RMEF Files to Intervene in Great Lakes Wolf Suit

MISSOULA, Mont. – The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit by several animal rights groups seeking to return gray wolves in the Great Lakes region to the Endangered Species List. If granted, Judge Beryl A. Howell will consider RMEF positions in her U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.

“It is of paramount importance that everyone recognizes that states, not the federal government, are best qualified to manage a recovered species like the wolf,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “This suit, like so many previous frivolous filings, will frustrate science-based management and cause conservation damage into the future.”

Gray wolves recovered to more than 4,000 in the Great Lakes prior to delisting in January 2012.
Minnesota had an estimated population of 3,000, while Wisconsin and Michigan had about 850 and 700 respectively. The removal of wolves from federal protection happened after several years of litigation and returned responsibility for managing wolf populations to the states.

“These animal rights groups are crying wolf by claiming state management threatens to push populations to the brink of extinction,” added Allen. “There is no science that supports these claims and wolf experts like Dr. David Mech, founder of the International Wolf Center have already stated that regulated hunting by states will not negatively [effect?] the states’ wolf populations.”

Allen went on to say that, “In fact there is very recent credible evidence in both Idaho and Montana that regulated hunting and trapping of gray wolves is not harming the overall wolf population as both states have the autonomy to manage their wolf populations and they are using best science practices.”

In October 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals denied an attempt by environmental groups seeking to stop the state’s wolf hunting and trapping seasons stating the “petitioners failed to demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm.”

In response to the Great Lakes suit, the secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Cathy Stepp, issued grave concern over the legal maneuver stating that the wolf population in her state already grew to more than eight times the delisting goals.

“Our intent is to manage the wolf, now that it has recovered, as we do other species – informed by science and in balance with social needs. Relisting the wolf under the Endangered Species Act is neither informed by science nor in balance with Wisconsin’s needs,” said Stepp. “This has the potential to halt wolf hunting in Wisconsin and leave the state powerless to effectively address livestock depredations, and would end the state’s ability to actively manage our wolf population.”

“RMEF will vigorously defend the delisting because states need to manage wolves just as they do elk, deer, bears and all other wildlife. There is no real science that disputes the fact that gray wolves are recovered and expanding, and there is no compelling reason why states cannot manage wolf populations,” said Allen.

If successful as an intervener, RMEF will join the Hunter Conservation Coalition group comprised of Safari Club International, National Rifle Association, U.S. Sportsmen?s Alliance Foundation, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, and the Michigan Hunting Dog Federation.

Animal Rights Groups Now Millions of Dollars Poorer

From the Wall Street Journal.

“Judge Sullivan ruled that animal-rights organizations that sued Feld Entertainment, producer of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, must pay Feld’s attorneys fees. The plaintiffs included the Animal Welfare Institute and the Fund for Animals. Feld says it has spent more than $20 million on a legal circus that began in 2000 with claims that Ringling was abusing its elephants.”

Snicker!

The Reintroduction of Wolves in the Northern Rockies as a Method of Making Money Under the Guise of Ecological Restoration II

Read Part I

Wolves were extinct for decades and then Bruce Babbit and others “resurrected” them..

Really? From the Babylonian Looney bin;

“The reintroduction of the wolf after decades of extinction is an extraordinary statement for the American people. It reconnects our historical linkage with the wilderness that is so central to our national character. It admits to past errors and asserts our willingness to correct them” —Bruce Babbit

“Wolves were recovering and thriving under multi-use! That is the “main” objective the “greenies” in our IDFG and USFWS want to cover up, is the fact that both the wolves, and even more so the wolverines were making a “come-back” under multi-use.”—Tim Kemery

When we read about this history consider the human population of Idaho at the time compared to 1995-2013. Wolves were hardly extinct here in Idaho for decades as Bruce Babbit tried to claim. Lets look at a few forests the 1984 study “Wolves of Central Idaho” by Kaminsky and Hanson involved.

Study cooperators were; FWS, Endangered Species Program; Boise Field Office, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Univ. Montana. U.S. Forest Service, Region 1 and 4. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

A hundred years ago, gray Wolves (Canis lupus) ranged over most of Idaho (Goldman 1944; Figure l). The last of these animals were believed to have been extirpated from the mountainous regions of the state by the late 1930s with the removal of wolves from elk and deer winter range near the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in 1938 (J.Harris, pers. caoum.). However, reports of wolves persisted, with observations varying from detailed descriptions of large gray canids to droppings consisting of ungulate hair and bone. Such reports, ranging in time from the early 1940s through the mid 1970s received little attention from state and federal resource agencies. Moreover, reports of wolves brought ridicule and cynicism from a doubting public, often peers or hunting companions of those reporting wolves.

