March 21, 2018

Making A New Dog? You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

The Urban Dictionary deems the term “Glossification” as: “…when one has applied the appropriate amount of lip gloss to one’s lips to make them look presentable or more attractive.” Some have likened the event to putting lipstick on a pig.

In today’s world of outcome-based theorizing presented as a scientific study, the desire to appear intelligent and thus powerful drives the intellectual rubbish most accept as viable scholarship. This kind of glossification is known as scientism crafted by scientismists. It can be found almost anywhere.

About a year ago a group of scientismists published a supposition, presented as scientific scholarship, about how large predators, particularly the gray wolf, exposed to “anthropogenic food” (man-created food, i.e. livestock, agriculture, pets, garbage, etc.) may cause the evolution of a new species.

Part of the Abstract reads: “We identify five main ways that carnivores might be affected: changes to social structures, behavior and movement patterns, changes in survivorship across wild- to human-dominated environments, evolutionary divergence, and potential speciation.” (emboldening added)

I’m no smarter than most people and so I wanted to make sure I understood what “speciation” meant. According to the dictionary, it means: “the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.”

I suppose if you are a subscriber to the true sense of Darwinian Evolution, this is an acceptable fantasy – that is that because of the existence of man in this world we will force the evolution of species into “new” and “distinct” creatures. Of course, the simpleton’s question might be; if this is a reality, then how many other species have become “new and distinct” since man has walked on earth? (Note: Somewhere in this discussion it is necessary to establish an honest determination of what a species is and other subspecies of said species. Oh, the trouble this has put us into.)

Another question might be why hasn’t man become a “new and distinct” species due to the changes in diet and other influences from our surroundings over the past few millenniums?

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that if a wolf is forced into cohabitation with man that there would be social structure changes? Conditions in which all of us live, including animals, change constantly. We adjust. That’s how we survive. This adaptation results in “behavior and movement patterns, changes in survivorship.”

But then the authors of this piece of intellectual bankruptcy morph these observations into “evolutionary divergence” – that is the “…accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species…”

I suppose that we should expect that all “vegans” will, eventually, morph into a new species of humanoid? What shall we call them?

But let’s forget evolution for a moment and examine the other aspect of this entire illusionary contemplation. All assumptions discussed in this imitation scholarship are based on the fantasy that man should not be present in order that plants and animals will live in “healthy” ecosystems.

In today’s world of scientismic fantasy, most often presented in terms where man doesn’t exist to screw everything up, we hear two basic terms to describe needed efforts to make all things Disneyesque – healthy ecosystems and restoration of ecosystems. This approach epitomizes the definition of subjective – “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

Who gets to decide what is a healthy ecosystem? Whether you agree or not with what someone defines “healthy ecosystem,” when suppositions are made from the perspective of the absence of man as part of their ecosystem, what difference does any of it make? Who should care? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? So long as man walks this earth, all hypotheses in this context are meaningless and serve very little purpose. Who pays for this garbage?

Restoration of an ecosystem can only mean the extinction of man.

Most odd in this intellectual guesswork is that the authors appear as all subscribers to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Their evolution can only occur when something changes. Things cannot evolve unless there is a reason for them to evolve. Yet, in their haste to craft “healthy” ecosystems or to “restore” their ecosystems to fit their definitions of “healthy” and remain that way, they must be insisting on a non-changing environment. To admit otherwise is to destroy their own interpretation of what makes an ecosystem healthy. Isn’t this nothing but circular thinking?

It is one thing to discuss how it might be best to manage our environment, to find ways that man and large predators can share living and recreational landscapes, it is quite another to attempt to devise “healthy” ecosystems based on preconceived theories absent the presence of man and/or to “restore” ecosystems to what someone’s fantasy might be.

The real nonsense may just be that someone actually believes that a wolf that eats man-caused foods will one day become a new and distinct species of dog. What I can guarantee is that in a desire to make this fantasy come true, so long as we continue to protect and force wolves to live in man-settled landscapes, cross-breeding between wolves and other canines will take place. This act will result in yet one more breed of dog. Scientismists will be eager to jump to the conclusion of a “new” and “distinct” species. It will be what fits their narrative and saves them embarrassment.

When the vegans of this world have evolved into a new species of humanoid, we must ensure that both the new humanoid and the new species of dog can live in the same environments without either one of them being influenced by the other. Of course, this is biologically impossible unless perhaps we can evolve them into inanimate objects.




Almost All Good News Out of Maine About Moose

According to the Portland Press Herald, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has made a proposal to increase the number of allotted moose hunting permits by 420, with all of that increase in the far northern part of the state – WMD 1-6.

MDIFW is still estimating the state’s moose population at between 50,000 and 70,000 (far too high) but we mustn’t forget that increasing moose permits to 2,500 is a far cry from the over 4,000 permits allotted by chance in 2013.

However, is there hope on our horizon? Is the MDIFW, and in particular the moose biologists, beginning to see things a bit differently? Maybe. Let’s review some of the comments found in this article.

In the order that they appear: First, “A 20 percent increase is very conservative,” said Judy Camuso, wildlife division director for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “We’re doing it in the core moose range in Maine where we have excellent survival among cow moose – around 90 percent.” Yes, 20% is very small but it is a step in the right direction. I wanted to point out to readers that the remainder of the quote is actually quite meaningless. In pointing out the need to raise moose permits “in core moose range,” Camuso says that is where they find “excellent survival among cow moose.”

Excellent survival means nothing if we don’t know how “survival” is defined in this context. Example: generally if a biologist speaks of calf survival rates, it’s most often based on a yearling calf surviving the winter – recruitment. To speak of cow survival does that mean one winter or for the average lifespan of a female moose? It is important to know.

