May 23, 2015

Environmentalism Has No Faults

EnvironmentalismIf you could swallow back hard against the urge to regurgitate whatever is in your stomach at the time by reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor, you would discover that Environmentalism is the creator of the Nirvanic Land of Oz, while hunters are nothing but stupid killers.

Romantic notions of environmental insanity and Gaia worship, placed on a plane that exceeds even that of the Creator, beckons for uncontrolled outbursts of Kumbaya and maybe even a few lines from I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.

As should be expected from the camp of the environmentalists, they think the republicans in the Congress hate wildlife and are out to destroy the Endangered Species Act, while, in their robotic minds, Obama is removing more animals from the Endangered Species Act list than any human ever thought possible. Now we can better understand why wolves walk on water, change rivers and leap tall buildings in a single bound.

The Land of Oz has been saved….well, almost. Laws, more laws and even more laws, stripping of property rights and loss of jobs, homes, ranches, businesses, have all proven to be the savior of Toto’s happy playground…despite hunters. We did nothing. We do nothing. We kill and that’s all there is to it. We should just be lined up and shot. They shoot horses don’t they?

My favorite IDIOT line from this article says, “There are a lot of people out there, including deer hunters prowling…, who could’ve all taken a shot at one of these black bears, and they didn’t.” My God! It’s a miracle. Had it not been for environmental influences, those “prowling” hunters would have killed everything in sight – probably people too. How are we kept under control? Amazing.

Missing from the entire conversation in this article is discussion about the overall public perception of environmental mentalism, and that environmentalism is what is to blame for actions by Congress to get some semblance of sanity (if that’s at all possible from any government agency) back into Endangered Species Act administering. Environmentalism wants their cake and eat it too. They are cluelessly causing humans to suffer so they can continue their perverted animal worship, programmed into them from birth. It’s sick behavior, but they don’t know it. This behavior has gone on for so long now, unchecked and fully pushed by the Courts, that their greed has caused people like myself, to become so sick and tired of it all, that we are speaking up and demanding something be done to stop the runaway train.

Without the cooperation of the activist Courts, Congress is being forced to write laws exempting species from any control by the Endangered Species Act and the Courts. And yet, these non thinking, mental midgets, not only cannot see what they have done, they still blame hunters for killing everything. They fear Congressional actions will put wildlife management back 10, 20, 30 or more years, but fail miserably to grasp the results of a forced Congress exempting animals from the control of Environmentalism and the Courts, possibly causing the prohibition of helping that species in the future if trouble surfaces again.

Long before Totalitarian rule via Environmentalism, hunters became the conservationist. It was our work and our money that conserved and preserved wildlife. Environmentalism has changed the narrative of how wildlife management is discussed and now they are taking credit for what today they call their Land of Oz, DESPITE the continued allowance of hunting.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Lynx surveys tracking cat in N.H., Vermont: Insuring Job Security

Editor’s Note: This report is mostly just utter nonsense and full of – oh what’s the politically correct word I’m looking for? Oh, heck, LIES. The quoted statement below shows why Canada lynx will never be recovered, as desired by the animal loving, job security-seekers. This guy admits that even though Canada lynx are protected, conditions do not and will not exist for lynx to recover. And yet, we keep on keeping on because it means lots of money and job security to those lying about how many lynx there are, etc.

I have it on pretty good authority that biologists appointed to count and work with Canada lynx were told to never, ever, under any conditions, say any state or region has more than 500 lynx. Note this statement: “Estimates from federal scientists put the number of Canada lynx in Maine at 500; that’s fewer than a state estimate of 750 to 1,000 lynx about five years ago.” It’s always no greater than 500…ever.

Here’s another point of contradiction. We are told that Canada lynx are at the southern most edge of their historic range and that global warming is causing the lynx to withdraw from the state and move north. And yet, we now read that lynx are moving south because that’s where they can find their favorite food – snowshoe hare. And this makes sense, because……?

“There’s potentially times when conditions might be just right that lynx can occur in Vermont and New Hampshire and in western Maine and Downeast Maine but probably not consistently,” said Mark McCullough, an endangered species biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Orono, Maine.