In June 1978, an Idaho Department of Fish and Game research biologist observed and photographed a black wolf on the Clearwater National Forest in north central Idaho. During October 1978, a gray wolf was shot and killed 200 miles south on the Boise National Forest of west central Idaho. Newspaper accounts rewritten in review of wolves recent presence in Idaho, lending credibility to both past and present reports.

CHALLIS NATIONAL FOREST

1) STATUS

Twenty-two of 31 reports received since 1974 were rated probable on the Challis NF (Tables 20 and 21). Sixteen probable reports are received by resource agencies (regular reports) while 6 reports were received from elk hunters and none from outfitters during the course of this study. Twelve reports involved observations of wolves, 9 were of tracks and 1 report involved a scat.

DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS

Wolf reports on the Challis NF have been consistent over the past 10 years. Except for 1981 when 7 probable reports of wolves were received, probable reports of wolves have ranged between 0 and 3 since 1974. During 1974, wolves were seen near Soldier Mountain Lookout in August and along Knapp Creek during late September. No wolves are again observed on the Challis NF until 1977 near ungulate winter range along Rapid River. Wolves were observed twice in 1978 near the confluence of Cold and Loon creeks during January, and again during November along Little Loon Creek. Three wolf reports were received during 1979 from Big Baldy Mountain and Loon and Mortar creeks. Wolves were reported 3 times in 1980 and 7 times in 1981. Sightings of wolves were reported near Loon Creek and Cape Creek Summit in 1982 and in the vicinity of Seafoam R.S. in 1983. Nineteen of 22 reports of wolves on the Challis NF since 1974 have involved single animals. Two wolves traveling together were observed during 3 consecutive years from 1980-1982. In 12 probable reports involving 15 wolves, 4 predominately gray, 1 black, and 1 buff colored wolf were reported. Based on color differences described in probable reports and the widespread existence of wolf observations including 3 recent reports of 2 wolves together (1980- 82), apparently 3 to 6 wolves have periodically ranged over the Challis NF during the past l0 years. Read more

Tailoring Wolf “Science” to Justisfy Political Ends

By Jim Beers

Friday, January 18, 2013 at 10:58pm ·

Federal government wolf intervention in the Lower 48 United States was and is based on radical federal legislation that abolished historic State authority over all wolves, all grizzly bears and many state black bear populations such as Florida and Louisiana. This 30+ year intervention has established extensive wolf populations in 14 States and begun establishment of wolves through federal protection for wolves in 11 more States. Under current law, wolves can be expected to infest (the correct word) each of the Lower 48 United States in the coming decades. Also under current law, federal legal authority and jurisdiction over wolves (like grizzly bears and black bears in certain states) will never expire: one need only observe how as the federal government “returns management authority” to States like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, et al lawsuits to block such returns bloom in federal courts and federal agency wolf standards (10 packs, 500 wolves, whatever) prevent State’s from truly managing wolves in densities and distributions as demanded by ranchers, farmers, dog owners, hunters, and rural families in such States or the federal government simply seizes the authority back, thereby letting the states carry the costs as they hold the federal bag.

The legal authority for this wolf invasion (again the correct word) is The Endangered Species Act. The two subjects of this Act (i.e. “Endangered” and “Species) no more apply to wolves in fact than they apply to Norway rats or domestic cows.

Wolves (like Norway rats) are circumpolar and ubiquitous throughout Asia, Alaska and most of Canada. Wolves also occur in Northern Africa and are currently infesting Europe under a protection and spreading regime imposed by European Union politicians and bureaucrats using tyrannical methods much like those employed in the United States. Labeling them as “Endangered” is a cruel and profane joke.

Wolves (like domestic cows) are merely one breed or race of a larger true “species”. Wolves, again like domestic cows, breed with and produce fertile offspring with coyotes, domestic dogs, jackals (Africa) and dingoes (Australia). Offspring of such cross-breeding, again like domestic cows, display characteristics of each parent and will transmit the blended characteristics (from physical characteristics to behavioral traits) to their subsequent offspring. To expand the classification biology of this animal to a “Species” as “Species” has been historically defined (i.e. a unique animal group capable of producing fertile offspring) or as “Species” was defined or intended in an ESA that would “save” bald eagles and elephants is a travesty.