Second, we read, “Camuso said state biologists are already talking about increasing permits in 2019 dramatically in at least one hunting district where there has been higher calf mortality because of winter tick infestation. Such an increase would be used as a test to see whether culling the moose population in areas with a higher incidence of winter ticks can lead to a healthier herd.” (Emphasis added)

Now that you’ve picked yourself up off the floor, read further: “Winter ticks play a big part in calf survival,” Camuso said. “In the (more southerly) areas of moose range calf mortality is high. Higher densities of a host species usually perpetuates the parasite. And climate is absolutely a part of the equation.” (Emphasis added)

I have to disagree somewhere here. Upon a considerable amount of research on the winter ticks, it would be dishonest to state that climate is “absolutely” a part of winter tick survival. Maine’s climate is not absolutely an influencing factor for winter ticks. Weather phenomenon may play a limited roll in tick survival but it is certain that availability of a host blood meal (moose) is of ABSOLUTE importance.

Third, With any wildlife population, when there are too many animals on the landscape it’s not a good thing,” Camuso said. “Based on the public feedback from polling, people in Maine support a healthy population, even if that means fewer moose.” (Emphasis added)

It is refreshing to actually hear wildlife biologists expressing to the mainstream press that “too many animals…is not a good thing.” If true, it is equally refreshing to learn that people in Maine support fewer moose, if it means healthier moose. Do they really mean that? Do they understand what they are saying?

It is seldom, like almost never, that any wildlife biologist would even suggest that there are limits to the number of pounds of apples you can put in a 5-pound sack. If this proposed test is to take place in a WMD that has a lot of moose – reducing the population to moose to see if it mitigates the tick infestation – showed it to be true in controlling ticks, this would surely upset the global warming applecart. It is for that reason I see little hope that such a test would amount to much of anything, but I guess one can only hope. The myth of global warming is so deeply entrenched in everyone’s way of thinking, it is hopeless to think any of this will change.

However, this news comes as good news – more moose permits to lower population numbers in some areas, and a test area to see if reducing moose numbers reduces tick numbers. I hope MDIFW doesn’t keep the results a secret.


Don’t Look Up?

This could be quite hilarious! A recent study, headlined with advice to “Not Look Up,” states that on a daily basis 800-million viruses float “up” into the atmosphere “where airplanes fly,” and then float back down onto us. Be very, very scared, we’re all gonna die and the world has gone insane.

There should be no caution to people to “don’t look up” because they don’t now. For decades the Federal Government has been dumping all kinds of crap on our heads being sprayed from airplanes. What makes this laughable is that now “a team of scientists” (wink-wink) wants us to think all that toxic waste the government is dumping on us, killing us and making us sick, is the result of our own existence where tiny viruses rise from the tops of our heads and out of our mouths ascending to “where airplanes fly” and fall back on us making us sick.

Isn’t it amazing what and how people are primed to believe and accept most anything? It’s so easy for duped people to unquestionably accept a premise that 800-million tiny viruses each day are falling on our heads, but the same programming has the multitude of animal perverts in complete denial that their precious little doggies carry enough viruses, diseases, and parasites to kill them. That’s how it’s designed to work.

This article warns “Don’t Look Up” but I always warn:


You might discover something that makes you uncomfortable.



Insistence on Global Warming As the Culprit of Increased Winter Ticks

There is no end to this and I suspect it will continue – the constant ignorant echo-chambering of global warming is going to kill all of us and everything that lives. Damn global warming and damn the computers people have become addicted to that creates fake “computer modeling” and then is plastered throughout cyberspace as an effective means of brainwashing the masses into believing that if man was simply killed off, Nirvana would take over.

A recent article in the Bangor Daily News (Maine) contained information about a Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont ongoing moose study. Any discussion of this study inevitably brings up the subject of moose ticks. It’s kind of a no-brainer that vast amounts of winter ticks, also called moose ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) are killing moose – perhaps too many moose.

The article states information they claim is what limits the growth of winter ticks: “Late summer drought, which kills tick eggs, and early snowfall, which kills larval ticks before they attach to a host like a moose.” Unfortunately, as always, this is misleading information but works well with selling news copies. Also, unfortunately, this nonsense is repeated incessantly throughout all media to a point where people, including wildlife biologists, believe only what they read in the Media.

If you believe the studies and quote information from those studies, then doesn’t it make sense that you should believe everything that’s in the studies?

Late summer drought CAN have an effect on tick larvae survival. It may also have an effect on tick egg survival. Regardless, that effect is quite minimal in the grand scheme of things…that is if you want to believe the studies where these quotes come from. In addition, “early snowfall” might kill tick larvae in a roundabout way, but most likely the event itself will not kill ticks in an all-of-a-sudden happening. That doesn’t stop the ignorance and dishonesty.

One such study tells about drought and snow and cold and its effects on the survival of the winter tick larvae. It has all the regurgitated echo-chamber scientism, graphs, bells, whistles and even information on the use of “computer modeling” in arriving at certain conclusions. I guess left out of these media echo-chamber discussions are important statements like: “While alterations in drought may influence distribution of the winter tick, climate conditions, especially temperature and snowfall in the spring and fall seasons, seem to be the major determinants of northern expansion of D. albipictus.”

Take notice that drought “MAY” influence tick distribution. However, what does this study say about temperatures? It says that the most influential factors in the destruction of winter tick larvae are high and low temperature exposures. For example, direct exposure of 6 hours to low temperatures of -13 F cause tick larvae to begin dying off. And, high temperatures over 114 F will do the same. Media doesn’t bother to read any of these studies and so they rely on what somebody else tells them who also never reads and examines the studies in their entirety.

What do these temperatures mean? When tick larvae are on the ground, prior to climbing vegetation as part of their “questing” event, they are commonly found in the leaves where temperatures effectively never reach 114 degrees F or -13 F, say nothing about doing so for 6 hours or more.

Once the tick larvae leave the protection of the leaf litter, they begin climbing vegetation where they search for a host, i.e the moose. Their “quest” is a host for the winter where they remain mostly protected from climate conditions hiding out in about a 100-degree climate until Spring.

In late Summer and early Fall, during the tick’s quest, they are exposed to the elements while waiting in the vegetation. It is during this time that the tick is vulnerable. What we are never told is that the tick at this stage is most vulnerable to wind. Yes, that’s right, wind. Wind can blow the ticks from the vegetation and return them to the ground. They must then begin their slow ascent back up the vegetation. They might miss their ride. It could kill them in the end.