Source: – Lynx surveys tracking cat in N.H., Vermont

LynxHabitatMaine

Somebody Needs to Buy a Clue: NC Red Wolf Government Corruption

From North Carolina Hunt and Fish:

September 2014 Gunshot Wolf “Facts”
Facts that we know:

1) An endangered Red Wolf was confirmed to be shot in September 2014

2) Federal Judge Terrance Boyle issued a Federal Injunction halting all Coyote Hunting in the 5 County area (Tyrrell)

3) The confirmed and admitted Gunshot take occurred in Tyrrell County while Tyrrell County was under the Federal Coyote Injunction

4) No one reported this gunshot Red Wolf within the required 24 hr period for permitted takes 1) Deperdation 2) Threat of life

5) This “Take” could not have been “Incidental” to an otherwise legal activity (Coyote Take) as there was a Federal Injunction in place at time of this confirmed gunshot occurred!

6) If this take occurred due to the perpetrator mistakenly shooting the Endangered Red Wolf while they were Coyote hunting, that activity (Coyote hunting) violated the Federal Judges Injunction which resulted from the suit brought forward by the Red Wolf Coalition and not for “Profits”. This is highly illegal in its own twist of circumstance.

7) USFWS failed to issue a joint press release and even embrace the generous reward posted by Landowners and Hunters which now stands at $52,050.00!

Questions;

Why has USFWS failed to pursue this most intresting case?

Does the USFWS close all Critically Endangered Species criminal cases that are “Confirmed” to have suffered “Gunshot” if it only later (creatively ??) decides the mortality was not caused by gunshot?

