April 23, 2014

Wolf Rookies and Disregard of Global Wolf History Re: Wolf Introduction

FraudScienceOne of the complaints I have always had about gray wolf (re)introduction has been the fact that claims of using “best available science” was a sham and a deliberate con job right from the very beginning. For Best Available Science to be a viable tool, then science must be the driving factor. Science is science and it doesn’t work at all when personal agendas and politics are the driving forces behind such events as wolf (re)introduction.

I have stated before that it is easy to look back on what took place in order to learn going into the future. In so doing, researching has discovered many things about wolf (re)introduction; very little that was claimed and predicted has come true, those involved were inexperienced “rookies” and some very serious and important information was completely disregarded about wolf history globally and the dangers to public health from diseases, worms and parasites carried by wolves.

In a recent article on this website, I wrote about how, in my findings of researching the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), deliberate lying and misinformation was given to the public in order to influence public opinion that would support wolf (re)introduction. One has to wonder what the outcome of pre-introduction polls would have been if people had been told the truth.

One blaring example I gave was that everywhere Ed Bangs and his band of wolf marauders went that sold the public on what I believe was an intentionally misleading claim that within the three regions where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wanted wolf populations when 10 breeding pairs or 100~ wolves were confirmed for 3 consecutive years, wolves would be removed from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection and management of wolves turned over to the states. That, as we all now know, not only never happened but it never happened so badly that over protected wolves have destroyed far too much.

The other aspect I want to cover is the terrible disregard of valuable information and the fact that there was no experienced scientists available or made available in dealing with wolves, especially wolves being dumped into areas adjacent to human-settled landscapes. Those pushing to get the wolves were only guessing what wolves would do based on models from watching wolves in cages or in remote areas of Canada or Alaska. These same people refused to use any kind of historic documents about wolves claiming it was mostly fairy tales and folk lore. What puzzles me is that it is ONLY that information that is available to United States scientists who refuse to accept with or work with people and scientists in foreign countries who have dealt with wolves for centuries. Perhaps our elitist attitudes and desire to not use historic knowledge of wolves and wolf interactions with humans, for an agenda of getting wolves in this country, has cost the American people substantially.

To go back and review the FEIS and all associated documents is quite an eye-opening experience. Looking at this issue of “best available science” and what appears a deliberate disregard at the utilization of the best science and historic documents that were available at the time of wolf (re)introduction, we see disturbing claims that should have been troubling at the time.

On page 54 of Chapter 4 – FEIS – Consultation and coordination, we find this statement:

Research
– Obtaining information through scientific techniques has lead to tremendous benefits to society. Wildlife management has been greatly improved through scientific investigations and research, including the use of radio telemetry technology. Any reintroduction of wolves would be closely monitored and new information used to improve the program. However, wolves have been intensively studied in many areas of North America and many of the basic questions about wolf biology and behavior are well documented. Currently, another massive research program is not needed to re-study the basic nature of wolves in the western United States. While there will certainly be some interesting and necessary questions that may arise from the actual reintroduction of a top predator into an ecosystem, more research or study is certainly not required before wolf restoration could proceed. The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.
(emphasis added)

Did our scientific community fail this badly? When you honestly consider that very little predicted in the FEIS about wolves, their behavior and impacts that a recovered wolf population would have on the ecosystem and that of humans, materialized, can we look back on this event and not question what was behind wolf (re)introduction?

To claim just prior to wolf (re)introduction that Ed Bangs and his cohorts knew all there was to know about wolves, that they had “fully exhausted” everything that they could use to predict what was going to happen and then find the results we did, one has to view this as perhaps an agenda-driven, politically motivate event, designed to specifically deceive the American people. Or perhaps it is even something more sinister and/or criminal.

USFWS refused to examine or at least consider historic documents of wolf history that contain years and years of conflicts between humans and livestock, as well as wildlife impacts due to wolves. Their refusal was evidently based on some elitist notion that this history could not be substantiated and the most of it was lore and made up stories. Is this how we treat history? Will one hundred years from now, people look back at wolf (re)introduction and disregard it for many of the same reason this generation of fraudulent scientists did?

Nobody involved in wolf (re)introduction had any kind of real experience and first hand knowledge of what it would be like living, as humans, with wolves. It’s not their fault. Wolves were mostly gotten rid of before any of these people were born. But, there are history books and there are and were at that time, many countries who were living with and dealing with wolves. Did we then disregard their knowledge and if so why? Did our scientists NOT want to learn the truth because they had an agenda?

Watching some wolves in a cage or documenting their behavior in remote forests and then creating “models” to GUESS what wolves will do, is not best available science and wolf (re)introduction should never have been allowed to happen. With zero actual knowledge and experience, and confirmation that wolves were recovering naturally in Northwest Montana and parts of Idaho, we should have left it alone and continued to learn first hand about wolves.

Here’s some more examples found in the FEIS that should have sent up red flares:

FEIS – Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination – page 22:

6. The Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 3, The Affected Environment, and average harvest is presented in Table 3-12. The analysis of wolf predation effects on the Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and cited in Boyce and Gaillard’s (1992) modeling of wolf predation on ungulates including the Jackson moose herd. Their models suggest a recovered wolf population may decrease the moose population about 7%.(emphasis added)

And this:

10. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 showed the effects a recovered wolf population would have on various ungulate populations throughout the primary analysis area. Additional ungulate herds or larger ungulate populations added to the analysis means more ungulates available to wolves and subsequent reduced effects of wolves on those ungulate populations. As stated in the analysis, the FWS recognizes ungulate populations can be quite different from one another in terms of population numbers, hunter harvests, and other physical and biological characteristics. Additionally, the FWS cannot predict exactly where wolf packs may establish territories, thus wolves will not impact all ungulate herds in the primary analysis area. However, the analyses and ranges of impacts presented would apply to most ungulate herds if wolves were associated with them.(emphasis added)

And these two items:

13. From the information available, nearly all elk, deer, and a few moose populations inhabiting areas in or near the Yellowstone National Park have population numbers in excess of several thousand. Also, harvests in many Wyoming herd units averaged hundreds of antlerless animals for elk and deer herds east and south of the park. For the herds having large antlerless harvests, reducing the antlerless harvest might be possible if wolf predation reduced ungulate numbers below objective levels. It is possible wolves could keep very small moose populations at low numbers in combination with severe winters, human harvest, and other factors (i.e., the predator pit theory) and affected the antlered harvest, but moose tend to be more difficult to kill than elk or deer and for areas east of the park, moose will not likely be a primary prey species compared to the more numerous elk and deer populations. Elk and deer because of their relative abundance will probably be the primary prey.

14. The primary analysis area was limited to places where wolves would most likely inhabit and to those ungulates wolves would most likely have impacts on at recovery levels. The FWS cannot predict exactly where wolves might set up territories. However, based on the population sizes of the ungulate herds near Dubois, if 1 pack of wolves lived in this area, it is unlikely the effects would be greater than demonstrated for other herds in the analyses presented. Indeed, with more ungulates available for wolves to prey on, overall impacts to some herds (and to associated hunter harvest) might be less than predicted. Overall impacts would be less because significantly more animals would be available and the impacts would be spread among more herds. The FWS also recognized wolf predation might severely impact some ungulate herds because of increased vulnerability (i.e., Whiskey Mountain sheep herd) and that wolf presence might inhibit the states and tribes from meeting their wildlife management objectives. The FWS believes the states and tribes are better able to determine those rare instances where wolves might severely impact wildlife populations and the FWS will work closely with those agencies in developing plans that promote wolf recovery and provide flexible management options when state and tribal objectives are being compromised.(emphasis added)

If, as the USFWS claims above, that they have “intensively studied” and that all wolf behavior is “well documented” and that “predictive models” have been “fully exhausted,” then why all the waffling in these last statements about how they can’t predict this about wolves and that about wolves? In these same claims, officials said, in effect, they knew all there was to know about wolf behavior and yet history has shown us the huge failure. This has to be a gigantic failure of science or a criminal act to deliberately mislead the people to promote an agenda to play with wolves.