They are also vulnerable to cold temperatures. In Maine, during September and October, if the tick larvae are exposed to temperatures at or below -13-degrees F for six hours or more, according to this one study, they will begin to die off. If early snow comes and remains on the ground, it will end the quest cycle which in turn will limit the number of ticks waiting to attach themselves to a passing moose. Obviously, a shortened or a lengthened quest cycle will alter the number of animals that take up a tick for the winter.

So, please leave your comments below with data that shows when and how often areas of Maine have seen these climatic conditions that will kill tick larvae in September and October. Hint: I won’t be holding my breath while waiting.

But it’s global warming that is causing the increase in winter ticks. That’s we hear perpetually. Okay, let’s play their game. If global warming, as spoken and written about in the Media, is real, then according to them the average temperature in a place like Maine will increase gradually anywhere from 1 – 5 degrees F over the next half-century. With the information I just gave, and the fact that more than likely the authors of this study are believers in global warming (they indicate as such in their study report) how can it pass the straight face test that small average temperature rises are what is causing ticks to increase in the proportions that they have?

Missing from this study, as we often find in about all studies rooted in global warming mythology, is any discussion about how the number of moose effect the number of ticks. We know from what has been learned that the winter tick could never survive if it didn’t have a host. This study indicates that riding on the back of a moose is the safest place in the world for tick larvae to be. When we examine the life cycle of the winter tick, you don’t have to be an over-paid scientist to understand that to kill the tick is to eliminate any one part of its life cycle. Not much we can do about climatic conditions…no, seriously, there isn’t. Get over it. Grow up! There is so much separation in reality between the conditions of drought, high and low temperatures (in Maine) and the survival of the tick larvae that it appears a waste of time trying to blame it all on global warming when perhaps the answer is really very simple.

I am thus reminded of what a veterinary scientist said not very long ago about moose and moose ticks: “Once (winter ticks are) introduced in a moose population in an area, the only known way to control it is to reduce the moose density, especially calves, so that there are no hosts available,” she said. “It would require an antler-less hunt or even a cull of calves and yearlings, which would not be something that would be easy to sell to the public.”

I have, and will continue to hear, all the nonsense about how, because I am a hunter, I just want to hunt and kill moose. Not exactly true. For example, I am a hunter. I hunt almost 100% only deer. I have never hunted moose, nor have I ever applied for a moose permit to do so. I have no plans for my future to do that either. I like moose meat. I like it a lot. I like deer venison more.

Consider, however, the ignorance of the statement that all I want to do is hunt moose or that all I want is for hunters to hunt moose. Once the moose herd was reduced to levels where events of winter ticks stop their epizoodic levels, hunting of moose will return to a level to maintain a moose herd. There might be a short burst of increased moose hunting to reduce the population, but certainly, it will not continue.

As far as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife managing moose numbers at levels to please the public to be able to see moose, it is time to end that dangerous practice. Growing moose so people can drive around in climate-controlled autos and view moose, needs to end and end now. Look what it is doing to our moose. Are we to allow 50% of our moose calves to suffer a slow death so someone in an SUV can gawk at a moose? Get off your lazy ass and walk in the woods to see moose the way some of the rest of us do.

But nothing will change. Obsessed with global warming and the money and convenient excuses that come with it, enables the creation of more and more useful idiots.

However I must say,




Hunting: Biological or Political?

A Maine outdoor writer and associate asks whether caribou hunting in Canada is political or biological. “Given the fact that the native communities in Quebec and Labrador apparently have not had their caribou harvest quotas decreased by government closures, some are questioning whether the sport hunting ban is as much political as it is biological.”

I could ask why V. Paul Reynolds might not think any sport hunting isn’t political. But I see things just a tad differently than Mr. Reynolds.

It is a shame that we have now reached a point in North America where this question of whether hunting is still considered part of the North American Model for Wildlife Management, where allotments or management plans are a scientific approach to manipulating and sustaining a healthy and productive population of any species or politics and social demands rue the day – a bitter regret perhaps not realized yet but eventually will be.

Caribou hunting in Quebec and Labrador Provinces has been suspended until further notice. According to Quebec’s Minister of Forests, the reason is “sustainability of the species.” Does this announcement come without warning? If so, what has happened in these provinces that so abruptly demolished a caribou herd that hunting goes from “normal” to zero in no time flat?

Sounds to me like either politics and social demands by the usual suspects or extremely poor caribou management. Take your pick.

One thing is for sure. The plan to “change the way wildlife management is discussed and carried out” appears to be working just swell.


Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.



Is Maine’s Muzzleloader Deer Season in the Best Interest of the Deer?

I was sent a link to a short article written by Maine’s Bill Green about Maine’s muzzleloader deer hunting season that runs until this coming Saturday. Green quotes muzzleloader advocates: “It just gives you that two weeks to get out there in the woods with less people out there.” And, “You have to take your time and I think while you’re hunting you get flashbacks of the way that it was a couple hundred years ago and that’s kind of neat.

I often get a lot of flack back from readers when, to them, I don’t support increased opportunities to hunt, fish and trap. In reality, I do always support increased opportunities, but only when that increase is equitable and is not detrimental to the sustainability of any game species.

If muzzleloaders are looking for some extra time in the woods “with less people out there,” certainly there must be a period of time except during the first two weeks of December (explanation to follow). But consider that this allowance, even though anyone who chooses can buy a Muzzleloader License and buy a muzzleloader gun…..or can they? Is this a form of elitism, exclusive to those who can afford a license and another gun and a deterrent to those who can’t? Perhaps. I doubt that is considered. I doubt anyone actually cares.

Who can argue the enjoyment one gets being in the woods, even when carrying a gun, rifle, muzzleloader, or even a camera. Having “flashbacks” of maybe what it was like “a couple hundred years ago?” Two hundred years ago, did deer hunters have inline muzzleloaders that can be cleaned and reloaded in 30 seconds? Maybe some have “thoughts” about what it was like, but I don’t think there are any hunters who hunted 200 years ago so that they could have a “flashback.”