To further, as has been done, “spin” traditional classification biology of wolves (“gray” ones here,” timber” ones there, “coastal” ones like this,” desert” ones like that, etc.) into “Red” populations, “Mexican” populations, etc. was little more than a ploy using contrived “science” to justify federal programs to forcibly introduce “endangered” wolf “species” in every state based on baseless “historic” wolf numbers and distributions. (NOTE: Although federal “wolf experts” say what wolf belongs where because it is “native” to that state: when it came time to put wolves in Yellowstone Park the “experts” went to Alberta and the Yukon for wolves. Evidently what is good for the goose –i.e. the states- is not necessarily good for the gander, i.e. the feds.) That paid “scientists” assert that once (100 years ago?, 250 years ago?, amidst an undeveloped land mass?, among primitive societies?) X numbers of wolves existed here and there and therefore must be “restored” elevates a travesty to high dudgeon. To further complicate this essentially straightforward circumpolar animal into artificial “subspecies”, “races”, and “breeds”; in order to “define “populations”; in order to invent population “segments”; so that you might claim something called a “DISTINCT” “population segment” in order to completely baffle the public and courts as you seize state authorities is on a par with French phrenology (skull measurements that reveal “smartness and criminal tendencies) and German Racial Classifications that define Slavs, Jews, Aryans, etc. That is to say complete bunk.

All that said, this is not about classification baloney, excuse me “science”. This is about Ebola and bats in Africa.

The November 2012 Smithsonian magazine has a fascinating article titled The Hunt for Ebola (in Uganda). Long story short: Ebola emerged in 1976 in Zaire in Central Africa. It is a highly contagious and lethal disease that has killed at least one thousand Africans since that time. Several outbreaks since then in Sudan and Uganda have enabled doctors from Europe and the US to work with local governments to develop protocols to contain outbreaks and spread of the disease but the source of the outbreaks has proven elusive. The US Centers for Disease Control has worked for years and spent millions to identify the source of the outbreaks.

What they found is that Ebola is a Virus that infects human cells. The Virus is widely distributed in Ethiopian epauletted fruit bats that often reside in African dwellings. These bats are referred to as “viral reservoirs” (passive carriers of pathogenic organisms that occasionally leap into human beings). The virus can be transmitted in bites or in urine or in feces or even in saliva. During the course of these ongoing investigations a similar deadly viral disease (called a “sister virus”), Marburg bleeding fever, that similarly resides in Egyptian fruit bats was investigated. Both diseases can be transmitted by bats to other animals (like monkeys) that are termed “amplification hosts” and that in turn can also infect humans by a wide variety of means down to simple contact with their infected tissue.

In summary, after years of research there is still no vaccine and the investigators have identified two species of bats as “viral reservoirs” repeatedly infecting humans that die from the disease, in as yet undetermined ways. The investigators express a concern that when they find “how” the virus is transmitted, “Some people here might say, ‘Let’s kill them all’ but that would be destroying a valuable ecological resource. Our aim is to mitigate the interaction”.

Wow, read that last sentence again. “Some people HERE”? Like wolves and their effects HERE in the Lower 48 States, these visitors, these folks from elsewhere, know what’s best for the people “HERE”. Frankly, if I were someone living with these bats; my home, my children’s play area and school, my workplace, and my wife’s home range would be and would remain bat-free henceforth regardless of their “valuable ecological resource” value to those living elsewhere.

Ah, but what about wolves? Wolves were eradicated (by those folks that lived “HERE” where wolves lived) for over 50 years from the Lower 48 States for very good reason. Small remnant populations and the occasional wandering wolf from Canada persisted with state acquiescence in northern States like Minnesota, Montana, Idaho and Washington. All of the wolves in the Lower 48 States today are federal wolves; introduced, protected, and spread by federal force. Thus we are neither remiss nor unfair to say that the federal government is RESPONSIBLE for what the wolves do.

The federal government is responsible for the cattle that wolves kill.

The federal government is responsible for the dogs that wolves kill.

The federal government is responsible for the loss of hunting opportunity, game animals and hunting revenue due to wolf predation on big game.

The federal government is responsible for any injuries or deaths caused by wolves.

The federal government is responsible for the increased dangers and loss of safety in rural living caused by wolves in yards or at school bus stops, etc.

The federal government is responsible for the economic losses in rural economies (animal husbandry cost increases, real estate losses due to safety concerns, etc. caused by wolves.

The federal government is responsible for the loss of freedom for rural children that can no longer camp, fish, hike, hunt, or even play with their dog alone where wolves are present.

Now the above are horrid effects of wolves that the federal government laughingly ignores because:

1. No one will or does hold them accountable. This is an extreme injustice in an increasingly unjust nation.

2. They are Political Ends that were intended all along. The bureaucrats, politicians and radicals responsible for this wolf travesty always desired and intended:

A. That hunting be eliminated.

B. That ranchers be run out of business.

C. That growing swaths of rural America come under federal ownership or easement control.

D. That Local Governments be eliminated.

E. That State governments and State bureaucrats become simple extensions (like contractors) of federal diktats.

F. That legal precedents be established for subsequent federal spread of harmful animals to expand federal land control as with free-roaming buffalo, grizzly bears, uncontrolled black bears and cougars, and even harmful exotic animals allowed to be legally imported by federal wildlife bureaucrats like pythons and Asian carp.