It is just as disturbing to look at this evidence about poor science and deliberate disregard of facts, as it is this one statement contained in the quotes above: “The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.”

This tells me that Ed Bangs and his gang of thieves were no longer, or probably never were, interested in knowing anything more about wolves, as it might spoil their party. They didn’t care. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on humans. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on game herds. They didn’t care about disease. They didn’t care about wolves in Russia, or Finland, Norway, Germany, India or anywhere else in the world. They want wolves to play with in Yellowstone and Idaho and they didn’t much care how they got them there. They admitted they couldn’t predict what was going to happen until they put wolves in there to find out. They called it “real progress.” And that is what they call “best available science?”

Among many terrible things this wolf (re)introduction has caused, it’s a travesty on the science community. This effort has done more to create complete distrust of government officials and the administering of the Endangered Species Act. One can only wonder, knowing and discovering the shameful acts and actions involved with wolf (re)introduction, what other ESA projects are as anti science and crooked as wolf (re)introduction?

Misleading Information by Feds in Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Reintroduction

100WolvesIt is numerous times through the 414-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho, that we can find this repeated statement:

No modifications in harvest of deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be
required to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves.
Conclusions
– Harvest of cow elk may have to be reduced 10%-15% in central Idaho (396-594 fewer
cows killed than in 1991) to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves. No changes in management of
harvest for deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be necessary.

While the statement in and of itself may be debatable in its accuracy, at best it is misleading and done in what I believe to be the intent of the Federal Government and those behind and promoting wolf reintroduction. It drives home the notion that little, if anything, the Federal Government does can be trusted.

The lie that was the focal point of the entire FEIS was that when Yellowstone National Park, Central Idaho and Northwest Montana had all achieved verifiable breeding pairs of wolves (10 pairs) and/or approximately 100 wolves, the animal would be “delisted,” i.e. removed from the list of threatened of endangered species. We now know that benchmark was an intentional lie. It was never intended to be an actual benchmark in which “science” had determined what would constitute a recovered species. It was only created as a means of appeasing those people with legitimate concerns about how a recovered wolf population would impact existing wild game species and in particular the ungulate populations of deer, elk, moose, etc.

What was sold to the people, and what I believe they bought, hook, line and sinker, as can be supported in a review of the questions posed by the public to those traveling salesman who set up to become the essence of insurance salesmen. People believed that the intention was to introduce wolves, and what breed or subspecies was introduced didn’t make any difference, and monitor those wolves until all three regions in Northern Rockies had 10 breeding pairs or at least 100 wolves. The public bought the lie that with only 100 wolves, there would be no impact on hunting, with the exception of perhaps a slight decrease in elk cow permits. The public bought the con job that once each zone had 100 wolves, the wolves would be delisted and each state in the recovery area would take over managing the wolves, with the public believing that wolves would be managed at numbers representing 100.

The Feds and those NGOs involved with getting their way to bring wolves down from Canada, knowing it was never their intention to allow wolves to be delisted at 100, could not represent anything close to the truth as it pertains to recovery numbers within the scope and draft of the FEIS. It is for that reason we find repeatedly throughout the FEIS the above emboldened statement. Making a repeated statement as this one was reassuring to some that the goal was 100 wolves. After that delisting of the animal, state takeover of wolf management and no harm no foul.

The rest is history as the old saying goes and we know that even now with some made up number of 1,700 wolves, those who brought the wolves to the U.S. continue to sue or are threatening to sue to stop any kind of management of a diseased-ridden varmint that is destroying ecosystems, killing off game animals and threaten humans with disease. Wolves have destroyed hunting guide businesses, local economies and put undue stresses and strains on ranchers and their losses of livestock; all of these the people of the region were told would never happen with 100 wolves in their state.

It is unfortunate that somebody (or maybe they did) didn’t pose the question to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of what would be the impacts to humans and game species, etc. with 3,000 wolves.

It is my belief, as I said, due to a review of the FEIS, that the USFWS was able to successfully do a snow job on the public and therefore nobody believed it necessary to ask the tough questions of what if.

The Federal Government and all their lackeys should never be trusted……NEVER. Should this government or any other NGO suggest the introduction of any species anywhere in the world, it should be fought against tooth and nail if for no other reason than these people lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.

James Beers: Wolves – 2014

*Editor’s Note* – The below writing perhaps reflects the greatest knowledge and understanding of the effects of forcing wild wolves into human-settled landscapes. Such a writing should give readers the opportunity to fully grasp the entire scope of how romance animal fantasy should never mix with the scientific realities of protecting a dangerous-in-so-many-ways creature where humans live.

However, while one must applaud Mr. Beer’s effort at searching for a solution and his correct analysis of a top-down dictatorial control over everything plant and animal, his proposed solution, while should it actually come to fruition may possibly work and work well, this will not be accomplished solely at the ballot box, if there at all.

The top-down dictatorship of global powers has infiltrated so deeply into our lives for so many years, ballot boxes, while they shouldn’t be eliminated, will not work alone until a miraculous return to self-determination and independence, through a strong foundation of moral principles and values and a return a fear and love of our Creator, has transformed this nation and globe.

Thank you to Jim Beers for caring enough to take the time and lay out the facts for all and for offering a solution.

Guest posting by James Beers:

As Americans and Europeans awaken to the ancient realities of cohabiting with wolves in settled landscapes from which they were extirpated 50 to hundreds of years ago, all manner of heated discussions, questions and coalitions are emerging.

While wolves have persisted for eons in undeveloped landscapes from the wilds of Canada and Alaska to the vast primitive-societal landscapes of Asia; the re-introduction, protection and spread of wolves in Europe and The Lower 48 States of the US in recent decades has precipitated disagreements and political chaos of enormous proportions. National politicians in Europe and the US have partnered with environmental and animal rights organizations representing mainly urban voters and environmental specialist-scientists to enact laws and regulations responsible for the current situation. Opponents of such laws and programs are mainly rural livestock producers, dog owners, hunters, parents, grandparents, the rural poor and an assortment of rural recreationists and rural amateur naturalists from mushroom and berry pickers to plant and rock collectors.

According to the IUCN, wolves currently inhabit 4 continents. They occur in contiguous populations from the uncounted hundreds of thousands (to millions?) in Asia to the Canada/Alaska population estimated to be approaching one hundred thousand. While these populations “spill” into Europe and The Lower 48 US states naturally and periodically; national (federal) US government laws and European (Union) government laws have been passed to forcibly reintroduce and protect wolves throughout their (the wolves) “original” range regardless of the adverse impacts. The rationale for this is that “native” species “belong” wherever they once existed. It is inconceivable to say with a straight face that wolves are “endangered”. Until this very recent change in American and European governance and human/animal legal concepts, such a decision would have been based primarily on the interests of humans and been the sole concern of the governments of individual European Countries or individual American States. This is no longer the case: as wolves demonstrate the growing political construct that human interests are secondary to the animal/environmental statements and beliefs of those controlling increasingly powerful central governments. European Countries and US States have become subservient to Washington, Brussels and the UN. It goes without saying that this phenomenon is steadily incorporating more and more animal and plant species under the international/central government umbrellas and that this has, in turn, made the redress of problems (safety, livestock losses, loss of hunting opportunity, dog losses, property losses, human health, etc.) of rural people associated with mandated and protected species such as wolves, exponentially more difficult to obtain from far-away governments that are more beholden to far-away political factions, a multitude of hidden agendas, and financial support from environmental radicals than to the redress of the concerns of rural communities.