Aside from any discussion about primitive versus modern muzzleloader equipment, if a guy wants those thoughts, can’t he have them during the regular firearm deer hunting season? Or other times and places?

Here are some questions. Is the muzzleloader season just another money-making pet project for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW)? How about a pistol season? What of a muzzleloader pistol season? Can we get a season for atlatl hunting? Let’s make a season for only shotguns. One for only senior citizens. And one for veterans. A separate one for senior citizens who are also veterans. Where does this end?

But let’s get to the most important issue – the deer. Hunting rules for muzzleloader season are the same as during the firearms season. If you don’t have an “Any-Deer Permit” you have to hunt bucks only. Traditionally, the deer’s annual rut (mating season) falls around the third week of November. That doesn’t mean that that is the only week that deer mate. As soon as any female deer comes into “heat” (estrus) a male deer, with the opportunity, will mate with it. If during the month of November, a doe deer is not successfully bred, that doe will continuously remain in estrus until it gets bred. Science has shown that sometimes that breeding will not happen until late in November or into early December.

With that understanding and knowledge of how bucks run themselves ragged during rutting season, an honest question might be is it in the best interest of those deer, coming off or still in the rutting process, to continue allowing hunters to harass them? We know that bucks will lose most of their valuable, stored fats, needed for winter survival, during the rut. Because of this, buck mortality can be high during the long winter months. That time between the end of the rut and when deer are forced to “yard up” can determine whether a buck can survive the winter. Do we really want hunters, harassing those bucks even further during this period of time?

If the deer population is strong enough to support a two-week muzzleloader season, perhaps a more equitable increase in hunter opportunity might be to extend the firearm season for deer another day or two. At least let’s find a better time to give those muzzleloader hunters a chance to be alone in the woods and dishonestly have “flashbacks” about what it was like 200 years ago. Oh, please!


Wolves and Chaos

A Talk Given at the Annual Agri-Women Conference

Bloomington, Minnesota

18 November 2017


 Jim Beers


It is an honor to be invited to speak to you about wolves in the Lower 48 States.

Your 2005 Veritas Award hangs in my office.  This talk, that I expect will have some far-reaching national impacts, has been composed with my appreciation for that Award in mind. What I say about wolves is equally true about federal grizzly bears, spotted owls, smelt, suckers and frogs that have evolved into tools destroying Rural America in so many ways.  This is the result of a federal law, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that has created unaccountable bureaucrats and their bureaucracies that work with extremist environmental and animal rights groups to enact a multitude of hidden agendas that deeply trouble Rural America today.  It is with this in mind that I hope what I say here about wolves and the remedy I propose will be of use to not only those with wolf problems but also to those that realize the need for reform of the ESA and several other environmental and animal rights laws that are eroding rural life, rural families and rural communities throughout our country.

I assume some, if not most, of you are troubled by wolves to some degree and it is to you that I am directing my observations.

  1. History – After more than two decades of speaking and writing about wolves I have learned one sure thing.  That is that despite:

–       Wolves are ubiquitous and number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions considering the difficulty of counting them and the vastness of Asia and the tendencies of European and Lower 48 bureaucrats to manipulate unchallengeable numbers.

–       The millions of dollars stolen by federal bureaucrats, that were never even admonished, from Excise Taxes intended for state wildlife programs in order to trap, transport, introduce and protect initial wolf introductions (something that Congress had refused to authorize or fund) in the Upper Rockies.

–       The preposterous collusions between federal bureaucrats and radical NGO’s (one of which hired an agency Director as a top Manager after she had appointed them to “manage” livestock “compensation”) to create the illusion of “compensating” farmers and ranchers but not dog owners for animal property killed or maimed by wolves.

–       The impacts on sheep and cattle operations from higher costs (for protection), increased stress on agriculture families, animal losses, and lower land values as with a New Mexico rancher that could neither sell his ranch nor give into his son because of persistent wolf predation thereby making it a cheap target only for government purchase or easement.

–       The steady federal progress in claiming increasing authority over state wildlife jurisdictions that was enabled by federal exclusive ESA authority over the wolves and their interfaces with all manner of human activities from ranching and hunting, to dogs and human safety.

–       The official denials of human history with wolves from Plato to the present regarding wolf attacks and wolf impacts on humans, their property and their rural societies in general.

–       The denial of what is an increasingly common phenomenon; cross-breeding between wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs in North America and Europe.  Wolves also opportunistically breed with and produce viable offspring with dingoes and jackals.

–       The denial and cover-up of both recent human attacks by wolves and the dangers posed by over 30 deadly and debilitating diseases and infections from Rabies and Brucellosis to Foot-and-Mouth, Parvo, Distemper Mad Cow carried and spread by wolves.

–       The reduction of big game herds (Minnesota lost so many moose as wolves increased that moose hunting was suspended with no indication of ever being resumed) and the sizeable revenue losses supporting wildlife programs due to the losses of hunting opportunities and the myriad businesses they support in rural communities.

–       The losses of hunting (bear, cougar, rabbit, bird, etc.) dogs, watchdogs, pet dogs, tracking dogs and guard (livestock) dogs to wolves and the resulting further loss of hunters and the benefits (economic, social, traditional, cultural, etc.) of their hunting and things such as the availability of trained hounds for tracking problem bears, cougars and missing persons.

–       The fact that wolves are now present and spreading in over half the Lower 48 States; an area they find rich in food, space and low to non-existent human harassment; does not preclude the time when wolf densities will eventually exceed the available garbage, game and domestic animal food sources causing human attacks, livestock losses and disease problems to multiply to the annual levels sustained to great human life and property loss in Asia for centuries.

–       I could mention more such wolf impacts like diversion of millions from state wildlife managementcover-up of dollars spent, being spent and estimated to be spent both federally and state-wise on wolvescorruption of Universities and academics for grants, future academic recognition and resulting tenure for providing necessary justificationsappalling “nature” myth indoctrinations taught in schools such as the “necessity” of wolves in “the ecosystem”, the “necessity” of “restoring native wildlife”, and the “reasons” children and the elderly should not fear wolves in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States.