But there is one enormous effect of wolves that the federal government ignored and denies whenever it is mentioned. This effect has the potential to surpass all of the above combined. This effect is one that no one can explain because nothing is “proven” by the few “scientists” that might hazard an opinion. This effect requires scientific research (that should have been conducted before the first wolf was ever left out of its’ cage). This effect is the transmission and spread of deadly diseases and infections that affect humans, domestic animals, and other wildlife.

Consider, wolves:

- Host (in their bodies, on their fur, and in the ticks they carry) many diseases caused by bacteria, viruses and prions (deformed proteins) as well as tapeworms and their eggs.

- Eat and mouth guts, brains, bone marrow, organs, and body fluids of the domestic and wild animals they kill. Injured, sick, or dead animals or humans are also fair game and food when encountered by wolves.

- Visit human residences, towns, garbage areas, etc. as they utilize paths and roads of all sorts as they wander, especially at night.

- Leave saliva on things they pick up, sneeze, bleed, urinate, and leave feces in yards, by buildings, on paths and other areas frequented by dogs (leashed and unleashed), kids, and adults.

- When killing deer, elk or moose tend to frequent one such area after another as they pick up and carry diseases from one game area to another. The same applies to wolves killing domestic animals like cattle and sheep wherein pastures and like areas are frequented and any exposure to livestock diseases is carried to other livestock areas.

- Far more than any other wildlife from coyotes and bears to skunks and raccoons, travel over vast areas routinely as they forage for food. From one day to the next they can move miles unlike big game animals or other wildlife. Thus wolf exposure to diseases is far greater and the areas they might contaminate are vaster by far.

- Carry, sluff, and pick up a much greater number and diversity of ticks as they move about thereby increasing their exposure to tick-borne diseases and mixing tick populations and diseases to a greater degree.

- Like bats, move, sleep, and feed in groups such that what one is infected with, others likely pick up.

- Do not lend themselves to mandatory, quick, lethal controls in areas of disease outbreaks from rabies and foot-and-mouth to Mad cow and Brucellosis. While more local animals can be poisoned and shot to contain the spread of infections, a pack of wolves or a lone wolf moving through a pasture infected with anthrax or a deer winter yard infected with Chronic Wasting Disease at 2 in the morning and then four miles away by sunup is unlikely to be traced as the disease or infection is transmitted.

Here is a list of what unvaccinated dogs and wolves are known to carry and transmit. It is not as comprehensive as might be found in the research files (were they to exist) of honest researchers concerned about human health, human safety, livestock industry, hunting, game populations, dogs of all stripes, rural economies, rural families, private property, and limited government. Frankly, such “researchers do not currently exist.

1.PRION-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves, remembering that prions can exist for weeks on grass or on boots or on carpets or on fur or between toes as well as in bodies where they can re-infect other animals:

Mad Cow Disease

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the deadly human form of Mad Cow)

- Associated PRION-caused human diseases like Type II Diabetes, Artherosclerosis, Cataracts, Cystic Fibrosis, a type of Emphysema, Dementia, Alzheimers, and others.

Chronic Wasting Disease

2.BACTERIA-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves and/or the ticks they carry:

Bubonic Plague

Anthrax (A Bio Warfare agent)

Brucellosis

Undulant Fever (the human variant of Brucellosis and Bio Warfare agent)

Lyme Disease

Typhus

Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever

Relapsing Fever

Erlichia

Anaplasmosis

Babesiosis

Tick Paralysis

Dermatosis

3.VIRAL-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves:

Foot (Hoof)-and-Mouth

Rabies (55K die annually from this worldwide)

Distemper

Parvo

Encephalitis

4.TAPEWORM DISEASES (deadly and debilitating) that wolves carry:

Echinococcus granulosis

Echinococcus multilocularis

Neospora caninum (causes abortions)

GID or Sturdy that infects brains

5.MITE-CAUSED diseases carried by wolves:

Three kinds of mange or scabies.

This short list, composed by a retired wildlife biologist, is certainly incomplete yet it contains 28 separate diseases and infections. Most of these affect humans and all can infect domestic dogs that; like work boots, dogs or other objects can bring Prions, Bacteria, and Viruses into homes where children will be exposed to infected carpets, dog tongues and other things, much like the mysterious ways that Africans “get” Ebola from bats. – Only there won’t be any US CDC spending millions to figure out where the infection came from or how the kid or grandma came down with it before dying.

