey hunting as part of a Big Game Hunting License wouldn’t fly because the MDIFW would not be willing to give up that revenue from turkey license fees. Is there a trade-off here? Will somehow opening up the turkey season to reduced cost (and loss of fees to MDIFW) be made up in other ways? Perhaps.

I think that consensus must be reached as to whether there are too many turkeys and how critical it is that turkey populations be reduced. If, more people gained interest in turkey hunting, perhaps down the road, as populations came more in line with management goals, turkey license fees could be levied again. If a reduction in the number of turkeys is urgently needed, and I think if we haven’t gotten there yet we soon will, then the MDIFW must do what is expedient to make the reductions in numbers necessary to be responsible for the healthy management of these game birds.

FISHERIES

Fisheries is far from my strong point and knowledge base. I am not at all that qualified to offer the MDIFW advice on how to specifically manage the fisheries in the State of Maine. How fortunate for some.

MOOSE

Odd isn’t it, in many ways, that some are opposed to the reduction of moose populations to mitigate the winter ticks’ destruction of the moose herd but think nothing about advocating the complete destruction of a herd of deer to get rid of Lyme disease. Perhaps if more evidence pointed a finger at the health risk to humans from the winter tick, mindsets might change.

I have written extensively on Maine’s moose and what I believe to be the need to bring the moose population in Maine to levels that seriously reduce the presence and perpetuation of winter ticks that are inhumanely and unnecessarily causing moose to suffer and die during long and cold winters.

Smith laments about the loss of businesses associated with moose watching now that Mother Nature took over where wildlife management failed. During the heyday of the overgrown moose populations, some scrambled and took advantage, as any good entrepreneur might do, looking for ways to exploit the abundant moose for profit. It might have been fun while it lasted but the lesson that should be learned here might be at what price do we exploit any wildlife animal for lucre? As grown adults we should see that having enough moose around that many got into the business of moose watching tours was but a flash in that pan. Time to move on. We have learned that attempting to grow moose in numbers for capitalistic enterprises is a terrible thing to do to the animal – part of the downside of attempting to manage any species while being driven by social demands.

More recent studies are suggesting what some of us knew a long time ago – that too many moose was the cause of the aggressive expanse of winter ticks resulting in high mortality rates on the large beast.

The MDIFW should move quickly to determine at what population Maine’s moose will be most healthy while still providing opportunities for Maine residents to harvest a moose and fill their freezers.

I suggest that the MDIFW, once establishing moose populations, based on sound science and not social demands, issue enough permits or a long enough season to bring the population under a control that reduces the tick infestation. Once that is accomplished, permit for the future can be issued accordingly. Letting Mother Nature do the job is not only irresponsible but is a waste of a terrific natural resource.

DEER

Smith tells readers that the MDIFW stopped managing deer in northern Maine and only “manages” moose. I don’t know if this is actually an official position taken by the MDIFW, but it appears there is at least quite a bit of evidence to support that statement.

Smith claims that because Maine failed to protect winter habitat in Northern and Western Maine, the deer herd “was lost.” I concur the deer herd was lost but I think it had other influences than just a loss of habitat. A lot of things have changed over the years, one thing being the behavior of the deer. While deer are learning how to adapt to that loss of winter habitat, we humans remain locked in our unadaptable behavior of insisting on things being the way they were when our fathers hunted the whitetails.

Each time I have listened to the worn out excuse that deer have disappeared because of loss of winter habitat, I have always asked why, if that is true, thousands of acres of old winter habitat, still in winter habitat condition, is void of deer? Never an answer.

Loss of winter habitat in the classical sense, can and does have an effect on the deer population. Attempting to somehow “manage” deer to return to unwanted winter habitat, is an example of managers failing to learn and adjust to changes of the deer population and their habits. When we see this failure, one can’t help but wonder how much we can rely on the deer managers “estimate” of deer populations and other management shortcomings.

