November 23, 2017

Words of Wolf Wisdom from Hay River, NWT

By James Beers

Words of Wolf Wisdom from Hay River, NWT

The sort of incidents reported by THE HUB newspaper in Hay River happen in The Lower 48 States and now in Europe more than is reported.  This is so for a host of reasons.

The fact that this took place near Hay River, NWT in Canada (South across the Great Slave Lake from Yellowknife) makes it different from The Lower 48 States only in the fact that wolves are harassed more (hunting, trapping, protection of property, self-defense) in NWT and therefore are less likely habituated to people that never threaten them in that sparsely settled landscape.  Recognizing that fact, should give pause to Lower 48 State and other rural residents in settled landscapes that are increasingly living amongst wolves that go near homes routinely and through towns at night as they forage and explore communities and residences much as happens in the settled landscapes of parts of Russia and (now) Europe.  If wolves in very sparsely settled landscapes like Hay River and the (mentioned) Alaskan Peninsula will attack humans; how much more likely are more habituated wolves in Wisconsin (Green Bay lady?), Minnesota (USFS Campground on Lake Winnibigoshish), Saskatchewan (Kenton Carnegie 2005), Idaho (Craters of the Moon?), Oregon (elk hunter one week ago), Greece (see my Wolves and Pillows article of 21 OCT.), Germany (some being investigated currently) and elsewhere to attack and kill humans (especially the elderly and the young)?

Note the sentence in the article by “a carnivore biologist with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Yellowknife” that, “In general, I’d say a wild animal that hasn’t been close to people is pretty leery, pretty cautious and stays clear.”

What goes unsaid in this doublespeak found even in the Far North is, that “a wild animal that is close to people (as is the case in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States) is not ‘pretty leery, pretty cautious and stays clear’”.  In other words, the more habituated to people is the wolf; the more dangerous is the wolf to the people!  Therefore the more settled the landscape, the more dangerous are wolves or bears or cougars in such landscapes for that matter.

The reason this is not believed by the urban public is due to more than years of animal rights propaganda about benevolent wolves being somewhat like unicorns flitting about the countryside eating only non-native plants while protecting lambs, calves and little children.  The reason this is not believed is because it is neither reported nor discussed.  On the rare occasion of being reported (see my Two Lucky Kids article of 1 Oct.) the encounter is presented as a rare glimpse of a benevolent Mother Nature worthy of mention on Sesame Street.

It is not mentioned whenever possible because to recognize its existence is to question allowing  the government to forcibly plant and protect wolves in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States and then having to ask yourself, “ Who is then responsible” if:

–           A single Human is maimed and/or killed?

–           If livestock losses to wolves decimate livestock producers’ livelihoods?

–           “     “            “         “   “       “            “      rural families and economies?

–           “     “            “         “    “      “             “     local government revenue and the political power of local people?

–          If meat prices spike and become prohibitively costly due to wolves”

–          If dog owners’ property (watchdogs, guard dogs, hunting dogs, pets, show dogs, guide dogs, etc.) are killed or maimed by wolves?

–          If game animals from moose and elk to prairies chickens and grouse are no longer able to support hunting and hunters along with their license fees (that support the “Conservation/DNR/F&G” agencies), disappear?

–          If hunting and trapping are then so rare that there are no longer young men enthused about paying for or profiting from applying thenecessary annual  (and prohibitively expensive) controls of wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes, and wintering herbivores?

–          If dog packs that trail deadly predators after a human attack/death are no longer available when such animal needs to be tracked down?

–          If (actually when) the truth ever emerges that wolves are not only very serious carriers and vectors of over 30 deadly and debilitating (to humans, livestock and wildlife) diseases and infections ever begin spiraling into an outbreak?

–          If it is realized that the increasing cross-breeding between wolves /dogs /coyotes is not only the most real threat to the very existence of the wolves of such faux importance in The Lower 48 States, but the Raison D’etre for the emergence of a new breed that is even more dangerous or destructive than the current breeds of this large and varied species?

The ANSWER to “Who is then responsible”, is; No One!

The state guys (many of whom have been lying and dissembling for years about wolves) will blame the federal guys that forced wolves into “their” state.  The federal guys that have been profiting big-time (unlimited powers, promotions, bonuses, enhanced retirements, public adulation in the press, etc.) will blame “the law” and “the politicians”.  The politicians (who made millions fro9m lobbyists and who reaped urban votes) will blame the scientists for faulty “science”.  The “scientists” (who have profited for years from grants and tenure thanks to wolves) will blame the Non-Government Organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, Wildlife Federation, Center for Biological Diversity et al for “distorting” and “manipulating” the “science”.  The “Environmental”/”Animal Rights” NGO’s will simply shrug, count their money and go to some secret meeting with the federal bureaucrats and politicians about how to ease, buy and “take” the remaining remnants of private property left in The Lower 48 States abandoned and unused except for the wealthy in their mansions with views no longer marred by timber cutting, grazing livestock, crops, canoeists, campers, or the sounds of rifle and shotguns.