Even if someone did figure it out, just like the Ebola researchers, the US investigators would think first of the “valuable ecological resource”, i.e. wolves and how to avoid any contact in the future. Only just like “Fladry”, “Noisemakers”, “recordings”, night watchmen, and moving the remaining people elsewhere by totally destroying their communities; nothing short of the way our wise forefathers “managed” wolves will ever work. They might even, out of respect for Gaia (the Nature God they are being taught to worship), ignore the evidence and look elsewhere (more career-compatible) for the source.

You see, wolf “science” was and is tailored to achieve political ends and Americans that get in the way are just as expendable as those Africans that have the misfortune to live where bats infected with Ebola call home!

Jim Beers

Less Lesser Chickens Means Less Gas and Oil

The Lesser Prairie Chicken, not to be confused with the Greater Prairie Chicken, is on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) lesser list of possible species to be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It just so happens that the Lesser Chicken’s habitat is right where oil and gas resources exist (I’m positive this is only a coincidence.)

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air tried to make light of the abomination of the ESA by saying that for the environMENTALists to wage a public relations campaign to end oil and gas drilling…..er, I mean to get the Lesser Chicken listed on the ESA list, he recommended a different name.

He suggested the Purple Crested Petrol Pecker:

Let’s be more thorough than that. First of all the genus name for the Lesser Prairie Chicken is Tympanuchus pallidicinctus. This name should be changed to Obamafuchus Palsilldichus

But the common name for campaign purposes could be:

USFWS Release Candidate’s List For ESA Protection

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a copy of a press release issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announcing their candidate list of species to be considered for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The attached link provides readers the opportunity to see a complete listing of species and proposals.

Most readers know that I have stated for years that the Endangered Species Act, as it is written and administered, needs to be destroyed as the abuses of the Act are so overwhelming that protection of species is mostly by happenstance than anything the Act accomplishes.

One of the real goals – or at least has become a significant tool for personal agendas – is the use of the ESA to strip Americans of their rights and freedom toward life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The USFWS is an entity controlled by the environmental movement. USFWS does what environmentalists tell them to do. You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure that out. Environmental impact statements are falsified and any studies done in support of any of these actions are outcome-based studies in which government agencies manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal to produce a study to support the demands of the environmentalists.

A clear cut example of this shows up in a recent USFWS proposal to remove dams along the Klamath River, in Oregon and Washington, for their stated purpose of restoring waterways for wild salmon, even though science can’t show that salmon runs in that river are historical. But let’s not let facts get in the way.

In the USFWS proposal to remove dams, their “studies” showed that removal of the dams would create very little impact on the people of region. Is this an accurate, or better yet, truthful assessment of how the people of that region actually think?

Not according to a one of kind “Public Impact Assessment” (PIA) that was done independent of the government or any other non governmental agency, non profit or individual paying for the assessment. While the people living in proximity to the Klamath River, where 4 dams are being discussed for removal, the majority of the people there find protecting the fish important and are concerned about flooding once the dams are removed. But more importantly, the people consider removing the dams as having a very high rate of impact on them as it pertains to “energy costs, agricultural water deliveries, hydropower, employment, local business income, farm and ranch income, per capita income, community water deliveries, and local tax revenue.”

So, it is an excellent idea to bear in mind when reviewing the USFWS’s proposed list of candidate species for protection, to consider that more than likely their assessment of impact to the environment and/or the people, is a crock of excrement.

For additional information on Obama’s planned use of the ESA to continue his destruction of property rights and the economy, read this article.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Releases Annual List of Candidates for Endangered Species Act Protection

November 20, 2012

Contacts:
Chris Tollefson
703-358-2222
chris_tollefson@fws.gov

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today released its Candidate Notice of Review, a yearly appraisal of the current status of plants and animals considered candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Three species have been removed from candidate status, two have been added, and nine have a change in priority from the last review conducted in October of 2011.

There are now 192 species recognized by the Service as candidates for ESA protection, the lowest number in more than 12 years. This reduction reflects the Service’s successful efforts to implement a court-approved work plan that resolves a series of lawsuits concerning the agency’s ESA Listing Program. Since its implementation, this agreement has significantly reduced litigation-driven workloads and allowed the agency to protect 25 candidate species under the ESA, and propose protection for 91 candidate species.

The agreement will continue to allow the agency to focus its resources on the species most in need of the ESA’s protections over the next five years, said Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.