Despite all of the above; the “one sure thing” I learned is, no one except those being directly impacted really cares.  The politicians get votes from urban dreamers; the NGO’s get donations and subscriptions to accomplish their hidden agendas from free-roaming buffalo in agricultural areas to transferring rural private property to government land control; academic grants and tenure; and the bureaucrat raises, promotions, bonuses, and larger retirements.  It is fair to say that increasing areas of rural America and numbers of rural Americans find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place regarding wolves.

  1. Today– Wolves are present today in over half of the Lower 48 States.  There is really only one wolf but federal bureaucrats proliferate imaginary “breeds” (like dog breeds) by declaring “red” wolves in the Carolinas and “Mexican” wolves in Arizona and New Mexico over strenuous local opposition for decades.  Wolves in MN, WI and MI are now called “Great Lakes” Wolves. Wolves in the NW, though descended from wolves trapped at undisclosed locations in N Canada are simply called grey wolves.  Promised low wolf levels in “restorations” were blown through by bureaucrats and NGO’s like Bonnie and Clyde blowing through a roadblock and there is still no agreement about either “too high” or “too low” populations and distributions; tolerable methods (if any) of controlling or managing wolves; or the losses sustained or stresses endured by rural residents forced to live with wolves..

Wolves are federally “Listed” under the ESA in nearly all Lower 48 States.  Urban-controlled states like CA, IL and WA also protect them under strict state laws while rural states like UT and ND try to keep them out. Other states like MN remain quiescent explaining moose declines as due to climate change and an attack on a sleeping camper in a USFS campground as due to a wolf with a “deformed brain”.  The majority of all states with wolves publish questionable data, cover-up attacks and damages, and generally divert funds and manpower clandestinely as they attempt to navigate these political rapids with their feet in two canoes – one belonging to powerful urban political pro-wolf lobby groups; the other belonging to those rural residents putting up with one wolf outrage after another as wolves (like dogs and coyotes) learn to evade controls, expand their territories and find new food sources in the “food-rich” and “unused-to-wolves” settled landscapes of the Lower 48.  I have met rural mothers that no longer let their sons go camping or on Scout overnights where wolves have been seen or have killed dogs, especially where federal government-introduced and protected grizzlies are also now present in the Lower 48 States.

Some states like ID, MT, and WY have exerted political pressure to have “Wolf Management Returned to the State” and others like WI are pursuing similar relief as politicians play with them by offering “proposed” legislation passed in a Congressional Committee as a sign of progress or “Management Agreements” that are little more than dictates from federal overseers to be maintained and paid for by state agencies with money from wherever they can find it.  Wolf-advocate-NGO’s, bureaucrats and certain Congressional staffers then undermine it, using money and political lobby machines in Washington with varying intensity that is no more than a reflection of the Administration and Congressional temperature du jour.  But as appealing as that sounds to those dealing with wolves, “Returning Management” whether by an “Agreement” or a legislative exception is merely a placebo with no lasting effect meant only to quiet anti-wolf complaints and currently keep the wolf issue low on the radar as the complaints of the last few years die down and now as the Trump phenomenon tears at the federal establishment.

Those states “gifted” “their” wolf management by federal bureaucrats and politicians must:

–       Maintain federally-dictated levels and distributions of wolves.

–       Pay millions annually with wildlife program revenues and resources such as facilities, equipment and manpower to control, census, administer, enforce, study, defend (in court), compensate owners, justify wolves as they impact hunting, ranching, farming, rural life, rural economies, etc.

–       Publicly depend on initially high wolf “license” sales that are inadequate to begin with for managing wolves.  Over time the sales of wolf licenses decline as the combination of low harvest numbers (wolves are difficult to hunt or trap) and large numbers of license buyers that become discouraged.  This causes a fallback to looser regulations for rural people to kill wolves whenever problematic that is intolerable to federal overseers and a steady clandestine diversion of state funding from wherever it can be grabbed without complaint.

–       The costs of “managing” wolves in accord with federal mandates are truly astronomical and divert current state wildlife program efforts to degrees and cost levels hidden by state and federal bureaucrats.  Not too far into the future, a backward glance by taxpayers and (former) state wildlife program beneficiaries will expose a diminishment of wildlife funding and effort from license sale revenue declines due to increased hunter declines; a tax burden increase on state general revenues for wildlife annual and specific control demands to “compensation” claims for livestock and dogs that will be unsustainable. Increases in wildlife problems from livestock depredation increases to sustained human safety and health concerns alone will be well beyond state or federal sustained attention given the loss of hunters, trappers, trained dogs and both the usefulness and benefits from revenue and animal controls they once provided rural America

Keep in mind that these things, after the past two decades, are currently relatively quiet where wolves are expanding.  Relatively quiet federal bureaucrats are watching the hustling and dissembling state bureaucrats’ striving to please the powerful NGO’s while misleading rural Americans simultaneously.  The NGO’s are ready to pounce with lawsuits about killing too many wolves, humane law violations, poor documentation, and government land closure claims.  New laws, amendments and regulatory tweaks are always being discussed behind closed doors but there is a prevalent note of caution as the danger of overreaching in this period of political reform and turbulence calls for bureaucratic patience.

IIIThe Problem  State wildlife agencies, like their federal counterparts, are now majority employees that cannot (because they are “educated” in Universities that oppose it) “manage” wildlife or plant environments: they can and will only “save” and close an unending procession of lands and human activities as they build a Brave New World of “saving” everything in Rural America except human society.  Wildlife biologists no longer manage wildlife for human benefit just like today’s “forester” no longer manages timber for human benefit and the “range manager” no longer manages “the range” for human benefit.  Both the bureaucracies and the Universities that formerly taught these sciences have become islands of ideologues arrayed against and not with the Rural America that they intend to vacate and then claim.  Behind the carefully-designed persona of USFS, BLM, USFWS, EPA, et al lays bureaucrats with the power of Soviet Commissars and agendas that are truly dangerous to Rural America.

What applies to wolves, applies to grizzly bears, spotted owls, Delta smelt, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and a host of similar select wildlife species.  They are grist for a myriad of hidden agendas not least of which is the personal and organizational enrichment of bureaucrats; politicians; academics, environmental extremists; and allied conservation and human use organizations like those representing hunters, dog owners and animal husbandry businesses.