Wolves are members of an animal group called Canids. Canids include wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs, jackals and dingos. All of these animals can and do interbreed to produce viable (fully reproducing-capable) offspring the same as humans of different races, different physiology, and different social habits; or dogs of different breeds. Additionally, wolves, like other mammals, are larger in Northern latitudes; lighter-colored in desert habitats; omnivorous in that they eat any meat (wild or domestic); capable of very different behavior in uninhabited areas or settled landscapes, or when hunted, or even close to human habitations like outer suburbs near St. Petersburg or Moscow. In truth, wolf behaviors, wolf sizes and colors, wolf DNA and the many documented dangers and harms they present to humans are varied just like their fellow Canids as seen in smaller western US coyotes v. larger Eastern US coyotes or in the varieties of dog sizes, colors, and behavior differences (i.e. pit bull v. basset hound or Chinese hairless v. Irish Wolfhound) with which most people are familiar. Dingos and jackals tend to be far more uniform in size, color and behavior in large part due to their long-standing isolation from wolves, coyotes and free-roaming dogs. Within this group (Canids) of mammals, it is fair to ask and debate just what is a species, and what is it that is so unique or special that government intervention is called for or warranted for an animal that could be identified as a wolf or a coyote/wolf hybrid or a wolf/dog hybrid or a wolf/coyote/dog hybrid depending of the hubris of government law enforcers and the responsiveness of their DNA-Analyst contractors that make such determinations depending on who has specified the DNA Standards? The very real possibility that wolf protection and spread into settled landscapes where coyotes and especially dogs are abundant and ubiquitous may be resulting in the genetic extinction of wolves as we have known them and that we are witnessing the evolution of a sort-of semi-wild coyote/wolf wild dog that capitalizes on all the settled landscape’ adaptive habits of the three to the even greater detriment to rural human society: this subject is never mentioned, broached or respected. What is a hybrid? What do hybrids portend?

Wolves have been and are a documented danger to humans, especially when they become habituated to human communities and particularly regarding children and the elderly. Written accounts of these dangers extend all the way back to Greek and Roman writers before the time of Christ. European and North American history have copious reports of deaths and injuries to humans despite poor record-keeping, spotty reporting and unsolved disappearances in sparsely-settled landscapes of early European and early American settlement and development periods. Russian current events still mention a steady stream of wolf attacks on humans causing deaths and serious injuries and infections of victims from rabid wolves (one such wolf just seriously injured six Indian villagers in the Panchmahal District as I am writing this) and recent attacks on old Russian lady shepherds; and even a Russian sawyer actually running his chainsaw and over 20 others bitten by one rabid wolf in recent years are typical!. An Alaskan report of a recent 32-year period regarding wolf attacks, called human/wolf interactions, described 80 such incidents in Alaska and Canada. In the past decade a healthy young man going for a walk near a rural mining community was killed by wolves in Saskatchewan, a young woman (teacher while jogging) was killed by wolves in Alaska and a young woman hiker was killed by several coyotes in an Eastern Canadian Park in just the past decade. Only last summer a young camper was attacked during the night by a wolf in a federal Minnesota campground only weeks after I was fishing right near that campground. When a wolf was killed, it was said to be the one that attacked but that he only attacked because he was “suffering from a deformed brain”. Most likely it was primarily because public awareness and understanding of similar human dangers from wolves in bygone times that so much time, wealth and effort was diverted from other vital functions by Europeans in the last millennium and European settlers in North America to exterminate wolves in areas that were being settled or were intended to be settled by farmers, shepherds, ranchers and others interested primarily in safe and productive communities, and peaceful home environments for their families. When livestock losses, big game animal losses, dog losses and disease dangers were also considered; evidently no effort was considered too great by our forefathers and their families.

Wolves transmit diseases and infections that are deadly or debilitating to people, cattle, sheep, dogs and other wild and domestic animals. These include but are not limited to Rabies, Brucellosis, Encephalitis, Anthrax, Smallpox, Mad Cow Disease, Chronic Wasting Disease, Distemper, Neospora caninum (causes abortions), 2 types of Mange, GID (a disease of wild and domestic sheep), Foot-and-Mouth, Heartworm and Parvo. Wolves carry a wide range of Ticks and Fleas that they pick up as they wander far and wide encountering all manner of other animals with wide varieties of ticks and fleas. The Ticks they carry can transmit; Anemia, Dermatosis, Tick Paralysis, Babesiosis, Anaplasmosis, Erlichia, E. Coast Fever, Relapsing Fever, Rocky Mtn. Spotted Fever and Lyme Disease. The Fleas they carry can transmit; Plague, Bubonic Plague. Pneumonic Plague and Flea-Borne Typhus. Additionally, wolves carry and spread the infectious and dangerous eggs of Tapeworms (Echinococcus granulosis and multilocularis) that they deposit in the area around their feces in parks, campgrounds, rural yards, playgrounds, trails and other areas where the eggs remain viable for months to be picked up by grazing animals feeding on plants, curious dogs, and children and adults on fingers, paws, tongues dropped food and shoes to be brought into homes where they reside for small children to pick up from rugs and floors. The resulting cysts in vital organs can kill or debilitate humans while also debilitating other animals like moose, elk and livestock, thereby making them less agile and strong and thus even more vulnerable to wolf predation.

Wolves kill and eat coyotes and dogs (herding, hunting, watchdogs, pets; i.e. all dogs) routinely. They will also mate with or be mated by coyotes or dogs when estrus and opportunity present themselves, leaving the female to whelp the mixed litter either back at some barn or in a den at some remote location.

Wolves kill and eat calves, cows, steers, lambs, sheep, and other livestock. They harass the herds and flocks such that the livestock loses weight, fails to put on weight, reduces reproduction and behave in ways that increase problems, time investments and costs for owners and their employees as well as consumers. The results are evident in the US in herd reductions, grazing allotment closures, ranch sales and local community losses of taxes and economic activity. In Europe the losses of sheep and shepherding activity continues to grow while the loss of grazing land utilization and the costs to owners reportedly are not only economic but also include harms to their mental health and their families.

Wolves reduce big game herds and thereby hunting opportunity; and thereby hunting revenue for wildlife conservation and management; and thereby government management and protection of the fish and wildlife resources for people of growing areas of The Lower 48 States and European Countries where wolves are becoming more numerous and their populations more dense. World-famous elk and moose populations in Idaho and Montana have seen steep declines. Moose in Minnesota have declined as wolves have increased such that they are no longer numerous enough to be hunted. Elk, moose and deer all decline and often most precipitously in a few short years of the arrival of uncontrolled wolves. Fawns and calves of these species along with pregnant females are particularly vulnerable and highly preferred by wolves. Not only do wolves learn quickly how and where to find them, like pregnant cows and newborn young, wolves often disable the female only to eat out her rear-end to pull out and eat the highly-desired fawn or calf she is carrying, leaving her to die a lingering death. It does not take many years of this to notice severe declines in numbers of these animals just as any countries’ human population that falls below replacement and necessary reproduction/morbidity numbers and ratios can attest. Unlike the various wildlife studies based on remote areas and uninhabited islands that infer a reputed balance between wolves and their prey such that wolves decrease after they reduce their prey animals and then plants like willows increase as wolf prey are reduced and then the prey species once again increase due to increased food and reduced wolf numbers to be followed by an increase in wolves as the prey increase in numbers and availability: the realities are that in a settled landscape when the prey (elk, deer, moose, etc.) decrease (and animal owners pen up smaller herds) the wolves adopt new techniques and determination to get at the livestock plus they shift to killing more pets and like North American coyotes learn to eat garbage and other items in yards and suburbs during the night. Confrontations between kids taking out garbage, moms walking the family pet dog or elderly folks walking to mailboxes will naturally increase and the probability of fateful encounters will increase accordingly. No one asks, discusses or defends a certain death or injury rate or numbers to humans that is “worth” living with wolves. Wolves, dogs (domestic and free-roaming) and coyotes are all smart and adaptive omnivores and the expectation that when they reduce their wild prey base they will quietly decline in numbers when other options are available, is foolish. Public comments about this particular phenomenon in recent years reveal a widespread reveling and exuberant celebrations by environmental/animal rights persons and their organization that the wolves are steadily eliminating hunting, grazing by domestic animals and rural economic health as goals to be applauded far more than the reputed shifts in wild animal presence and numbers associated with wolves. Some consider this the true or primary hidden agenda driving wolf spreading and protection by government fiats.