We failed to learn quickly enough that attempting to manage moose populations at high enough levels that tourism benefitted, the moose herd suffered terribly due to exposure and anemia from blood sucking winter ticks. Deer populations are suffering but perhaps in different ways because the ecosystem in which they have traditionally comfortably inhabited have and are changing. The deer are adapting as best they can but our management tactics are not. Evidently the preference is to give up.

Too many moose compete with deer. Too many large predators kill deer and fawns and this is challenging the stability of the deer population and in some places we are witnessing the unsustainability of a deer herd. Are we to just blame it on loss of winter habitat and Climate Change or should we be responsible stewards of our wild game animals?

If we are to mitigate the cause for the lack of deer in portions of Northern and Western Maine, isn’t the responsible thing to do is to reduce the bear and coyote populations to give the deer a chance? If we simply stop deer management because loss of habitat and Climate Change is the excuse, what then can we expect of all of our game and wildlife species going forward?

Managers have a responsibility to care for all of these game species. Giving up on one species in certain areas, tells me that there is lack of knowledge and poor management skills involved. The epitome of wildlife management failures is giving in to some man’s fictitious notion that the globe is warming and the northern border of the whitetail deer’s habitat is moving south, while our neighbors to the north continue to work at managing their deer. If Climate Change is causing such chaos that is forcing the destruction of habitat for deer, then it makes sense that other more northern species are migrating south according to the changes. Is this happening? No. A warming climate, as claimed, should be reducing the affects of severe winters. Is that happening? No.

There’s little more that managers can do to stop the perceived reduction of winter habit and deer habitat in general short of demanding more totalitarian tactics to take property and property rights away from people and corporations. It’s easy, from afar, to stand in judgement over landowners, demanding they relinquish their rights as property owners in order to enhance the habitat of any wild animal. The tough part to deer management is maximizing what is left and working in earnest to make the best of what we have. Even if deer densities in Northern and Western Maine aren’t at ideal levels, is that reason enough to simply walk away and say, we tried?

There is no need to kill off all the coyotes/wolves in Maine or reduce bear populations to levels that give us more deer than are needed to balance a very valuable resource. All that is stopping this effort is the MDIFW’s insistence on caving to social demands. I suppose to them in the short term it is easier to cave in than to stand up to those demands supported by strong scientific evidence. And that may be the actual problem. Does the MDIFW have or want the strong scientific evidence?

BEAR

The MDIFW has a very good bear study program. Some claim that program is the envy of all other fish and wildlife departments. Only radical animal rights groups or individuals would argue that there are too many bear. The MDIFW publicly admits they need to reduce the bear population, but so far, have done little to solve that problem. Perhaps they are moving at a speed that only politics and social demands allow them. Time for change.

Having too many bears presents several problems – public safety and a disruption of population goals of other species such as deer and moose. Fortunately, bear hibernate, otherwise God only knows what kind of destruction they would wreak on weakened deer in deer wintering areas.

Some studies suggest that the presence of bear has more negative impact on deer than do coyotes/wolves. Maybe the current studies that the MDIFW are conducting on moose and deer will help us gain better understanding on this concept.

Regardless, it appears Maine must reduce bear populations. But how? One problem that jumps out immediately is the power of the guides and outfitters placing demands on the MDIFW to manage bears according to their wishes that would best maximize their business profits. While it is understandable that this is important to the private enterprises, should the MDIFW continue to allow increased public safety concerns and actual reductions in deer populations, and perhaps even moose, simply to appease these groups? Of course not, but when will the MDIFW move to do anything about it? Perhaps the time is now.

Like with turkey hunting, Maine needs to find easier and less expensive ways to encourage more hunters to take up the challenge. Hunters that have little interest in bear hunting might change their mind if hunting bear were part of a Big Game License all the time during open season on bear.

Bag limits should be raised. The late summer bear hunt should have a minimum of a two-bear limit – perhaps three in some areas. If that doesn’t do the trick, then a Spring bear hunt may be necessary. Regulations can be employed to mitigate the killing of cubs as has been proven in other places that have Spring bear hunts.