I will state here unequivocally that if you think you have trouble with wolves, you are mistaken.  Your basic problem is not with wolves: your basic problem is with government. Unless and until you resolve this government aspect of the wolf problems; you are doing only what Neville Chamberlain did when waving a piece of paper and saying that his meeting with “Mr. Hitler” had brought “peace in our time”. Unless and until you limit the authority being exercised by federal bureaucrats under the ESA; things with wolves and other wildlife will only get worse to degrees and in ways I hesitate to mention because of the disbelief it would engender.

If you think I exaggerate, consider how far this bureaucrat empowerment has come in the last two decades:

–       Federal bureaucrats can steal millions from state programs with no consequences.

–       Federal bureaucrats can introduce wolves despite Congressional refusal to authorize it, again with no consequences.

–       Federal bureaucrats can name and rename “species” and “populations” in ways that further extremist agendas without challenge.

–       Federal bureaucrats can “take” (with “Habitat” claims) Private Property; decimate rural economies; destroy rural communities, local governments and rural tax revenue without any responsibility.

–       Federal bureaucrats can get “secret” appropriations for clandestine operations as USFWS did over a decade ago with $14M to find a bird extinct for 70 years, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker.

–       Federal bureaucrat appointees head up multi-million dollar organizations when Administrations change and they resign.  It is so common and routine in today’s world of transferring retirement accounts to new jobs that the “musical chairs” between Federal, State, NGO and Academic players in these issues for full-time, part-time and after-retirement grants and positions that business card stores are keeping busy.

–       Federal bureaucrats exercise discretion such that oil companies with modest sludge pits that kill a few grebes are publicly prosecuted, fined and pilloried while wind turbine farms killed millions of protected birds for decades with impunity free from prosecution and publicity only to be granted future carte blanche bird kill permits even including hundreds of eagles.

A government problem, i.e. unfettered bureaucratic power, can only be resolved by a government solution as was learned by Americans fed up with the effects of Prohibition in the early 1930’s.  All the “ecosystem” arguments and all the denial of history and all the faux science about willows along streams and “Alpha” wolves, etc. are simply window dressing to make you feel good and to encourage urban voters to ever-greater oppression of rural residents and their communities in the name of “biodiversity” and “native species”.

  1. The Solution– As a retired wildlife biologist with 30+ years of federal bureaucracy; a year as a Congressional Fellow on Capitol Hill; and as a writer and speaker on these matters for over 15 years: I believe there are only two solutions that hold any hope and we must choose one of them if there is to be any hope for rural America.  Unless and until the arbitrary and unfettered power of federal bureaucrats to manipulate animals like wolves (deadly, destructive, ubiquitous and not even a species) and other wild animals as they wish; and unless the unjust and ruinous aspects of the authority and jurisdiction of federal power simply absorbing State and Local government roles and Constitutional responsibilities under the shadow of the ESA (and other such federal laws (not just regulations) like – The Airborne Hunting ActAnimal Welfare ActMarine Mammal Protection ActNational Forest Management ActNational Park Service ActNational Wildlife Refuge Administration ActWild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros ActWilderness Act; the broadened and abused Executive Order aspects of the Antiquities Act, and the federal drafting and use of UN Convention Mandates to manufacture increased federal authority over everything from takings and guns to wildlife, rural land use and state and local government roles in general.

Choose one:

  1. Amend the Endangered Species Act to redirect federal authority back into line with Constitutional precedence and understanding.  This would require that all ongoing and future federal Endangered Species activity in every state (planning, funding, land acquisition, property easement, public land use changes, compensation, wildlife control, introductions, habitat modifications, human activity regulation, private property controls, etc.) must have the participation and a signed approval on a five-year basis from the Governor of the State.  I would recommend that State laws be simultaneously amended or drafted to give those Counties directly affected by any proposed Endangered Species activity preferential status in any state approval process.  For instance require that the Governor MUST have the agreement of 50(?), 75(?) percent of the Counties DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ENDANGERED  ACTIONS and that there must be at least three public hearings on the proposed actions before the Counties affected are asked to approve or oppose the action.  It is no more right for federal bureaucrats to oppress rural communities with lesser political clout than it is for the Madison/Milwaukee, Wisconsins or the Portland/Eugene, Oregons of the USA to oppress their less numerous rural neighbors, their economies and their “ways-of-life”.  Assuring state approval and involvement in any federal endangered species activity returns a very real check on currently unchecked federal bureaucratic power.  Assuring a serious rural voice in any and all state approval action brings a balance to those voiceless rural Americans often harmed unknowingly by urban neighbors with “no real dog in the fight”.  Making the point that, unlike the supporters of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States, those of us harmed by and opposing effects of an onerous federal law believe in changing that law to eliminate the harms while providing for achieving the original intent of the law.


  1. Repeal the Endangered Species Act and restore the historic American jurisdictional roles regarding wild animals.  This might well be the best solution for wildlife as well as rural Americans.  Let those noticing and concerned about the diminishment of a wild species or population first look to their own funding and conclusions.  Let them hire academic specialists to confirm the status and make recommendations, if necessary.  Let them raise money and if private funding or voluntary modifications cannot be generated, let them turn to state government for funding or to ask the state DNR/F&G for help.  Absent sufficient support, let those concerned seek to build a partnership between their counterparts in nearby states to institute beneficial activities.  Absent success in that regard, let them appeal to their federal representatives through a planning process like that outlined under #1 above complete with state approval for presentation to the Appropriate Congressional Committees.  That is the American way and a recent example of the success of this approach is the discovery of and application of biological controls to limit the national expansion of Purple Loosestrife by several state wildlife agencies utilizing the Excise Taxes collected on arms and ammunition for state wildlife programs.