“We’re continuing to keep the commitments we made under this agreement, which has enabled us to be more efficient and effective in both protecting species under the ESA, as well as in working with our partners to recover species and get them off the list as soon as possible,” said Director Ashe. “Our ultimate goal is to have the smallest Candidate List possible, by addressing the needs of species before they require ESA protection and extending the ESA’s protections to species that truly need it.”

Ashe noted that the work plan will enable the agency to systematically review and address the needs of every species on the 2011 candidate list – a total of more than 250 unique species – over a period of six years to determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has enough information on their status and the threats they face to propose them as threatened or endangered, but developing a proposed listing rule is precluded by the need to address other higher priority listing actions. Candidate species do not receive protection under the ESA, although the Service works to conserve them. The annual review and identification of candidate species provides landowners and resource managers notice of species in need of conservation, allowing them to address threats and work to preclude the need to list the species. The Service is currently working with landowners and partners to implement voluntary conservation agreements covering 5 million acres of habitat for more than 130 candidate species.

Today’s notice identifies two new candidate species: Peñasco least chipmunk (Sacramento and White Mountains, New Mexico) and Cumberland arrow darter (Kentucky and Tennessee). All candidates are assigned a listing priority number based on the magnitude and imminence of the threats they face. When adding species to the list of threatened or endangered species, the Service addresses species with the highest listing priority first. The nine changes in priority announced in today’s notice are based on new information in the updated assessments of continuing candidates. These changes include five species that increased in priority and four that lowered in priority.

The three species removed from the candidate list include elongate mud meadow springsnail, Christ’s paintbrush, and bog asphodel. Based on protections for almost all sites, the identification of additional sites, and updated information on threats, the bog asphodel no longer needs the protection of the ESA. The removal of the springsnail and paintbrush is based on the successful conservation efforts by other federal agencies. Efforts by the Bureau of Land Management for the springsnail fully addressed the threats from recreational and livestock use of the springs where the snail exists. Also, three additional populations of the springsnail have been discovered, making this species less vulnerable to random, naturally occurring events than previously thought. For Christ’s paintbrush, the U.S. Forest Service has successfully implemented numerous conservation actions that have ameliorated most of the previously known threats and established long-term monitoring programs to document their effectiveness on conservation actions. There is a long-term commitment by the Forest Service, through a 2005 Candidate Conservation Agreement and 2012 Memorandum of Agreement with the Service, to continue to implement conservation actions for this species.

The Service is soliciting additional information on the candidate species, as well as information on other species that may warrant protection under the ESA. This information will be valuable in preparing listing documents and future revisions or supplements to the candidate notice of review.

The Service also has multiple tools for protecting candidate species and their habitats, including a grants program that funds conservation projects by private landowners, states and territories. In addition, the Service can enter into Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs), formal agreements between the Service and one or more public or private parties to address the conservation needs of proposed or candidate species, or species likely to become candidates, before they actually become listed as endangered or threatened. CCA participants voluntarily commit to implementing specific actions removing or reducing the threats to these species, thereby contributing to stabilizing or restoring the species. Through 110 CCAs, habitat for more than 100 species is managed on federal, state, local agency, tribal and private lands; many CAAs have multiple cooperators focusing conservation actions in an area supporting a single or multiple species.

Another similar tool is the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAAs). While these voluntary agreements are only between the Service and non-Federal landowners, they have the same goals as CCAs in addressing threats to candidate species, but with additional incentives for conservation actions on non-Federal lands. More than 71 landowners in 18 states have enrolled in CCAAs that cover over 1 million acres of habitat for 41 species.

The complete notice and list of proposed and candidate species appears in the Federal Register and can be found online at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/cnor.html.

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part III

Wildlife biologists as a whole are not evil people, nor are those who have educated them, our children and all of us from day one. Most are products of the same environment as you and I. I can’t speak directly for you, but I’m not an evil person; although I’m sure there are those who would disagree. As those famous words say, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” The transformation did not happen over night. It has taken no fewer than 100 years to bring the United States to the brink of disaster; a catastrophe as it relates to our social identity and mind set. This change is sure to lead to a complete metamorphosis of such degree that history will not be able to recognize what we have become.

In Part I, I expressed thanks for the few people left in this world who think on their own. Why, I cannot fully explain but nonetheless this chosen band of perceived renegades have done perhaps more for us than any of us know or will ever know.

There exists a YouTube video called, “Slavery and the Eight Veils (truth as you have never imagined)“. For the life of me I cannot understand why the makers of this video chose to choreograph it as some kind of weird revelation, with eerie and bizarre music, etc. The content of the video is compelling and should incite some sort of thoughts in those who view it, even if the information contained therein is not completely factual or can be substantiated. It is thought provoking. The significance of the video is to show that the overwhelming majority of people in this world remain blindly and robotically snuggled within the first veil of slavery, many of which fear truth beyond that veil as they have been programmed to do. Watch the video and then ask yourself where you are and just as importantly, why.