Wolves, more than free-roaming dogs or coyotes are notoriously hard to hunt. They quickly turn nocturnal and secretive when pressed. They do not come to bait or calls consistently. Historically, when severe controls were desired, guns, traps, snares, M-44’s (scented ball that triggers a poison shell into the animal’s mouth), poisons, denning (killing pups in the den), dogs, aerial gunning (especially on snow) and many more things were employed. When it was agreed that extermination was necessary, all of these were used and even possees (local militias of law-abiding citizens enlisted to hunt down and catch dangerous criminals and, yes, even wolves) were formed where men rode for weeks hunting down the last wolves over large areas or in the case of an island like Ireland, special, large and fierce dogs were bred and maintained to run down and kill remaining wolves.

Since wolves move stealthily over large areas in a non-routine, haphazard manner; consistent and accurate censuses year after year for comparisons or trend analyses are impossible. This fact combined with self-serving government agendas that quite often excuse game disappearances as climate change, behavioral anomalies or undiagnosed diseases often create year-to-year wolf population estimates apparently driven more by the political and public relations agendas of bureaucrats, lobbyists and politicians than reality.

Wolf supporters and bureaucrats are largely determined to oppose not only methods (trapping, snares, dogs, poisons, aerial gunning, denning, etc.) of wolf control: they are constantly seeking donations, suing and lobbying to prevent any controls. While initial hunting programs, at best, have taken no more than 10-15% of wolf populations annually, such annual takes have negligible effects on either wolf population growth or on wolf behavior. Ironically, it is actually the sort of game harvest percentages meant to spur production in both birds and mammals as fewer animals are sent into the winter to share available food and thus guaranteeing healthier and more numerous reaching spring more capable of raising more and larger litters. To reduce a dense wolf population usually requires a 45-70% or more per year reduction for 5-7 years or more and then a 30% reduction or more per year ever-after. This necessarily ignores the lessened impacts of such controls when conducted in a patchwork fashion considering CLOSED private property, restricted government enclaves and neighboring jurisdictions where controls are prohibited and are thus continually providing a constant inflow from burgeoning wolf populations in such nearby unmanaged (for wolves) areas. Effective control harvests are impossible today in both The Lower 48 US States and European wolf areas due to fierce opposition, government indifference and lack of an understood public rationale for such harvests because the inevitable public outcry for such controls is only beginning to grow and it must overcome decades of lies and propaganda. As public realization and understanding of the intolerable harms caused by wolves in settled landscapes grows, the same human/wolf incidents as were documented in our ancestors’ communities caused by historic wolf problems and that spurred our forefathers to expend the scarce time and treasure to take drastic, long-term measures to the point of exterminating wolves are sure to result even in our modern technology-masters-all society as human casualties and damages mount and are no longer deniable..

All of the foregoing wolf reality is arrayed against:

-Scientists that claim that wolves do not reduce game populations or livestock and only reproduce slowly due to a reluctance to breed by submissive wolves, a phenomenon that curiously does not exist in either dogs or coyotes.

-School teachers repeatedly telling young students those wolves are necessary, good and of no danger to anyone who behaves correctly.

-Media agendas that ignore wolf harms, publish wolf public-relations articles as “science”, and marginalize negative wolf reports and people that live with and are affected by wolves.

-Bureaucrats that promise ranchers and sheep herders compensation, then call depredation losses everything but wolf-caused and quickly run out of scarce dollars as the wolves get established and compensation for wolf damage is shown to have the priority and support of government research into plastic surgery for animals for governments awash in debt and crumbling infrastructure.

-Bureaucrats and politicians that tell the Countries and States under them that once the wolves are established be central government fiat, the Countries, States and Local Communities are responsible for maintaining certain numbers (despite their being difficult to accurately count) or else the higher government will step back in and be ruthless about reaching and maintaining those levels.

-A fantasy being presented worldwide as fact, that what plants and animals were once on this or that piece of ground 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000 years ago should or must be on that ground once again. No matter that human settlement, development and change of the landscape, weather, and present-day human activities in all their changing and beneficial complexity have made that piece of ground no more hospitable to or suitable for uncontrolled species like wolves than for free-ranging elephants or bison (wisent) or grizzly bears. NOTE, just this morning I read in The India Times that free-roaming bison (Asian Water Buffalo) have killed seven rural Indians in separate incidents in just the past 12 months; and only last week a lady In Montana asked me to provide her comments regarding a UWS federal/state proposal to establish free-roaming buffalo (bison) herds in the farmland/pasturelands of central Montana. A similar federal program to forcibly protect and spread grizzly bears that are killing livestock as well as killing and injuring people in the NW US is also underway as I write.

-A gaggle of hidden agendas from bureaucrats seeking more authority, budget, and personnel; and scientists seeking more grants, tenure, and recognition: to organizations working to eliminate hunting, eliminate grazing, and rural populations; and groups seeking rights for animals, significantly reduced human populations worldwide and an end to all animal utilization by humans.

The airwaves, newspapers and classrooms are crowded today with stories of:

-The importance of apex predators.

-The need to restore the rural environment.

-The need for and legitimacy of forcible clearance of rural precincts.

-The importance of the native ecosystem and native species.

-The harmful environmental effects of rural people, rural practices and excess humans.

-The need for Washington, Brussels and the UN to have more money and more authority.

- Hunters, grazers, loggers, and most rural residents being both ignorant and bent on destroying the environment, the ecosystem and life as we know it unless ruled minutely and ruthlessly.

All this goes on as:

- Wolves are having growing impacts on European sheep flocks, shepherds, rural areas and rural residents as wolf numbers and densities grow in Italy, Germany, France, and Spain.

- Expanding wolf populations in Finland, Sweden and Norway are decreasing big game numbers and creating all manner of livestock and human safety concerns.

- British and Scottish environmentalists, politicians and University biologists are working to introduce wolves into Scotland.

- Dense and uncontrolled wolf populations in Russia and many former Eastern Bloc Countries supply an endless flow of wolves into Eastern and Central European Countries from Lithuania and Finland to Hungary, Slovenia and Italy.

- European Union politicians, bureaucrats and environmental/animal rights’ lobbyists resist authorizing any actions by shepherds, rural residents concerned about safety and health threats, hunters, dog owners and other rural Europeans to control wolves or to employ active protections for their families, livelihoods and property being killed and threatened by wolves.

- European Union administrators are basically opposed to authorizing any increased gun use by rural Europeans and use of devices like traps and snares.

- Likewise, EU administrators resist bear depredation controls in places like Finland where robust bear populations, supplemented by Russian bears that expand into Finland from uncontrolled and constantly expanding and scattering bear populations.

- All of the above are either ignored by or supported by urban Europeans that, like their urban American and Canadian cousins, are evolving to be indifferent to rural harms and problems.