Neither solution requires pages of complex gibberish or defies understanding by the general public.  Each is simple, saves money and enhances Rural American life in more ways than we have time to list here.  Only when one is accomplished can any state, through its local governments take the pulse of those living with wolves and begin to implement:

  1. If, and if so where, wolves will be tolerated?
  2. What state legislation, if any, is required?
  3. Are capable employees available, trained and willing to carry out these tasks?
  4. How many wolves will be tolerated?
  5. When and how wolves will be controlled and by whom, at what cost?
  6. How will tolerable wolf levels be achieved and how will they be maintained?
  7. What methods and circumstances will be tolerated or banned?
  8. How much is the cost; where does it come from; and who pays it?

These are all fertile subjects for a talk when next you invite me to speak.

  1. Chaos as Opportunity– I sense an exasperation and hopelessness that I have encountered for many years, in many locations.  If this is even possible and the two answers could fit on a postcard; how come it has not been done already?  The answer is, your level of frustration and hopelessness has never been so high, so widespread, and your level of understanding about where all this is leading has never been as thorough.

Something else has changed that makes what has been believed to be impossible, possible.  It is called Chaos and it may be our chance to make the unmentionable, mentionable and to reverse the rule of bureaucrat commissars to restore the Constitutional rule of free men and women by a limited government as envisioned in the Constitution.

Consider the following historic results from Chaos.  Remember that some are good, some are bad, but all were unforeseen and significant thanks to the advantages presented by chaos and the ability of supporters to capitalize on that chaos:

–       From 1773 (Boston Tea Party) to 1781(Yorktown) we fought a hard and divisive Revolutionary War.  Six years later in 1787 we united under a bitterly-argued Constitution no one really anticipated and that has been uniquely functional to this day.  Absent the tumult and chaos of those years, it is unlikely that any such document and nation would have ever existed.

–       In 1865 Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox.  From 1864 to January 1959 14 states were admitted to the Union, of those, 12 (Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc.) were admitted with large percentages of the state (unlike MN, IL, MI, MS, etc.) withheld by federal fiat in defiance of existing federal legislation and precedence under the Property Clause of the US Constitution and the Northwest Ordinance.  This reserved land formed the nucleus of today’s “federal” estate and the land managing agencies roaming out of control today.  Much of the motivation for withholding was the residue of a federal victory over the states and the feeling that states should not be so powerful again.  That federal hegemonic view has become an ideal for modern environmentalists and federal bureaucrats that ignore Local governments and simply corrupt State governments.  I submit this would have not been possible but for the chaos of the Civil War.

–       During 1913 to 1921 Woodrow Wilson was President and the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) & 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) were passed; Federal Reserve was founded; US Military and Civil Service were segregated; World War I; invasion of Mexico and Haiti; Russian Revolution; collapse of European Monarchies, and finally, the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) passed.  I suggest that the chaos of those years made the passage of this latter very bad CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (not a law) possible and advocates took advantage of that chaos to gain passage.

–       The period 1929 to 1933 saw a Stock Market Crash, Bank failures, inflation, Depression and the beginnings of the Dust Bowl and the collapse of US agriculture and much of rural America.  One of the key platforms that elected Franklin D Roosevelt in 1933 was Repeal of the 18th Amendment (i.e. Prohibition) that then took place when he was elected.  Would Repeal of a 15 year-old Constitutional Amendment (a much higher bar than a “law”) have been possible without all the chaos of that period?  I think not.

–       The chaotic 1960’s and 70’s consisted of Free Love, open drug use, Vietnam, anti-War riots and the Watergate fiasco.  As President Nixon navigated the Vietnam withdrawal, Watergate and Resignation: and as President Ford sought election in his own right, there was an orgy of federal environmental/animal rights legislation and an explosion of bureaucracies and bureaucrats to “save” fill-in-the-blank and gain sympathetic votes.  This included the ESA, AWA, MMPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Mgt. Act, Estuarine Act, Noxious Weed Act, F&W Coordination Act, USFS Organic Act, Fisheries Conservation Act, Fur Seal Act, NEPA, NPS Act, RF Recreation Act, River and Harbor Act, Water Bank, Wilderness Act, Wild Horse & Burro Act to name but a few.  Add in new Bird Treaties entered into to expand US federal authority over more bird species like pelicans, certain hawks and owls, and cormorants; plus UN Conventions on everything from Culture and Heritage Declarations to International ES Trade and Polar Bears and all the federal offices, agencies and their costs exerting all these new authorities and one wonders how any private property, state environmental responsibility or especially rural communities still exists. I strongly believe that this environmental “awakening” would not look anything like it is were it not for the 60’s and two desperate Presidents in search of those big voter blocs in US cities to save their Administrations by giving unaffected voters imaginary benefits “out there”.

–       Finally we have the Chaos of today.  I speak here not of the chaotic sharpening of Party animosities; the turbulent and unexpected-by-many election results; the politicizing of sports; or the knock-down drag-out issues before Congress.  Let us focus on two things.

First, there is the proliferation of “Sanctuary Cities” and even “Sanctuary States”.  These cities and states vowing to give no cooperation to federal Immigration Laws and personnel are, almost without exception, the very vote-rich Cities and States Nixon and Ford looked to for support.  They are the hotbeds of the “more wolves”, “more smelt”, “more grizzly bears”, “more government land control authority” and “more rural-oriented federal regulation” coalitions.  Consider the irony here.  They are enamored of using their federal voting majorities to oppress rural Americans and rural communities while simultaneously justifying their defiance of federal laws they don’t happen to like such as immigration.

Second, consider the outrage in high-tax states like NY, CA & NJ against the potential loss of the federal tax write-off of State taxes as federal taxes are being “reformed”.  These high-tax states’ political representatives might be amenable to rural and low-tax states’ cooperation in return for cooperation in resolving the Endangered Species “problem” as tax reform, debt control and American businesses are front-and-center politically.

I suggest these two issues, among others, might be used to our advantage.

  1. Taking Advantage – We are entering into a contentious political period where incumbents, upstart challengers and extreme political philosophies will be vying for your vote with great intensity.  If we were to form alliances with like-minded groups and lobby for something simple, straightforward and understandable such as either of the two proposals I have mentioned; is it not possible that chaotic circumstances might invite in a Repeal or Amendment movement as an issue much like FDR’s Repeal of Prohibition emerged in the midst of complex turbulences and political opportunity?