Who and what are the forces that have taken such a grip on our lives that we can no longer think for ourselves and are eager to extol the weltanschauung (articles of faith, canon, catechism, church, confession, conviction, cult, doctrine, dogma, faith, ideology, persuasion, profession, religion, tenet), even when this exalting and glorification of nonsensical doctrine is contrary to common sense and even defies sanity? It is certainly NOT my father’s way of thinking. And with this comes the emboldening of individuals who force their weltanschauung on others when what made America great was the freedom, liberty, rights and the pursuit of life and happiness without interference from others.

The network of forces at work is vast and I can never cover them all. My intention here is to begin with a few organizations and attempt to convince you that there is more to this sinister event than what you are allowed to see. All of these organizations are linked together for one grand purpose; to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.

The overwhelming majority of us probably have never heard of but a fraction of the non governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, research institutes, non profits etc. that bind and restrict the freedoms of our lives. Oftentimes we hear names of such groups and pay little or no attention to them. It’s time that we all stop doing that. Every time you hear another name of an entity involved in any aspect of your life, no matter how insignificant it may appear, do a bit more research of your own and find out what this group is up to and more importantly, who sponsors it; that is if you any longer care enough.

Let’s first begin with an entity that probably most of you have heard about but may not have knowledge as to exactly what they do, how far their reach is and what is their objective. The United Nations(UN) could entail an entire book but I intend to narrow the focus to education and how their influence is destroying, deliberately, our outdoor heritage.

The effort to “shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America” began before the United Nations (once the League of Nations) was created on August 8, 1945. On that day, the US was the first nation to sign the charter and become a member. This act, in and of itself, is often debated as to whether or not it is constitutional. I’ll leave that decision up to you. I will however point out the many, many treaties the US has signed with the UN and direct you to the fact that they are, in fact, illegal and unconstitutional.

In 1829, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall, wrote: “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.” (Emboldening added)

In 1884, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Miller, wrote in reference to the Head Money Cases: “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.”(emboldening added)

When we examine the several treaties the United States has with the United Nations, we see that all of them are illegal and unconstitutional and yet we continue to abide by said treaties while indulging in more. When outdoor sportsmen consider only the treaties signed within the Endangered Species Act, we should be outraged. And presently, President Obama is intending to find a way to turn the sovereign rights of the people of the United States to own firearms over to a non sovereign entity, a club of good ole boys who control all the purse strings and wield the power of a tyrannical despot. Ask yourself how much these treaties have an influence in your life and that of your children, while considering if the fact that Americans own guns by the millions is the last hold out obstacle before the U.S. becomes part of the planned New World Order run by a One World Government head by a dictator.

Turning more directly to education, the entire compass becomes vast, shady and totalitarian, designed to mislead and redirect. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is perhaps the giant, horned administrator of all things educational, scientific and cultural under the auspices of the United Nations. Consider the mission statement:

The mission of the UNESCO Education Sector is to:

*provide international leadership to create learning societies with educational opportunities for all populations.
*provide expertise and foster partnerships to strengthen national educational leadership and the capacity of countries to offer quality education for all.
*work as an intellectual leader, an honest broker and clearing house for ideas, propelling both countries and the international community to accelerate progress towards these goals.
*facilitate the development of partnerships and monitors progress, in particular by publishing an annual Global Monitoring Report that tracks the achievements of countries and the international community towards the six Education for All goals.

What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing really and by design! It all sounds good but tell me who decides what is “quality education”? What is a “learning society”? Number three intimates that UNESCO will decide what you and your child shall learn and you have no say over it. Is that any good?

UNESCO partners with the following (you need to take the time to study and find out about these agencies. After all, they are part of our destruction.):

1.)United Nations Development Program
2.)UNICEF
3.)World Bank
4.)International Labor Organization (for teachers)
5.)World Food Program
6.)Delivering as One
7.)United Nations Population Fund
8.)List of Nations and their organizations that donate money
9.)NGOs
10.)Private Donors (In consideration of a joint initiative with the World Economic Forum, consider these partners.)

Some readers will make comment that all of these programs are good. After all, how can anybody deny that feeding children is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s what the children become subjected to that is wrong and that seemingly nobody cares about, providing they get a free meal. And that too is by design. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book on how to brainwash and proselytize. Lure somebody into your power structure by offering something for free and then let them have it with your ideologue and mind manipulations.