- More federal kennel-raised wolves are being released in Arizona despite strong local objections.

- Minnesota wolves that have decimated the state’s moose population (and hunting) and are currently decreasing the deer population are the subject of a lawsuit to bar any hunting or trapping of wolves (ironically, despite the stimulative effect of the small potential harvest on the very dense and robust wolf population.)

- Idaho is trying to fund a statewide initiative with tax dollars to reduce the wolves that have decimated moose and elk hunting (and numbers, license revenue and associated dollars generated by big game hunting). What the long-term controls and funding sources portend is anyone’s guess.

- As Washington State and Oregon State have begun hosting resident wolf packs from neighboring Idaho, ranchers have been cajoled into accepting “compensation” for livestock losses to wolves that is underfunded and as likely to continue being available as is are liquor allowances for a legislature. Simultaneously the state bureaucrats tell the public wolf numbers are curiously steady in this new food-rich habitat and that decreasing elk and moose harvests and licenses are only temporary and due to everything imaginable Except Wolves.

- Wolves from Great Lakes States are scattering into Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio where federal and state laws jeopardize any hunter or control agent that kills what he thought was a coyote or free-roaming dog and some post-facto government DNA Analyst declares is a wolf. Similarly in the West, Rocky Mountain States’ Wolves from introduced stock are scattering into California, Nevada, Utah, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to hospitable habitats.

- As Texas refused vigorously to accept federal wolves (like Wyoming did successfully), federal thugs have “worked with” (i.e. funded) wolf releases in N Mexico just S of the Rio Grande River across from Texas.

- US federal bureaucrats have made much of “Returning Management of (Restored) ‘Endangered’ Wolves to State Governments” in states like Minnesota, Idaho and Montana. First, wolves were never “endangered” other than under the Endangered Species Act’s politically-driven agendas. Second, this fictional “Return” is in reality a move to make states finance all the wolf problems with both state wildlife funds (to divert them from hunting programs) and from state tax dollars where their future looks like the future of continued state funding for free barbershops for politicians. The kicker is that, if the state lets the wolf numbers go below some set level (how do you know, how to prove, especially in court?), the federal government will step back in and seize protection of the wolves. All the while those opposed to wolf control or hunting or trapping or snaring or aerial shooting, etc. of wolves go into federal courts and help federal bureaucrats modify regulations to obtain key federal court rulings to expand and solidify federal authorities and jurisdictions over the wolves “Under State Authority”.

- US State fish and wildlife bureaucrats increasingly view themselves as extensions of federal bureaucrats, federal programs and federal funding while they increasingly disregard any responsibility to the state residents that employ them. This makes redress of rural complaints and problems more difficult as the federal bureaucrats set the rules for all actions by co-opting state bureaucrats and manipulating federal courts by working with select “partners and stakeholders” by designation of friendly federal courts and federal judges presented with jointly-designed (by bureaucrats and radicals) lawsuits. The flow of all federal US tax dollars makes many state politicians and big city politicians (and their employees) behave the same as the fish and wildlife bureaucrats, thus further marginalizing rural people and their concerns.

- Gun control is a large aspect of living with wolves that is exacerbating problems. European and Canadian laws and habits opposed to handguns make consistent availability of a gun for unexpected wolf confrontations from dog walkers encountering wolves and wolves encountered in close quarters like barns or fenced yards, to shepherds encountering wolves depredating at unexpected times and in unexpected places; difficult to say the least. European laws and customs extend to areas where, as in Russia, any gun possession or ammunition availability is only made by special and narrow government dispensation. US federal politicians, although they take an oath to uphold the US Constitution stating “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” are on an undisguised rampage to violate the Constitution in this regard and regulate and then ban over time handguns, military-looking rifles, all rifles, clips, magazines and shotguns to the cheers of urban politicians that blame all of the US’ urban woes on guns. This, like wolf protection and spread is applauded by urban voters and political donors. The bottom line here is that real wolf control, real and consistent wolf management, control of wolf depredations, dealing with dangerous wolf habituations (homes, schools, bus stops, etc.), and protection in the case of wolf incidents from rabies to an outright attack is both disappearing and increasingly only done by government officials, if at all. This not only is after-the-fact and expensive, actual wolf control is made unachievable and impractical over time and the future of rural people doomed to live with wolves is steadily becoming neither pretty nor bright.

Scientific papers, lawsuit arguments, media propaganda and government pronouncements are rife with statements and questions like:

- When is a wolf a coyote? Who established DNA Standards?

- Is the wolf trapped far away and released by government THE actual wolf that once inhabited (fill-in-the-blank)?

- Any wolf attack on a human is “abnormal”.

- People must learn to “live” with wolves.

- Maybe the cattle and/or sheep don’t “belong” out there.

- Wolves were here first.

- Wolves control prey species while regulated hunting doesn’t.

- Wolves are good and beneficial. Hunting is bad and harmful.

- Hunting should be outlawed just like grazing and logging.

- People should keep their pets and kids inside and watch them closely when they are outside.

- Rural areas are too heavily populated and their natural resource uses and demands are destroying the ecosystem.

- Wolf hunting destroys the wolves’ social structure and their reproductive capabilities.

- Only alpha wolves mate.

- Wolves don’t decimate big game populations and wolf depredations on livestock are vastly overrated by rural people looking for government handouts.

- Plant communities blossom, like semi-arid valleys after a thunderstorm, when wolves kill ungulates and also cause them to “behave” differently.

- Wolves are the “apex” predators that are leading the way to the total restoration of native species in a native ecosystem.

- Wolves should be maintained with hunting program funds but they should not be hunted, trapped or controlled.

- Those that do not understand “ecosystems”, “trophic cascades” and “natural processes and cycles” are like climate change deniers and should be similarly marginalized and denied any part in things they do not grasp.

So what? It is the Law! What do you want to do, kill all the wolves? All these statements and more are constantly thrown at anyone addressing this issue. So here is what must be done.

First a word of caution. Speaking candidly about this is like talking to many of my relatives that have grown indifferent to or rabidly opposed to the religion of our forefathers, while I have not. I say this not to compare you to any of my relatives but to note that ANY discussion of any topic involving moral dimensions or basic values is quickly treated by such a relative as a disguised attempt on my part to “bring them back” or “convert them”. As I describe the following solution, some will be hearing me trying to tell you how to vote or how to think. I apologize beforehand but YOU must think through that and consider what I am about to say if you are to have ANY hope of resolving the wolf issue before us.

THE BASIC PROBLEM is that very powerful central governments and international “Bodies” now control all wild plants and animals. Don’t try to argue,”oh our state still manages fishing”, or birds or oak trees. The facts are that what Brussels and Washington have done with wolves and what they plus Toronto have done with United Nations’ Treaties and Conventions is to set precedents and a roadmap to seizing any and all wild plant and animal jurisdiction and authority when it suits their purposes. Conventions on Trade in Wildlife, Wetlands of International Significance, Marine Mammal Compacts, Endangered claims in courts, Native Species claims in courts, Invasive Species claims in courts, Animal Welfare claims in court and Central Government Legislation and UN Treaty Negotiations that would have been unbelievable 50 years ago have all been incremental moves giving these central authorities all of the jurisdiction and authority over the wolf debacle we are faced with today.

While we bemoan the injustice and perfidy of government wolf actions; as I write the US government is trying to similarly force free-roaming buffalo herds into Montana (where the federal wolves were first released) and into the Arizona/Utah borderlands N of the Grand Canyon on a mix of federal and Indian lands from which they would spread much like the federal wolf release on an Idaho Indian Reservation. This morning’s news featured the arrest of a Nevada rancher for taking pictures from a state road of federal resource enforcers seizing his cattle herd while dressed as snipers with sniper scopes on their rifles and police dogs that attacked the rancher when he failed to get back in his legally parked vehicle. These are the “idealistic” “environmental workers” you deal with concerning wolves and will be dealing with when buffalo once again “roam, where the deer and the antelope play.”