Does anyone else in America smell the “Stinch”???

~~~~~~~~~

Director Ashe,

The below video and fact sheet was recently posted on a website where I am documenting the absurd USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal. Pay close attention to the entire video as it may contain a clue you need.

Thanks,

Inspector General Investigates USFWS "Gunshot" Wolf Scandal from Red Wolf Restoration Scandal on Vimeo.

More information on North Carolina red wolves found here.

PETA accuses federal agency of sanctioning loophole in law

The group says exceptions[to the Endangered Species Act] are being granted for donations as low as $500 to conservation groups.
Source: PETA accuses federal agency of sanctioning loophole in law – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Wyoming congresswoman, others press for national wolf delisting

Wyoming U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis and others in Congress are pushing the U.S. Department of Interior to end federal protections for wolves nationwide.
Source: Wyoming congresswoman, others press for national wolf delisting

ESA Recovery Plans: Mandated, Needed, Necessary?

Lynx canadensis  Canada LynxI’ve been involved in business nearly my entire life. Most dealings with business have been in “micro” business and yet I learned decades ago that the ONLY way to be successful in business, or anything in life for that matter, was to have a plan.

Having said that, why does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) not have a Recovery Plan for Canada lynx? As you will discover, this is just another example of why the Endangered Species Act needs to be either seriously amendment or ripped up and written all over again.

On March 3, 2000, the USFWS formally listed the Canada lynx as a “threatened” species in part or all of the following states: CO, ID, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NM, NY, OR, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY

Before I post that portion of the Endangered Species Act that spells out exactly, in a way where lawyers can have a field day with it, let me first say that a definite change to the ESA that is necessary is that NO species should be allowed to be listed in any category if it does not have a Recovery Plan with it – PERIOD.

[Sec. 4] (f)(1) RECOVERY PLANS.—The Secretary shall develop and implement plans (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as ‘‘recovery plans’’) for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to this section, unless he finds that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. The Secretary, in development and implementing recovery plans, shall, to the maximum extent practicable—

(A) give priority to those endangered species or threatened species, without regard to taxonomic classification, that are most likely to benefit from such plans, particularly those species that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity;

(B) incorporate in each plan—

(i) a description of such site-specific management actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of the species;

(ii) objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of this section, that the species be removed from the list; and

(iii) estimates of the time required and the cost to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.

(2) The Secretary, in developing and implementing recovery plans, may procure the services of appropriate public and private agencies and institutions and other qualified persons. Recovery teams appointed pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

(3) The Secretary shall report every two years to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives on the status of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans for all species listed pursuant to this section and on
the status of all species for which such plans have been developed.

(4) The Secretary shall, prior to final approval of a new or revised recovery plan, provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment on such plan. The Secretary shall consider all information presented during the public comment period prior to approval of the plan.

(5) Each Federal agency shall, prior to implementation of a new or revised recovery plan, consider all information presented during the public comment period under paragraph (4).

Sec. 4 (f)(1) states that the Secretary shall create and implement a recovery plan – well that is if he deems it necessary to protect and recover a species. The ESA must be a joke. Think about it for a minute. If a recovery plan was deemed not necessary for the protection and conservation of a species then why is it even listed to begin with? Either way, because the ESA was written for lawyers and not for the purpose of protecting and recovering endangered species, we now know that there doesn’t necessarily have to be a recovery plan.

However, early on in Section 4, 3(B) of the ESA, we know that the Secretary, must designate “critical habitat” at the same time any species is listed as “threatened” or “endangered.”

(3) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and determinable—

(A) shall, concurrently with making a determination under paragraph (1) that a species is an endangered species or a threatened species, designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat; and

Fourteen years after the Canada lynx listing, a U.S. District Court in Montana ordered the USFWS to develop a timeline in which they are to create and implement a Recovery Plan for Canada lynx. That Court made the determination that the USFWS had no justifiable reason to not have a recovery plan. The ESA provides “flexibility” or deference, if you will, that allows the Secretary to not include critical habitat listing at the time of species listing but the Secretary must prove doing so would negatively affect the conservation of the Canada lynx. The Court said it couldn’t be proven.