Would not urban candidates and incumbents be able to explain their support for Repeal or Amendment of the ESA (and other such harmful laws?) necessitated by the corruption, economic and other impacts from human safety to ecosystem diversification losses it has spawned, as comparable to the way city dwellers have reacted to and view Immigration enforcement issues?   Could not a wide, national coalition support one of these straightforward proposals when they understand what the alternatives are in light of what we know today?  Would not most Americans support a change that empowers their state government’s authority and revenue, while reinvigorating Local government revenue and authority?  Wouldn’t such change enhance the power of State and Local governments to protect and enhance rural communities, their businesses, and their “domestic Tranquility” and “general Welfare” to quote the Preamble to the Constitution?  You might even learn some things about “your” representative lobby group as you seek to make changes that really matter.

Imagine, if all the hunting, trapping and fishing “Forever’s”, “Unlimited’ s”, “Associations” and “Foundations” allied themselves with the Cattlemen, the Timber industry, the Farm Bureau and Farm organizations, the many Dog organizations, Agriculture businesses and many rural society organizations from churches and community groups to local political organizations and Scout groups to advocate a simple message.  If they were to begin telling the media; the school teachers; their Local, State and Federal politicians; their Political Party; their friends and relatives; their Universities; and the entire world that they demand change.  Not that they request change or that something like it would be nice and we would be so grateful.

That change is simply that we in Rural America, like many of our urban counterparts, will no longer tolerate a federal law (the ESA) that harms our families and communities like several States and many large Cities perceive current immigration laws.  Unlike those States and Cities, we want to either Amend or Repeal the onerous Endangered Species Act.  Either we:

  1. Amend the ESA to provide for public input by requiring that any and all ESA activity must be done under a species specific 5-year Plan with the participation of the Counties directly affected and Approved by the Governor of the State; or
  2. Repeal the ESA and allow species-specific concerns for wild plants and animals to receive attention first by grass-roots advocates and then only when failing to resolve the problem through a progression of appeals and proposals through Universities, national organizations of all stripes, local governments, and State governments; as a last resort appeal to the US Congress with a specific proposal that, like the Amendment proposed above, can be developed with Local participation and Governor approval on a 5-year basis.

This is a truly American solution to a problem vexing a particular segment of society and would be good not only for rural communities but better for the wildlife since locally-supported wildlife communities are good for both people and wildlife in the long run.  Depending on which (1 or 2) tack is chosen, at an opportune time demand a State law that states the Governor must have the approval of 51% or 60% of the County governments in those Counties directly affected by any federal Endangered Species activity before approving such federal actions.

Who can oppose Local participation?  Who can oppose a voice for the rural communities faced with often onerous federal actions not necessitated by national defense?  What could be more simple and understandable to the general public or even politicians?  If not now, when?

The next three, and possibly seven, years are our best chance to correct the anti-rural government problems we face. The upcoming (in one year) mid-term elections will be important opportunities but the next Presidential election in three years is a golden opportunity complete with plenty of time for preparation.  Depending on 2020, the following 2-year and 4-year elections may well be the greatest and perhaps even last golden opportunity presenting itself to us to straighten out these problems. Problems everyone tells us are settled and unchangeable (where have we heard that before?) but that are suddenly open to change and potentially resolvable.

Just as the Founding Fathers emerged from Colonial status into the most powerful nation in the world; and corruption-fighters emerged successfully from the nightmare of Prohibition thanks in large measure to a chaotic period involving unrelated issues: we can take advantage of this chaos we find ourselves in to improve a wide array of government environmental abuses in order to make a better Nation for ourselves, our environment and our descendants.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about what I believe is the paramount issue facing Rural America today.

We have time for a few questions.

Jim Beers

18 November 2017

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 is an advocate for a Rural American Renewal that benefits rather than ruins the culture, economy and surroundings of rural 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:


Data from: Compensatory selection for roads over natural linear features by wolves in northern Ontario: implications for caribou conservation

*Editor’s Note* – This editor would like to know two things. One, does the study account for fluctuations in wolf densities? In other words, while one probably cannot argue that the availability of corridors, man-made or natural, increases the rate of depredation of prey, how does this rate vary according to the variance of wolf populations and prey populations?

Second, is this fundamental suggestion within this study, a generalization that can be carried over to other predator/prey relationships that seem to require travel corridors to carry out their kills?

Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Ontario are a threatened species that have experienced a substantial retraction of their historic range. Part of their decline has been attributed to increasing densities of anthropogenic linear features such as trails, roads, railways, and hydro lines. These features have been shown to increase the search efficiency and kill rate of wolves. However, it is unclear whether selection for anthropogenic linear features is additive or compensatory to selection for natural (water) linear features which may also be used for travel. We studied the selection of water and anthropogenic linear features by 52 resident wolves (Canis lupus x lycaon) over four years across three study areas in northern Ontario that varied in degrees of forestry activity and human disturbance. We used Euclidean distance-based resource selection functions (mixed-effects logistic regression) at the seasonal range scale with random coefficients for distance to water linear features, primary/secondary roads/railways, and hydro lines, and tertiary roads to estimate the strength of selection for each linear feature and for several habitat types, while accounting for availability of each feature. Next, we investigated the trade-off between selection for anthropogenic and water linear features. Wolves selected both anthropogenic and water linear features; selection for anthropogenic features was stronger than for water during the rendezvous season. Selection for anthropogenic linear features increased with increasing density of these features on the landscape, while selection for natural linear features declined, indicating compensatory selection of anthropogenic linear features. These results have implications for woodland caribou conservation. Prey encounter rates between wolves and caribou seem to be strongly influenced by increasing linear feature densities. This behavioral mechanism – a compensatory functional response to anthropogenic linear feature density resulting in decreased use of natural travel corridors – has negative consequences for the viability of woodland caribou.<<<Read More>>>


Information Regarding Whitetail Deer Dispersal

Although I’m not a huge fan of Quality Deer Management, they have provided some interesting graphics on deer dispersal, ages of dispersal, timing, distance and what effects all of that.

Please visit this link to view.