So Lower 48 State newspapers and news shows either avoid (when possible) or dissemble any negative incidents much like terrorism reports or select descriptions of urban perpetrator characteristics.  They do this with the attitude once spoken by Jack Nicholson and here only directed to the general public about wolves in this instance, “You can’t handle the truth”.  Like all those in the preceding paragraph, after years of distorting the truth about the costs and dangers of wolves and the constant denigration of those challenging the government/NGO version of wildlife in settled landscapes; the media is a major conspirator in the wolf debacle and, like some Chicago Police Lt. during Prohibition that cannot tell the truth for fear of indicting himself, they chirp duets with the powers-that-be and do whatever it takes to survive.

Jim Beers

4 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 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

Share

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

Scientific Game Management Trumped by Progressive Totalitarianism

Of the approximately 15,000 grizzlies in British Columbia, about 250 are killed by hunters annually, according to government figures.

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson characterized that level of hunting as “sustainable” in an interview with the CBC.

However, he says the decision to end trophy hunting is “not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

OPINION: MNRF takes the road of junk science to forward their agenda

In my younger years growing up in Sundridge, the moose season fell on every even year and lasted a week. You bought your moose license and shot a MOOSE. There were plenty of moose and trappers harvested wolves and hunters harvested spring bears and laws were based on science and time-proven management practices. During this time the powers that be were the Ontario Lands and Forests, later changed to Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Recently renamed Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.  Much has changed over the past two decades within what I once considered Ontario`s flagship ministry, for without our rich resources what does Ontario have to offer?

I have been deeply concerned about the direction this ministry has been travelling for some years now as laws are now being based on emotion and driven by special interest and protectionist lobby groups.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Glyphosate Spraying Killing Whitetail Deer in New Brunswick

KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) — The Halifax Media Co-op has acquired a series of internal communications from New Brunswick’s Department of Natural Resources that comprise literally hundreds of pages of emails related to newly-retired, whistle blowing, provincial deer biologist Rod Cumberland.

These communications are interesting for a variety of reasons, the least of which because they provide an insight into the manner that the bureaucratic machine in New Brunswick is very much linked into streamlining their publicly-presented message with their counterparts in industry, in particular with the efforts of J.D. Irving.

Whistle-blowing scientists take note: Never underestimate your ability to send your former employer into reaction mode, with all the bureaucratic and corporate cooperation and message massaging that that entails.

Upon his retirement in 2013, Cumberland, with early assistance from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, began to publicly rail against the effects of New Brunswick’s glyphosate application program, whereby, since the 1970s, an estimated 12,000 – 15,000 hectares of Crown land are sprayed with the herbicide per year. Glyphosate mixtures are applied to Crown land in order to eliminate hardwood tree species and select for softwoods, which are then largely used for pulp. Readers may be more familiar with agricultural applications of glyphosate, where it is consistently among the most highly used herbicides in North America.

Cumberland’s wedge issue was that glyphosate spraying in New Brunswick is responsible for the province’s dwindling white-tailed deer population, as it destroys their food supplies. He has, however, continuously highlighted the scientifically-proven detrimental health impacts of exposure to glyphosate mixtures, and has gone so far as to liken the future health-related fall-out from glyphosate applications in New Brunswick to “this generation’s Agent Orange.”<<<Read the Rest of Part I>>><<<Part II Can be Found Here…and there’s a link at the bottom of Part I for Part II.>>>

Share

Why Blind Ignorance Persists, Blindly

I’ve sometimes asked when will the day come when people will discover the real truth about any issue? The answer, for anyone willing to do some historic investigation, is never. Here’s why.

If you are not willing to accept the fact that we are all brainwashed and programmed to act and react, void of independent thinking, there is little use to continue reading what follows. In essence, you are already beyond help. I’ll help explain why.

Everyone in this day and age of post normal everything, believe they know the truth. I say believe because that is precisely what is going on. People believe. They do not know. They do not have knowledge. They do not have an open mind. They cannot think. And so, they simply believe. It’s easier that way.

Eric Hoffer, author of the book, The True Believer, says that everyone wants to belong to something, to be on someone’s side, to feel important. Being a “True Believer” serves that role. True Believers take narrative that sounds wonderful and fits one’s ideology, whether they are conscious of what they are doing or not, and jump on a band wagon believing they have truth.

With a new belief, combined with a manipulated mind that will shut down to any suggestion of “new thinking,” how, then, does anyone break through that wall?