According to the linked-to article just above, it states that according to the ESA there is no timeline to list critical habitat. I disagree. Above, the ESA clearly states that the Secretary: “Shall, concurrently with making a determination…that a species is an endangered or threatened species, designate any habitat…” Last time I checked, concurrently meant at the same time.

The USFWS also argues that it hasn’t been able to devise a Recovery Plan because of lawsuits involving the designation of critical habitat. If the law requires that critical habitat be designated at the same time that Canada lynx is listed as threatened, and no critical habitat has been designated, then why is the species listed as threatened? By law, it should have been delayed.

We also know that last January, the USFWS announced – and still without a plan – that it is going to be conducting a review to determine what to do about the Canada lynx listing, i.e. keep it as “threatened,” increase it to “endangered,” or remove the animal from the list altogether.

This is a very sad joke being perpetrated onto the American public. All of this reveals why the ESA doesn’t work. In the meantime, there is no plan for lynx recovery, there is no designated critical habitat in all areas and people are suffering economically because of an illegal protection with no plan to find an end.

Disgusting government bureaucracy geared to fattening the wallets of lawyers and environmental groups.

Rep. Newhouse Introduces Legislation to Remove Gray Wolf from Endangered Species Act List

April 23, 2015 Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) introduced H.R. 1985, the Pacific Northwest Gray Wolf Management Act of 2015 to remove the gray wolf from the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and return management authority for the species back to the individual Pacific Northwest states. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) joined Rep. Newhouse to introduce this legislation as original co-sponsors:

“This is a commonsense bill that would allow states to provide a more flexible management program and move forward with the implementation of the gray wolf delisting efforts, which are long overdue,” said Rep. Newhouse. “States are fully qualified to manage gray wolf populations responsibly and are better equipped to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock, and wildlife populations. Delisting the gray wolf under ESA would allow state wildlife officials to manage wolf populations more effectively.”

For the text of the legislation, click here.

BACKGROUND:

On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) released a proposed rule that would have removed the gray wolf from the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” This determination was made after FWS “evaluated the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act of 1973” and found the “best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act,” according to the proposed rule.

The statutory purpose of Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered “endangered” or “threatened.” The gray wolf is currently found in nearly fifty countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of “least concern” globally for risk of extinction by the Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN). Ample populations in the United States and Canada have already led to the delisting of the gray wolf from ESA in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Western Great Lakes region.

Fed’s Canada Lynx Review Excuses

PORTLAND, Maine — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is applying a new threat assessment for federally protected Canada lynx from Maine to Washington State, delaying completion of the first five-year review.

The structured threat assessment will involve several other agencies, at least 15 states and more than 20 Native American tribes. The resulting assessment will serve as the basis of a streamlined five-year review, and a recovery plan if one is necessary, said Jim Zelenak of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Montana.<<<Read More>>>

Perhaps it is time for some kind of accountability within the ranks of the Federal Government. In the Private Sector, if anyone performed as ineptly and corruptly as these clowns, they would have been fired a long time ago.

By law, before any species can be officially listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the guise of the Endangered Species Act, a statement of what the environmental impact will be must be drafted, finalized and published in the Federal Register. In order to list a species as “threatened” or “endangered,” by law it is required to present a Recovery Plan (before the listing) – after all, if a species is in trouble there must be a plan to save and recover the species. That plan for Canada lynx was never done, but that didn’t stop the Feds, under pressure from corrupt, environmental groups, to list the lynx anyway.

Five years later, we are now hearing that the Feds need more time to complete their required-by-law assessment while stating, “The resulting assessment will serve as the basis of a streamlined five-year review, and a recovery plan if one is necessary.”

Are you kidding me? If one is necessary? How did the Feds get away with listing the lynx as a threatened species to begin with?

But does it really matter?

In those states where the Canada lynx is illegally listed as a species in trouble, people will never see this critter removed from federal protection. It was never intended that way and it will never happen. Oh, the Feds may put on a dog and pony show to convince enough people that they are doing all that they can – the most being enabling the pocketing of millions of dollars by environmental crooks.

On a project that should have been done BEFORE listing, the Feds “hope” to have a five-year recovery plan in place by this coming December. How thoughtful of them.

If you read the article, linked to above, you will read the Fed’s planned-out excuse of why Canada lynx will not be removed from Federal protection:

In Maine, the lynx population’s fate is tied to the snowshoe hares upon which they feed, and the populations of both are believed to be declining because of lack of suitable habitat for the hares. The end of clear-cutting forestry practices in Maine has allowed forests to fill in, taking away the habitat preferred by hares.