Now the following is all-US oriented, although I think I have a good grasp of Canadian and European governments I hesitate to write as if I do for the certainty that some innocent mistake on my part would create a world of misunderstanding. Therefore the following applies equally to Europeans and Canadians in large and small measure and are presented only as ideas about how to fix what we agree is wrong.

Whether you believe that all wild plants band animals were once under the authority of lesser levels of governments or if you believe that wild plants have never been under lesser levels of governments: JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER ALL WILD PLANTS AND ANIMALS, should always be, first and foremost and permanently if at all possible UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOWEST AND MOST RESPONSIVE (to human needs) LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. This is called the principle of subsidiarity. It sets limits on state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies and tends toward the establishment of true international order. There is no argument that the current “top-down”, “central government rules-all” system divides rural and urban societies and establishes an international order that is little more than a process whereby dictatorial (the proper word) governments issue orders to be obeyed by all at the behest of whatever faction controls such government or is financing it.

Think of all the “is it a hybrid”, or “we really have two thousand, six hundred and seventy-two wolves”, or “see the wolves REALLY DID kill all the moose”, or the “video camera shows that the young boy caused the attack by his improper behavior in trying to run away” arguments in courts or in newspaper articles or in Letters and meetings with Legislators and Bureaucrats as simply blows back and forth during a boxing match wherein the judges are relatives of the guy you are up against. As long as the REAL POWER remains at the central or HIGHEST level of government, they can simply change the rules or the law and even when you feel you “won” something, the next time your opponents get “their” guys elected they can – and will – pass a new law or write a new regulation that either delegitimizes your “victory” or makes it worthless as they simply check it and move into other items like restoring “Pre-Roman” plants and animals or releasing lions or hyenas since they “once inhabited” (have YOUR archeologist fill-in this blank.)

In the US, this means positioning or re-positioning all authority and jurisdiction over wild plants and animals at the COUNTY (and not even the State) level. Certainly species like Marine Mammals and Certain Migratory Birds could be placed at the federal level for reasons of Interstate Commerce, Hunting and Management of movable stocks and flocks and legitimate common interests with foreign powers who share in the benefits and presence of such animals. Likewise, an effective federal authority should be established to prevent harmful plants and animals from being imported into the US as contrasted with the current system wherein the federal law enforcers are equipped and trained as military fighters to raid guitar stores and farmyards while ignoring the importation of Asian carp that destroy our rivers and pythons and boa constrictors that are only beginning to wreak untold havoc in southern states.

County politicians and County employees are closest to, neighbors of, and liable to voter wrath of ANY (State, City, and Federal) level of government. The US government was conceived to authorize a federal government with very specific powers to protect state governments that represented and protected the County governments THAT REPRESENTED AND PROTECTED THE COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES THAT MADE UP THE NATION. This lowest level, the County, and NOT the highest level, the federal, is where the rubber meets the road regarding whether some or how many wolves should prey on domestic animals or kill dogs or eliminate hunting or eliminate big game, or spread disease, or pay “compensation” for some or any of the property that wolves destroy. This is why what is perhaps our most important County official, OUR Sheriff, is most often the official on the citizen’s side when federal snipers, attack dogs, numbers and lawlessness are employed to evict an old woman from her home that a Park bureaucrats wants, or when federal enforcers seize livestock and other property from those they want to intimidate or take from.

Many US States, like US Senators (2 from each state) have assumed this urban-preference/rural-dismissal bias as a result of powerful urban donors and numerous voters that keep them in office. Issues like wolves are simply “throw-away” crumbs to urban voters for continued or increased support. It is for reasons like that, that I recommend that state governments be re-oriented to protecting what Local (County) governments and their residents want for their own County. If they want more elk and moose, then state government works in that regards and if they want wolves and no hunting or livestock or dogs, so be it. If neighboring jurisdictions refuse to control wolves, let those that would have no wolves set the fate of any wolf seen anywhere in the County at any moment. Counties would be more cautious about spending money and therefore County Ordinances that employed landowners and residents with leeway to take action, orders to landowners refusing to control wolves on their land with charges and liens for the County to employ a contractor to take needed action. County governments with teeth would make these federal/state buffalo ventures a thing of the past in any settled-landscape County where residents agreed “not-in-my County.” As part and parcel of this repositioning of jurisdiction and authority is a resurrection of the abandoned legal notion that somehow when federal agents with federal tax dollars buy or ease property IN ANY COUNTY, that somehow transforms the property into some fairyland as far from the County as the Falkland Islands. This pernicious notion has fostered the arrogance of federal land managers that they have NO responsibility toward local communities or local governments as well as their bureaucrat overseers in Washington in the regulations they write or the laws they help Congressional staff personnel write for their bosses to support the court cases they help the environmentalists to file in certain courts known to provide reliable (to them) decisions and precedents for the future.

So, what do I mean when I say “re-orient” government jurisdiction and authority?

- Elect strong and committed County officials.

- Support County officials in what they do.

- Choose strong County officials to support for State offices.

- Choose strong and proven State officials for federal offices.

- Return selection of US Senators to state legislatures.

- Elect Governors that think, act and make your state their foremost concern.

- Repeal and amend the federal laws that underpin wolf/grizzly bear/buffalo tyranny.

- Enact local animal control and management programs for local communities.

- Reduce federal and state tax rates (reflecting reduced responsibilities) and enact local tax structures to cover LOCAL actions approved by LOCAL taxpayers that can and will vote the likes of current state and federal politicians out of office when they abuse citizens by buying votes and oppressing rural residents as they are doing as I write this.

If this or something like it isn’t adopted, there are only two choices I see ahead. Either we just suck it up and tell our kids and grandkids to move to the city and look for work because rural living is only going to get more inhospitable and less possible, or we change the government structure however we can. If wolves and all this environmental tyranny is really important, it is like Finland deciding to reject the overtures of a foreign power in the 1940’s or Ukraine deciding that recently rejecting EU or NATO overtures was not where they wanted to go, or Americans deciding that Prohibition (of alcohol) was neither tolerable or American. This environmental animal tyranny is no different in the settled landscapes of Europe or Canada or The Lower 48 States. There is no solution for such an effort run by far-off, all-powerful governments beholden to political factions committed to the destruction of rural people, their culture, their traditions, their families, and their very ways of life: no solution but one, put the power to create these situations with THOSE AFFECTED by the actions.

Anything else is either a placebo or a sleeping pill meant to put you to sleep until it is all over.

Jim Beers
8 April 2014

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

Endangered Species Act is UnAmerican

“The decades of failure of the Endangered Species Act’s brand of centralized control disqualifies it as a solution for anything American. And no wonder. Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas of centralized control have likewise failed countries worldwide for the past 180 years or so.”<<<Read More>>>

The Call to Protect Hybrid Wild Canines Across the U.S.

*Editor’s Note* – This article makes claims about a “New York State Museum” study that showed that eight wild canines that had been living in the Northeast were “wild.” Unfortunately, what is not discussed here, which is just as important, if not more so, is that no testing was done on these animals, in this study, to determine taxanomy, i.e. as to whether or not these animals are or were some kind of hybrid.

Other reports have repeatedly said that the wild canines being found in all of the northeast part of the U.S. and most all of the eastern half of the country are hybrid/mixes. Therefore, the bigger question should become why should we be trying to protect hybrid species, which is a violation of the Endangered Species Act?

“Environmental organizations are fighting efforts to take the gray wolf off the federal endangered species list, thinking it could some day return to the Adirondacks.