The MIDFW has done a respectable job of working to ward off the radical animal rights groups bent on closing down bear hunting. They should increase and improve this effort to include everything they do with wildlife management. Two bear referendums have proven that maintaining a passive posture and making management decisions based on social demands is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous, almost childish. If wildlife managers and their administration don’t have or believe the science necessary to responsibly managed their wildlife, they should be out of a job. There should be little room given to social demands when it comes to scientifically managing game.

OPERATIONS

There are certain aspects of running a fish and game department that should be within the control of the commissioner, who, of course, answers to the governor. Open and closed seasons should be within the control of the commissioner. That person, along with the managers and biologists in the department, are the ones who should know what is going on and what is needed, not the Humane Society of the United States, other animal rights groups, or even the Legislature. Such social and political powers spoil any scientific approach at wildlife management. It may take an act of the Legislature to effect such changes.

We live in a time where these powerful animal rights and environmentalists have gained control over our factories of higher indoctrination. The result of this is now showing up in our fish and game departments where the concerns are more about the “rights” of animals and away from a consumptive, use of a natural resources approach to wildlife management.

Scientifically, it has been proven that the North American Model of Wildlife Management works. Those opposed to this form of wildlife management know this and have been working tireless to “change the way wildlife management is discussed.” Along with this has come the social demands to place equal rights and protections on animals as are given to humans.

Outdoor advocates, hunters, trappers, fishermen, as well as all those who understand and believe in the necessity of consumptive use to best manage and control wildlife, should demand that the commissioner be more selective and demanding of those that are hired as biologists and wildlife managers. Candidates should be screened as to their idealism and positions on animal rights and hunting, fishing, and trapping. To responsibly utilize hunting and fishing as part of the overall plans for wildlife management, cannot have room for animal rights advocates or those opposed to this system.

Some have called for money from general taxation to support the MDIFW. It is my opinion this would be a very big mistake. First of all, before any MORE money is dumped in the lap of this department, a complete audit should be undertaken so that all will know exactly what every penny is spent on and where every penny comes from to run the department. If more money is needed, then that has to come from fee increases and not from general taxation. Here’s why.

With money sent to the MDIFW from general taxation, along with it will be demands from the general taxpayer for bigger representation. This opens the door even further for more infiltration by environmentalists who want to “change the way we discuss wildlife management.”

We have seen this already. Where once the MDIFW used to be the department of fish and game, other states have gotten rid of their fish and game names completely, replaced with departments of natural resources.

With a weakening of the managerial understanding and knowledge of how wildlife management should run, further expedites the dreaded end to responsible wildlife management, replaced by VooDoo Science and Romance Biology.

The only way the MDIFW can survive as a bonafide fish and game department is if it remains out of the control of Environmentalism.

The MDIFW does many things well. Some things they have little control over. Certainly there is room for improvement and if others, like me, realize that if we don’t do something to change those things that are sending us in the wrong direction and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the good that we enjoy now will soon be lost. Let’s not let that happen.

Share

Wolves: Those “Spiritual Brothers” Killed By Native Americans

A brief sharing of emails among friends and colleagues show us historical depictions of how Native Americans killed and used the remains of wolves as a tool for hunting as well as headdress and other useful things.

In a Catlin painting, native Americans hide under wolf pelts to hunt buffalo
This photo cracks me up! Boiled wolf pup? Yum!

And if you Google “native american wolf headdress” you’ll see countless historical examples of how native americans so revered the wolf as their “spiritual brothers” they killed them for pelts, disguises and elaborate headdresses and other functional clothing and costumes.

So just how “spiritual” was that nasty, diseased, canine, killing machine?