Try to understand this statement, if you can. The attempt here is, as any good environmentally biased group or person would do, to demonize the forest industry because they destroyed habit that is affecting the Canada lynx. But, notice the article unknowingly states that the only way the Canada lynx can remain at artificially high levels is due to the presence of the snowshoe hare, which flourished due to clear cutting – clear cutting, by the way, that was done to mitigate the devastation from the spruce bud worm.

Also take note, that in the permitting process for Maine to obtain an Incidental Take Permit for Canada lynx, the state had to agree to clear-cut hundreds of acres of public land in order to artificially create lynx habitat. Does this at all make sense? The same environmental, mental midgets who demand that forests be left in their “natural” state, also demand that forests be clear-cut in order to artificially grow Canada lynx.

Imagine that the spruce bud worm attack never happened. There wouldn’t be the extent of clear-cut forests and because of that, there would have been fewer snowshoe hares, thus fewer Canada lynx. Therefore, the current conditions that caused the Canada lynx to be in large numbers, as they are at present – and now predicted to shrink – were all caused artificially – GASP! by man.

So, according to the perverted reasoning of the Feds and the environmental groups they love to crawl in bed with, the only way we can hope to save and perpetuate more lynx so more cars and trucks kill them on the highways, and more will die of diseases, and more will kill more threatened white-tail deer, and more lynx get incidentally caught in traps, and more romantics can dream about one day having a lynx of their own to love and coddle, is to pray for another severe outbreak of spruce bud worm.

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

North Carolina’s Criminal Red Wolf and Wildlife Activities

Editor’s Note: All of this information was contained in an email sent to me from a concerned resident of North Carolina. I have taken the liberty to attempt to place this information in a chronological order. I hope I have done it justice.

Officer Wayne,

I would like to report the following alleged wildlife violations in your region.

1. 31 counts of sterilization of coyotes without a permit.
This activity apparently involves USFWS biologists and the veterinary clinics that performed the sterilizations.

Evidence:

From USFWS January – March 2013 Quarterly Report –

http://www.fws.gov/redwolf/Images/20130416_RedWolf_QtrReport_FY13-02.pdf

“Thirty-one coyotes were captured and released during the quarter, 29 of which were first-time captures. All captured coyotes were sterilized before being radio-collared and released, and consisted of eight males and 23 females.”

USFWS had no sterilization permit during this time period.

It is my strong belief that this activity was repeated again from January through May of 2014. The USFWS reports for this period have not been published. USFWS keeps a “canid book” which will have the information you need.

There was no sterilization permit in place for this period either.

In addition, I believe USFWS has been sterilizing coyotes in our State for almost 15 years. Please cross-reference the trapping and sterilization documentation in their quarterly reports with the issuance of the required permits during this time period. There are likely hundreds of violations.

2. Trapping out of season without a permit.

Evidence:

See the above referenced evidence.

Additionally, this USFWS presentation documents their trapping schedule is daily September through April.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4hb-L8j0UYebzNkdFFPakRWSXM/edit

“•? Trapping (Sept-April) •? Daily”

3. Trapping on the land of another without written permission.

Evidence:

I have requested information regarding this activity from USFWS and have not yet received it. Since 90% of the red wolf packs and the vast majority of coyotes occur on private land, I suspect this activity to be rampant. Again, the USFWS “canid book” information and lack of written permission from landowners should suffice as evidence. I have additional first hand information if you need it.

4. Releasing coyotes on the land of another without permission.

Evidence:
“FWS biologists have also tried bringing in sterilized coyotes to the area. The idea is those sterile animals will keep other coyotes out of the wolf territory and lower the risk of hybridization.”

http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/nc-north-carolina-red-wolf-also-subject-of-conservation-controversy/

I suspect coyotes were trapped, sterilized and released on my farm in Tyrrell Co. in the Spring and Summer of 2013 by USFWS biologists. I never granted permission for anyone to release coyotes on my property. USFWS while at the office of the NCWRC Director was specifically directed by me to euthanize any trapped coyotes on my property. The USFWS should have this data. Again, the “canid book” should have this data.

It is well documented that USFWS regularly purchases coyotes from trappers. I can only assume these purchased coyotes are later released and likely released on private property without permission.

5. Purchase of live coyotes, entrapment, misrepresentation.

In the State of NC, it is illegal for wildlife to be bought and sold. One exception is that a coyote or fox may be sold only to a fox pen. Now, if special conditions that I am unaware of allow USFWS to purchase wildlife, will you confirm that these conditions were fully met at all times. It will be a real shame if local trappers (selling live coyotes to non fox pen buyer) and veterinarians (sterilization of wildlife) have jeopardized their livelihoods because they were led to believe that they were participating in a legal activity as it was represented to them by the USFWS. I will also copy Roy Cooper, as if my suspicions are correct, he will need to get involved in this matter.