This is, not necessarily, a new thing. Recently I received a link to an article from a Canadian newspaper that looked back in history, to a time around the Great Depression, when the owner of the newspaper, Sault Star, offered a $100 reward for anyone who could prove to him that any person had been “attacked” by a wolf. The reward and attack criteria was limited to just Algoma.

First, here’s the quote taken from the newspaper in 1925: “This is to inform the public that the Sault Daily Star will pay $100 to the first person who can establish to the satisfaction of the editor that any timber or brush wolf has attacked any person in Algoma.” (emboldening added)

The obvious problem in this account of the person offering a reward, is that it has been established as a rigged system. Everything and any and all evidence becomes value-weighted to the perceptions of the newspaper. This is a clear example of a person’s truth is THE truth and everything else is wrong…even if it means refusing to accept any other information that might be contrary to his truth.

Second, to further exemplify the closed mind of the True Believer, who has already established the limits of any challenges to his truth, we discover that this same person decides to create “Wolf Week” in honor of his loving wolf; to educate people to the “truth” about wolves. But is the Wolf Week creator really interested in “educating” people about wolves, or is he more interested in drawing like-minded, non-thinking, brain dead people to HIS festival and keep it protected from anyone who might think otherwise?

The articles states: “During Wolf Week, Curran erected an arch at Bell’s Point that was two cedar poles topped with a huge howling wolf. The banner on the arch read “Respectable Strangers Are Welcome In This Town.”” 

It doesn’t require a Ph.D. to understand what Curran meant by offering a banner that read, “Respectable Strangers Are Welcome.” In other words, so long as you think and act like him and are a True Believer, eager and willing to discard all facts to follow the doctrine, presented as “truth,” you are welcome to his festival.

This kind of mind controlled ignorance about wolves was prominent in 1925 and today, we have regressed further and further into the abyss of clinging to the “truth” that fits the narrative of the True Believer. There is little hope for a bright future where only cultivated “truth” exists: and it exists because nobody wants to know the truth. It may be uncomfortable.

However, don’t think for a minute that this behavior is limited to those believing the wolf to be their god. Because this is a belief centered on politics and religion, automatically, due to brainwashing and mind control, an antithesis is established, functioning fully on a false paradigm of two sides. Nothing ever changes. One side or the other, disregarding all morals of decency and honesty, fall prey to the power of money and wealth, willing to bastardize anything normal and decent to prop up their truth, presenting it to an eager Press, seeking the establishment of credibility. Generally the one side with the most money and control over the Press, Science, Education and Politics, wins.

The result becomes, on one side we have tRUTH. On the other side, we have tRUTH. Stuck somewhere outside the realm of today’s controlling paradigms, populated with True Believers, is actual Truth.

But don’t go look!

Share

Sensible Statement About Predators

“The issue is not wolves, it’s the combination of wolves, grizzly bears, black bears and cougars,” Bob Jamieson, a systems ecologist and environmental consultant, told the paper. “The prey species can’t handle the combined impact of those four animals,” he said. “A lot of people [blame] habitat problems because they don’t want [to] wrap their head around the predator issue.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Dogs as Sources and Sentinels of Parasites in Humans and Wildlife, Northern Canada

ABSTRACT

A minimum of 11 genera of parasites, including 7 known or suspected to cause zoonoses, were detected in dogs in 2 northern Canadian communities. Dogs in remote settlements receive minimal veterinary care and may serve as sources and sentinels for parasites in persons and wildlife, and as parasite bridges between wildlife and humans.

Dogs as Sources and Sentinels of Parasites in Humans and Wildlife, Northern Canada (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5594278_Dogs_as_Sources_and_Sentinels_of_Parasites_in_Humans_and_Wildlife_Northern_Canada [accessed Feb 18, 2016].

Share

Wolves filling up on cattle in southwestern Alberta

Boyce and his research team tracked wolves and their diets over several years using GPS tracking. When packs were clustered in an area for several hours, field researchers would go to the site afterwards to see what the wolves had been feeding on and to collect scat for analysis.

The 45 per cent figure applies to cattle killed by wolves and does not include anything from boneyards (which was classed as scavenging). Deer, elk, and small prey animals (such as bobcat or beaver) ranked behind cattle as prey during the grazing season.

During the non-grazing season, cattle slip to the third most important prey after deer and elk, Boyce said during a recent Beef Cattle Research Centre webinar.

Source: Wolves filling up on cattle in southwestern Alberta

Share

Wolves killed in Victoria Beach – Wolf/Coyote Crossbreeding

Their remains were taken to the provincial veterinary lab for an examination, including checking their stomach contents, estimating their age and using samples of hair and tissue to determine their genetic structure. (There have been reports of wolf-coyote breeding.)[emphasis added] He said relocating the wolves wasn’t feasible.

Source: Wolves killed in Victoria Beach – Winnipeg Free Press

Share