Share

Idaho Wolf Trappers Wanted

Share

From Wyoming to the Alaskan Peninsula and Minnesota to Finland

A Ph.D Wildlife Ecologist Colleague in Utah just sent the following:


Subject: WY Guide and outfitters Association official publication

For some unknown reason WYOGA sent me a copy of their fall 2018 publication, which is mostly advertising by their members. What I found most interesting was that some outfitters were selling the fact that their areas contained neither wolves or grizzlies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!——–recall that this past fall  a guide in Jackson Hole was killed by a grizzly when he and a client tried to retrieve a downed elk—-the hunter also was mauled——–Charles

As telling and interesting as this is concerning the real effects of wolves and grizzly bears that are both ignored and denied by bureaucrats, “scientists”, politicians, the media and other “Ne’er do wells”: it caused me to think about moose.

I live in Minnesota.  For many decades Minnesota had the only robust moose population in the North Central Lower 48 States.  Northern Minnesota woodlands, bogs and lakes are contiguous with the Manitoba/Ontario woodlands with moose and caribou that extend to James Bay.  Our neighbors are essentially moose-free: North Dakota is a plowed landscape, Wisconsin and Michigan are not sufficiently marshy woodlands for moose with one exception.  Isle Royale, a Michigan island about 15 miles from the Minnesota mainland on the North Shore of Lake Superior.  Moose that have found the island to be particularly hospitable were introduced onto Isle Royale over a century ago when native caribou were declining precipitously.

Wolves were probably clandestinely introduced or swam to Isle Royale about 70 years ago, shortly after (what a coincidence!) the rich owners took a tax break and “donated” it to the government as a National Park.  Since hunting was no longer allowed, moose over-populated the island and the arriving wolves ate lots of moose meat and made lots of puppies since moose are particularly vulnerable to wolves in forested areas and are agreatly preferred high-energy food by wolves.  Soon, the moose population crashed, and the wolves inter-bred and could not find sufficient caloric replacement for the moose in their diet.  So, the Park Service began importing wolves (their idea of “natural” ecosystem “management”) as moose began to increase after the wolf population crash. The non-native moose on the island and the non-native wolves have become characters in a federal government fantasy media favorite about “Nature”.

Up until the 1980’s, Minnesota maintained a reduced wolf population consistent with a robust moose population, profitable livestock operations, a safe environment for hunting dogs, and levels of public safety found comfortable by rural Minnesotans.  In the 1980’s Minnesota’s wolves were declared federal wards under Endangered Species Act provisions.  The state government and its residents no longer had any say in where, how many or what management provisions (actually none, no matter what the wolf is doing short of carrying off a child with tooth imprints already breaking the child’s skin) would apply.

Long story short; wolf populations and wolf range exploded and (among many other bad things) the statewide moose population plummeted.  Hunting for moose (a once-in-a-lifetime permit with tens of thousands applying for expensive permits that were an annual bonanza for the state wildlife agency) was eliminated never to return.  State bureaucrats and their allies like radical organizations and subsidized “scientists” blamed the moose disappearance on “climate change”, ticks and unknown maladies for which only “more” money and personnel was the answer.  Thus moose numbers in Minnesota have declined never to return without drastic wolf reductions that are about as likely as reducing house cats to increase bird populations that manage to avoid power windmills.  The urban populace still reveres the state and federal “bureaucrats” that caused and justified this wolf debacle here, in the West, in Canada and in Europe.

Gone are all the Minnesota children’s books about moose.  Gone are the sightings of moose on Northern highways or in cabin yards or from a canoe along the shore.  Wait a minute; it is true that no one ever sees them anymore but the books, knickknacks, pictures, coffee mugs, Travel signs, stationery, sweatshirts, t-shirts, caps, etc. are all still marketed with the “iconic” male moose logos are everywhere.  Other than a few old fogeys that once hoped to get a moose permit – no one cares that moose are a remnant on the verge of extinction in the state!  Try explaining the role of wolves in all this and you will be lucky if you get off with a silent stare or someone’s back as they walk away.