Evidence:

“This year, we had 8 trappers participate and we paid out $5,200 for 32 coyotes and 10 red wolves.” 4/4/13 letter USFWS to RWC
I can provide this letter when necessary.

Officer Wayne, I take these alleged violations seriously and request to be updated regularly on their status.

Also, are you comfortable that the deer used to feed the wolves in the acclimation pens and also the deer that are laced with medications and wormers for the “wild” wolves are taken legally (all required permits and landowner permissions)? Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

http://www.nchuntandfish.com/forums/showthread.php?103801-USFWS-Red-Wolf-Recovery-Team-Reported-for-Alleged-Wildlife-Violations-by-Jett-Ferebee

http://www.nchuntandfish.com/forums/showthread.php?95624-quot-Red-Wolf-quot-restoration-scandal

Mr. Ferebee,
Thank you for your referral. The Service takes all allegations of misconduct very seriously. On March 26, 2015, this office initiated an investigation into allegations made by another concerned party into the Red Wolf Program. The case number for this matter is FWS-2015-24. I would ask your patience as we look into this sizable program. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the below numbers. -Keith

_________________________
K. A. Toomey, #640
Special Agent in Charge
Professional Responsibility Unit
US Fish & Wildlife Service

ESA Section 7 Violations by USFWS – Red Wolf Program

Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2015 2:18 pm
Attachment
Secretary Jewell, Director Ashe, and Ms. Harvey,

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires US Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct intra-agency consultation for its own actions that may impact listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitat. In 1986, USFWS filed the attached ESA Intra-agency Section 7 Consultation regarding the red wolf introduction into North Carolina. Please note 3 of the 4 evaluators stated the intended action “may affect” the red wolf population.

The attached Section 7 Consultation document explicitly states that USFWS will remove 10 (but up to 12 animals) from the captive red wolf population for release onto the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge with an estimated incidental take of only 2 animals.

USFWS, over the next five years removed 43 (not 10 or even 12) animals from the captive population. 14 of these 43 wolves were released onto private land outside of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge without legal authorization or the protections offered by the refuge system.

22 of the 43 animals (not 2), removed from the captive population died within 5 years of their release. (See the 1992 ARNWR report: http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/anr-ar-pi-1992.pdf and the attached FOIA wolf release document)

To date USFWS has now removed 132 wolves out of the captive population of which 64 were illegally released onto private land. 60 out of 64 (93.75%) of all suspected illegal takes have occurred on private land. Internal USFWS policy is to discourage removal of wolves from private land.

The 1986 Section 7 Consultation document states:

“If during the course of the action the amount of extent of incidental taking previously specified is exceeded, the refuge manager and the field supervisor must reinitiate consultation immediately.”

Ms. Sharneka,

Please provide the required Section 7 Consultation for the removal of an additional 120 “red wolves” (132 – 12 approved) from the captive breeding population.

Please provide the required Section 7 Consultation to sustain an incidental take beyond the 2 estimated animals as required in the 1986 Section 7 Consultation.

Please provide the Section 7 Consultation to release wolves on private land and to not remove wolves from private land where the wolves are less protected.

Please provide the Section 7 Consultation providing for the released of red wolves outside of their historic range. (see attached USFWS Red Wolf Historic Range map)

Secretary Jewell and Director Ashe,

It is important to note that the Red Wolf Recovery plan sets the needed captive population at 330 animals. After more than 30 years, this captive population only has 197 very closely related individuals. The entire red wolf population is highly susceptible to inbreeding as it was started with only 14 so called “red wolves”. Now, only six of these founder wolves are represented in the wild.

Has the unauthorized “take” of 120 red wolves from the captive breeding population by USFWS personnel now jeopardized the existence of the red wolf species, if indeed it is a species?

Has the unauthorized “take” of 120 red wolves by USFWS irreparably harmed the red wolf “species” by further causing an inbred population both in the wild and in captivity?

Has the unauthorized release of red wolves onto private land and the failure to remove wolves from private land by USFWS resulted in “USFWS self inflicted” losses that now jeopardize and adversely impact the existence of the red wolf species, if indeed it is a species?

Has the unwillingness for USFWS personnel to abide by hardly any of the Endangered Species Act rules governing the red wolf introduction in eastern NC, now so eroded private landowner support that a successful reintroduction of the red wolf can never be achieved anywhere?

Has the release of red wolves outside of their historic range by USFWS personnel adversely impacted or jeopardized the existence of the “red wolf species”? (see attached USFWS Red Wolf Historic Range map)

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

Special Agent in Charge Keith Toomey,

Thank you so much for creating a case file and investigating the alleged NC Wildlife law violations by USFWS Red Wolf personnel.

Probably more concerning and serious is the alleged illegal “take” of 120 red wolves by USFWS Red Wolf personnel. Additionally, USFWS red wolf personnel have released a nonessential experimental population of wolves outside of it’s historical range, which is a violation of the ESA 10(j) rules.