Though perhaps it already has.

In December 2001, a hunter in the northern Saratoga County town of Day killed what he thought was a coyote but was later determined to be a wolf — the first confirmed wolf killing in the Adirondacks in more than 100 years.

A decade later, a New York State Museum study proved through bone analysis of its diet that the wolf was wild, not a former pet or captive turned loose or escaped. Most likely, the young male had crossed the St. Lawrence River from Ontario.

Regardless of where that one came from, the Adirondack Park’s rural communities are full of folks who believe wolves live out in the deep woods.

“There’s certainly anecdotal evidence of wolves being seen in the Adirondacks,” said Dan Plumley of Adirondack Wild, who has photographed possible wolf tracks on his property in Keene.<<<Read More>>>

Opinion: ESA Needs More Than an Amendment

The decades of failure of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)’s brand of centralized control disqualifies it as a solution for anything American. And no wonder. Hegel’s, Marx’s and Hitler’s ideas of centralized control have likewise failed countries world-wide repeatedly for the past 180 years or so.

As reported in the Lubbock AJ 3/31/2014 “Leaders aim to reform prairie chicken law”, the WildEarth Guardians say that “formal oversight” is more effective than traditional American voluntary efforts because there has been no “… population recovery (of the chicken) over the last several years, …”
The ESA’s involuntary formal oversight of privately owned property and its illegitimate ad hoc balancing test at 16 USC sec. 1533 (b)(2) violate the Takings and Ex Post Facto clauses and the humans-first policy set out in the fundamental law of the US Constitution to which all public official swear upon oath to God to actively defend. Involuntary formal oversight is another way of describing the old discredited European top-down central planning and control models that our forebearers fought against in two World Wars.

The resounding success of the traditional American approach with the ring-necked pheasant compared to the 20 or so years of failure with the spotted owl fiasco prove that the ESA is dangerous for America in these economically perilous times that invoke fears for our national security.

The ESA needs more than an amendment. It screams for a thorough in-depth investigation and repeal or reformation in accordance with proven American economic models of the past 200 years.

J. Collier Adams Jr.
Attorney at Law
Morton Texas

Wolf Canards and Other Agendas

A Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal – by James Beers

The “Wolf’s Return is Big and, for Some, Bad” has one major prevarication and a humbug paradox intended to keep the wolf issue cloudy while advancing other agendas. The wolves introduced into The Lower 48 states by federal fiat are only good for Non-Government Organizations, urban readers and bureaucracies; while being “Bad” for rural economies and residents from children, ranchers, and the elderly to hunters, dog owners and campers.

First, it is a prevarication to say, “In 1995 and 1996 federal biologists at Congress’s direction shipped wolves (from Canada) to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park”. The US House of Representatives had previously denied a federal Budget Request for funds to do that. Under President Clinton and without Congressional knowledge, the US Fish and Wildlife Service “diverted” (or stole or misappropriated) $45 to 60 Million from Excise Taxes; that could only be used by state agencies for state wildlife programs; to trap, transfer and release those wolves on an Indian Reservation and in an Exclusive federal enclave (YNP) where state permission was not necessary. When this was revealed in 1999 by a GAO Audit Report to the US House of Representatives’ Resource Committee under Chairman Young of Alaska, the wolves were long “out of the bag” and state agencies had become so dependent on federal funds and federal career opportunities that they quietly refrained from asking for Congress to replace the funds. Hardly the honorable “federal ecological experiment” described in your article.

Second, it is a humbug and a paradox to continue this myth that “the US in 2011 and 2012 stripped wolves in Idaho and several other states in the region of protection by the Endangered Species Act”. In the very next paragraph you note how Idaho must be careful “to avoid a potential relisting under the Endangered Species Act”. Thus the feds release and spread the wolves and tell the State residents to pick up the tab for all the destruction and losses and to keep X amount or the feds will step back in and take over. Today, the urban enthusiasts and NGO’s go into federal courts to stop controls, forbid methods, and seek land closures while the fiction of “state management” drains state coffers. Actual state jurisdiction would include the authority to exclude or even exterminate wolves in line with state resident’s desires: no such authority exists today. This is like telling rural Americans that they have a “right” to freedom of speech but only insofar as federal bureaucrats and urban speech police allow.

Just as we are witnessing federal erosion of 2nd Amendment (gun) rights and 5th Amendment private property rights: so too is this wolf fiasco a glimpse of what is happening to the 10th Amendment rights of “States” and “the people” to all those powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”.

James Beers
22 March 2014

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

Feds in Cahoots With Environmentalist With “Sue and Settle?”

“Oklahoma’s attorney general and an oil and gas industry trade group have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to settle a lawsuit with an environmental group over the listing status of several animal species.

Scott Pruitt claims in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Tulsa on Monday that federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups and using “sue and settle” tactics that violate the federal Endangered Species Act and have a “crippling effect” on the U.S. economy.

“Increasingly, federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups by using ‘sue and settle’ tactics to reach ‘friendly settlements’ of lawsuits filed by the interest groups,” Pruitt said in a statement.”<<<Read More>>>

ESA and Hybridization: Dealing With It Case By Case

hybridwolfThe issue of wolves, the Endangered Species Act and “intercrosses”, i.e. cross breeding or hybridization, seems to have moved to the forefront in discussions about wolves. Before even getting to any discussion about what constitutes a hybridized wolf and how this is dealt with in the administering of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), consider some of the fallout and collateral damage protecting “intercrosses” can result in.

First, and probably foremost is the issue of actually protecting the purity of a species. As much as some have little or no use for the wolf, in parts of the world I believe a “pure” wolf and certain “pure” subspecies of wolves can be found (although I, personally, place little value in the notion of subspecies as it pertains to wild dogs). Is it therefore of importance to protect that species? Surely, although I recognize some might disagree. And also, to what degree and worthy effort is this protection to be carried out before it blows back in our faces as promoting further destruction of a species?

The question then becomes how do we protect a “pure” wolf species? Short of creating as much isolation from all other canines, wild and domestic, I’m not so inclined to think it honestly can be completely protected, at least not in some geographical locals, and that’s part of the problem that exists today. Attempting to force wild, and “pure,” wolves into heavily populated regions aren’t we begging for hybridization between wolves and feral and domestic dogs?

Secondly, we have learned that canines carry and transmit as many as 50 or more different kinds of diseases. In understanding the habits of wolves, we know that wolves travel great distances, sometimes extraordinary distances. With wolf populations being allowed to flourish, does this not force more wolves to disperse? Is not this flourishing also creating a situation in which wolves will find need to eat livestock, pets and basically hang out in people’s back yards? Isn’t this dispersal creating a better chance of perpetuating no fewer than two conditions: spreading of diseases into greater geographical regions and increasing the chances of “intercrosses?

Third, what then is becoming of the very institution of wildlife science and scholarship where it is known that protected species are interbreeding with other non protected species, and willingly this institution watches as the very species they claim to want to protect is being destroyed?

Fourth, of what value then, can be placed on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (with amendments)? It’s no secret what the purposes and plans of the ESA are:

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.

Is there mention here of protecting hybridized species? As a matter of fact there is no discussion or regulations in the ESA having anything to do with “intercrosses” of wolves. So, how do we stop this, or do we?

In email conversations over the past several days, I read comments from others far more expertise in these affairs than I am, repeating that the ESA does not protect mongrel species. I wanted to know where in the ESA it says that or by which Section of the Act one can interpret that is what it means?

Thanks to the help of Ted B. Lyon of Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C., and co-author of the brand new book, The Real Wolf: The Science, Politics, and Economics of Co-Existing with Wolves in Modern Times, I got some help. With the help of a law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, I was directed to some cases in law where it gives us perhaps a bit better understanding of how the courts, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, define and interpret “pure” species compared with “intercrosses” and how it is being dealt with.