Simultaneously; wolves have killed all 450 caribou on Michipicoten Island, about 10 miles off the Ontario mainland in NE Lake Superior, in only 4 years.  Manitoba is reporting declining moose populations Province-wide.  Moose are all but extinct in Yellowstone Park for more than a decade since the wolves were introduced over 30 years ago and the elk herd plummeted from 20,000+ to less than 4,000.  Alaska has, despite fierce pressure from radicals and government extremists, conducted periodic and thorough aerial shooting of wolves to protect moose populations that Alaskans prize for winter meat in addition to seeing them.

Wolves are pushing moose in Minnesota into oblivion.  Moose in Manitoba are declining because they have too many wolves and there is little wolf control anymore either by government or (as was the case for centuries in the US) young hunters, trappers and other rural residents exercising their sensible right to minimize wolf numbers for their own benefits like protecting family members, dogs, livestock and their right to “domestic Tranquility”.

However, like the clear dog whistle about how rural America is being changed for the worse by the subtle selling point for hunters that, “some outfitters were selling the fact that their areas contained neither wolves or grizzlies !” who seems to care?  Who will say, “enough is enough”?  How can we reverse these travesties?  I do not know.

Jim Beers

16 December 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

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

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Disease: For the Love of Predators?

Here we go with one more “study” that “suggests” that a reduction in the presence of foxes and perhaps other smaller predators who feast on mice is causing an increase in those rodents/mice that carry and spread diseases such as Lyme Disease.

For at least 6 years there have been ample studies suggesting the same thing. However, one of the problems associated with these so-called “studies” is that in one form or another all causes not desired by the individual or group of individuals seeking desired results, are blamed on “Climate Change,” i.e. Global Warming.

When reading the latest report about predators and the spread of disease, I recalled that I had read not that long ago about Joh Lund, publisher of the Maine Sportsman Magazine stating that he tended to agree that a reduction in the number of foxes could be the root cause of an increase in Lyme and other diseases carried and spread by small rodents like the white-footed mouse that carries Lyme. Lund’s hypothesis is that the reduction of foxes is caused by direct competition from coyotes. With Maine and other states experiencing ample growth in the number of coyotes, wolves, and coywolves, the result is a sharp reduction in foxes and other smaller prey responsible for keeping in check the rodents that carry disease.

Perhaps we can just as easily blame the increased spread of diseases, such as Lyme disease, on a misguided approach to wildlife management. So long as wildlife managers insist that the crux of their decision making will be based upon social demands, i.e. the protection of large predators, then we cannot expect any changes that might result in the reduction of disease-carrying rodents.

To go along with this misguided approach to wildlife management, there are ample groups and individuals with pet projects aimed at protecting one species of animal over the other with all the fabricated excuses for doing so. The larger and wealthier the animal protection group is the more pressure they can put on wildlife managers who insist on making their decisions based on social demands. 

Most state wildlife managing departments openly invite this kind of pressure to be brought on themselves by publicly announcing that they will cave into social demands regardless of any scientific knowledge.

At work, we have those who believe that killing off large numbers of deer will reduce the presence and spread of Lyme Disease. We also have those who love coyotes, wolves, coywolves, and all other breeds and mixed breeds of wild dogs who refuse to allow any managers to necessarily go about killing those animals in order to find some kind of balance that should be desired for a healthy ecosystem and thus creating an atmosphere where people are less likely to get sick.

Perhaps lost in all this modern-day Voodoo Science and Romance Biology is the fact that animals are nasty and spread diseases. I don’t personally believe that this creation was intended to live in our homes or that we should be demanding that disease-spreading animals of any kind should be protected. This misguided hogwash about Nature’s Balance is causing all kinds of problems, the majority of which are not being talked about and people refuse to listen. It’s easier to blame all problems on Climate Change than to address these issues responsibly.

If wildlife biologists and managers, who aren’t completely brainwashed into this modern wildlife management hocus-pocus, were allowed to manage wildlife from a real scientific perspective and an understanding that many of these animals are a resource intended for the people, and void of perverted social demands, perhaps then and only then will be able to do a better job. Until that happens – and I’m not holding my breath, – we can expect more disease problems and safety threats to the people who want to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness. 

Share