Another of UNESCO’s partners is the Global Partnership for Education. GPE’s stated mission is: “To galvanize and coordinate a global effort to deliver a good quality education to all girls and boys, prioritizing the poorest and most vulnerable.”(emboldening added)

Something to consider in this is that it is the mission of GPE to “galvanize and coordinate a global effort”. Does that mean an effort to reach all over the world or does that mean to educate children all over the world into a global mentality; a brain dead, robotic, mind changing and easily manipulated child who will grow up and do the bidding for those pulling all the strings?

A giant of a “catch” word over the past several years is “sustainability”. How many of you have actually thought about and looked into just what that means? It certainly sounds good but it is not. Sustainability has become a center of focus in just about everything we do in our lives. There is sustainability in education, population, growth, you name it, it’s there. And somebody or something is deciding how many people should inhabit this earth, how much, if any, food you can grow, what you learn in school and what kind of food you can eat.

Sustainability plays a giant roll with environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. Their brainwashed contention is that nature balances itself and that man should not be allowed to harvest game because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE and the people have a right to protect all wildlife.

Is this what you want? This is all done in the name of sustainability and that word comes to us courtesy of the tyrannical United Nations; a non sovereign boys club that has no country, no nation, no government, no army, nothing that identifies it as a sovereign country. But who gave the United Nations the word “sustainability”?

UNESCO is just one small part of the United Nations’ brainwashing organization and yet I’ve only begun to scratch the surface as to how deep the indoctrinating and proselytizing goes; not just in the UN but within the hundreds of organizations sanctioned to destroy you and me and all that was passed down to us from our forefathers.

All of these programs are by design and not just happenstance. As a reader you can choose to ignore any or all of this information and remain conveniently shrouded behind curtain number one, or you can follow along, doing your own research to discover why your local fish and game department has fallen in love with the likes of environmental groups while turning their backs on the sportsmen. This is one of those instances where I said, “even when this exalting and glorification of nonsensical doctrine is contrary to common sense and even defies sanity.” It makes no sense that what worked and worked well, is flushed down the toilet and replaced with nonsensical doctrine that defies rational thinking; unless your goal is to destroy it.

Due to constraints of time and space, I cannot begin to uncover for you the depth of despair the United Nations brings. Nothing about it is good. I’m sorry if that bunches your undies. If you think the majority of what the UN does is good, you are a victim. Time for a change.

In Part IV, I’ll begin looking at other brainwashing institutions such as, National Training Laboratories, Stanford Research Institute, Rand Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Second Nature, United States Department of Education, the list is a hundred miles long and they all have something in common. I’ll also show you how California is the model for what America is to become all brought to you by the same evil forces running the rest of the planet.

Jim Beers Interview: Wolves, Politics, Changing Society, Endangered Species Act

Occupy Occupy D.C. Wind Turbine to Memorialize Dead Birds, Despoiled Land

Washington, D.C. – A mock wind turbine will be erected Monday, March 12 at noontime in Washington, D.C.’s Freedom Plaza to highlight the threat that wind, a celebrated alternative energy source, poses to the American bird community.

“If I was a bird, I’d be an angry bird right now,” said David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research and director of the National Center’s “Occupy Occupy DC” project. “Countless innocent birds that only want to be with their eggs die every year from crashing into wind turbines. The environmentalists who promote wind energy at the expense of the birds are green pigs!”

Monday’s event is part of The National Center for Public Policy Research’s “Occupy Occupy D.C.” events at Freedom Plaza. The National Center obtained a five-week permit from the U.S. Park Service that forces the Occupy D.C. encampment to share the park between February 12 and March 15.

A report by the National Research Council estimated that wind turbines kill approximately 100,000 birds every year. The American Bird Conservancy claims the number could be triple that estimate — affecting the songbird community most of all.

“At some point the slaughter of birds and bats by taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines is going to trigger serious legal action,” added National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. “If the full force of the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Endangered Species Act were brought to bear on these unsightly killing machines, investors would turn their backs on this artificial industry in a heartbeat.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Maine Should Prepare for a Wolf ESA Listing From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

This is the opening paragraph from an article about the plans for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to remove gray wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act nationwide, while at the same time list “subspecies” of wolves as endangered in regions, including the Northeast.

Portland OR – infoZine – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended removing federal protections from gray wolves that remain on the endangered species list after wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest had their protections stripped last year. The move could be devastating to wolf recovery. Fish and Wildlife conceded it will still consider protection for subspecies or breeding populations (including Mexican gray wolves, a recognized subspecies) and for populations in the Pacific Northwest and Northeast; its recommendation came in a five-year review of the Endangered Species Act listing for gray wolves in the lower 48.

Next Page »