As was given to me, here is a statement found in The Endangered Species Act: Static Law Meets Dynamic World by Holly Doremus

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS,” also known as NOAA Fisheries) (together “the Services”), do not currently have a formal policy on hybrids. The Interior Solicitor’s office waffled in the early days of the ESA, first concluding that any progeny of a protected entity was itself protected, then quickly reversing course to say that the progeny of interbreeding between species or even between subspecies were flatly ineligible for federal protection [70]. That stance was withdrawn as too “rigid” in 1990 [71]. A new policy was proposed in 1996 [72], but it was never finalized. FWS now evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis [73].”

The short of all of this appears to be that the Endangered Species Act was not drafted with the intent to protect hybridized (intercrossed) species, BUT the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis” because they granted themselves that authority to do so. And, we are squarely back to ground zero; the courts show deference to the Secretary and Congress gives the Secretary authoritative flexibility.

What does that then mean? That’s a good question. To me it means that if the USFWS has an agenda, aside from it’s written mission (Gasp!), and for political reasons, it can, on a case-by-case basis do whatever they want while running the risk of lawsuits from friends, what then is the rule of law worth? Realistically, the only lawsuits USFWS usually face come from animal rights and environmental groups. All too often, all of these groups work in unison with the same political (and financial) agendas.

In The Real Wolf book, an entire chapter covers the hybridization of captive wolves before and after Mexican wolves were introduced into the Southwest. This must be one of those case-by-case examples the USFWS says they will make determinations about. The information and facts presented are a clear and well-defined example of the United States Government spending millions of taxpayer dollars to protect a Heinz-57 mutt in the desert Southwest.

From my vantage point I see at least two seriously flawed examples here of what is wrong with the Endangered Species Act. One, that the Secretary has the authority, and that authority flexes its muscle knowing the Courts grant deference (and environmentalists, et. al., can cherry-pick the courts they want for the judges they will get). Secondly, the Secretary can bastardize the actual purpose of the ESA by playing games with intercrosses on a “case-by-case basis,” i.e. politics and agendas.

But the flaws date back to the very beginning of the ESA. With little or no definitions, establishment of actual authority and provisions to easily craft changes to the act based on the rapidly changing environments we live in, we can only expect the ESA to fail in protecting species and become a political tool of benefit for those who can see financial gains and abuse to promote causes. Can you say OUTDATED? I know you can.

Wolves were and never have been threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” Wolves and human populations cannot coexist. This has been proven over and over again. In addition to the threats these animals cause to humans, intercrosses are inevitable and are a threat to the protection of the pure wolf species. Why is that not being considered here? Or is it really NOT about the wolf?

IDFG: “How Little We Know About Animals That Live in Our Forests”

IdahoLynxAn Idaho wildlife biologist, part of a five-year program, “to collect information on 20 little-studied creatures in the Idaho Panhandle and northeastern Washington”, was quoted as saying after trappers captured a Canada lynx:

“I was surprised that there were lynx in the West Cabinets,” said Michael Lucid, who’s heading up the Multi-Species Baseline Initiative for Idaho Fish and Game. “It shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.” (Emphasis added)

I have no intention to pick on or embarrass any particular employee of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG) or even the department as a whole (I know. Shocking isn’t it?). The statement made probably has more truth to it than most people know and that some shouldn’t be too eager to make.

The article makes claim of two things. One, Canada lynx is at least one species that is “little-studied” in portions of Idaho. Two, the biologist admits “how little we know” about certain animals his department is responsible for managing and caring for.

But I’m not here to blame IDFG necessarily for not knowing anything about Canada lynx. Instead, I might suggest that one might think that it would be a good idea to have even more than casual knowledge about a species before it is placed on the Endangered Species Act list of endangered and/or threatened species.

Consider this. The Endangered Species Act(ESA), has something to say about what must exist before any species can be considered as being threatened or endangered and protected by law. Note: The ESA, once implemented, can cause severe limitations and restrictions on private property, property rights and even a state agency to effectively run their own wildlife management programs. In short, administering the ESA for any species in any state should be considered a most serious undertaking, due to the potentially devastating fallout it can cause.

Having said that, isn’t it reasonable to expect that any professional wildlife administrator/biologist, governmental and non governmental agency, politician, etc. would want to know more about a species than “how little we know” BEFORE a species is listed and costing so much?

So, what does the ESA say must be the conditions in order to consider listing of a species?

SEC. 4.[16 U.S.C. 1533] (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

I should also note right here that in order to remove a species from federal protection, ALL of the above criteria must be met.

I ask. Are the above five conditions that this law, enacted by Congress, something that fits the demand and execution of listing the Canada lynx in portions of Idaho that, according to one biologist was, “little-studied creatures” and “shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.”? In other words, how can one honestly administer to protect a species it knows nothing about?

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has studied the Canada lynx extensively (enough to list a species honestly), then why is it necessary for the IDFG to conduct its own study of a species they say is “little-studied” and admittedly they know nothing about? One would think it sensible to contact the USFWS and get the critical information about the lynx that they MUST have compiled before making such a critical decision about whether or not to list the Canada lynx as a “threatened” species. They did do this, didn’t they? And it was specific to Northern Idaho, right?

If they did this in Idaho, who did the work? Obviously it must not have been IDFG employees because they say the lynx hasn’t been studied and they don’t know anything about it. If USFWS has the information, shouldn’t that be shared? And if so why spend more money to learn the same things? Or is this busy work being paid for through grants in order to keep more government employees at work?

Well, here’s the Canada Lynx Listing Decision page from the USFWS website. You go to work and find in there where studies were conducted and information gathered, specifically for Idaho, that would scientifically warrant placing the Canada lynx on the Endangered Species Act list where it has been designated. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, you can also find information on the IDFG website about the trapping of the lynx in Northern Idaho, but there’s nothing there that answers any of my questions.

And thus, I am left with an even bigger question of which I don’t suspect to get an answer for. Is there ever any real specific information gathered before listing ANY species or do USFWS “experts” just use the same regurgitated information available from Alaska, Colorado and West Canine, and only cherry pick through the information that fits their narrative and agenda and ignore the rest?

Maine is another state where the Canada lynx is listed as a threatened species. And like many species the lynx is not threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” But for political purposes, Canada lynx and other species recognize boundaries when it is convenient for USFWS to do so and ignored when it is not.

While the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources fakes their way though making people think they are seriously proposing changes to the Endangered Species Act, how about I suggest that before any species can be listed anywhere in the United States (and by the way, the United States thinks it has the right to list species in other countries.) specific studies must be done by third parties and paid for by those agencies requesting the listing, before any decisions can be made about federal restrictions.

I think it’s obvious nobody knows anything specific about Canada lynx in Northern Idaho and yet, the USFWS took it upon themselves to flex their muscle and blindly list portions of the Gem State as lynx critical habitat and historic range.

Had this effort been done correctly the first time, it would look something like this. Whoever the entity or agency seeking to list the Canada lynx as threatened or endangered, would have to be prepared to foot the bill to conduct the third party studies to support or refute the claims of those claiming the lynx was in danger. Then IDFG, in this case, could have taken the money and conducted the necessary studies on lynx to determine the existing population of lynx, the health and range, and condition of the habitat. This all being done BEFORE any proposals are drafted for consideration of listing.

Yes, we probably know very little about some or most animals in our forests, but when it comes to the politics of the Endangered Species Act and the money that can be made from it, it’s quite amazing how much information can be faked.

And don’t forget, this is Stop Government Abuse Week.

Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com