“The PRU conducts both criminal and administrative investigations for the Service of other non-law enforcement Service employees when asked based on the seriousness of the alleged offense.”

Will the USFWS Professional Responsibility Unit please investigate the ESA Section 7 and the ESA 10(j) rules violations by the USFWS – Red Wolf Program personnel as outlined in the below email?

MapHistoricRange

PDF of All Wolf Releases

Copy of FOIA Letter re: Section 7 Consultation requirement

Beware the Peer Review

ExposeCorruptionFor several years now, Roxanne Quimby, founder of Burt’s Bees, has tried to get Maine to buy into the idea of creating, yet another, national park in the Baxter State Park region. Quimby sits on the board of directors for the National Park Service and recently turned the idea of the park over to her son Lucas St. Clair.

At a recent meeting in the Millinocket area, proponents and opponents met to exchange barbs and attempt to discredit each other. Nothing new.

According to the Bangor Daily News, St. Clair said:

…he could not count the number of wrong facts and figures in the presentations, but that it was vast. As an example, he said, the economic studies done on the park’s effect were peer reviewed, and approved, by the state’s former economist and a University of Maine forest products professor.

I cannot address specifically the economic studies referred to in this piece because I have not read them. Therefore, my following comments are based upon general facts and information that all U.S. citizens should be educated about concerning the dreaded “peer review” of scientific data.

We all cherry pick when it comes to selecting information to support our causes. Often those that do don’t realize that for each document you produce to support your claim, there may be just as many to disprove it. So, which documents are right and which ones are wrong?

Well, I cannot answer that question honestly and herein lies the rub. The system of peer review is seriously flawed. It’s down right broken.

To those willing to not bury their heads in the sand and pretend things are just ducky, we have known for some time that peer review is a worthless instrument. Yes, and unfortunately that is the truth. Corruption and greed have destroyed what may have been a good system of checks and balances….or at least a better one.

With all the complaining that has gone on, perhaps we are now beginning to hear some noise about this peer review process.

All decisions are based upon “best available science.” Best available science is a vague term, with no conditions or parameters set in order to maintain a truthful method of checks and balances. For that reason, peer review, which once was necessary if you ever had any hope of being heard, is mostly worthless. Anybody, with money and connections can obtain peer review. The trick is to keep the available peers contained within a specialized group to ensure no opposition is heard or considered – stacking the deck or rigging the system.

We saw this play out nicely in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the reintroduction of wolves to the Greater Yellowstone area. While the fake and rigged process allows for anyone to submit information, studies, data, concerns and yes, peer reviewed documents, there’s no control over which ones get serious attention and which ones don’t. Never mind the rules. It’s a free for all.

Back in December of 2014, the House Natural Resources Committee released a report about the concerns over whether or not “best available science” was using independent peer review and in general the report actually questions the quality of the so-called “science” being used.

The ESA requires that decisions on whether to list a species as threatened or endangered must be based on the “best scientific and commercial data available.” As one of the chief agencies responsible for implementing the ESA, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) has issued policies and guidance concerning the use of the best available science.

A review by the Committee’s Majority oversight staff of the FWS’ recent ESA listing decisions has found:

* The FWS’ peer review process, information quality policies, and guidance documents are used to justify the FWS’ listing decisions under the ESA. However, the policies are ambiguous as to what constitutes “independent” peer review. This has led to inconsistency in how FWS Regional offices conduct peer review.

* The FWS regularly recruits scientists to peer review its listing decisions who are well-known experts on the specific species at issue. In fact, the FWS routinely bases its listing decisions on science that has been developed by the same people who have been recruited by the FWS to serve as peer reviewers. Rather than providing a fresh perspective on how the science was conducted or whether the listing decision is supported by science, the peer reviewers are in effect being asked to review how the FWS has characterized their studies and research.

* The FWS does not have clear or consistent procedures in place across all FWS Regional offices to ensure that potential peer reviewers undergo a screening to identify possible conflicts of interest or impartiality. In many cases, those who have received grants or financial assistance from the Department of the Interior (“Department”) and its bureaus or other federal agencies to study the species at issue or who have known biases, positions, or affiliations with groups that have advocated for conservation of the species under the ESA are allowed to serve as peer reviewers.

* The FWS does not consistently disclose to the American public information about who serves as peer reviewers for ESA listing decisions, the instructions they are given, the substance of their comments, or how their comments are addressed by the FWS. Peer reviewer identities are often withheld, and their comments are not clearly identified or made publicly available in the course of the listing decisions.

While this report of the House Committee on Natural Resources is specifically addressing science involved with Endangered Species Act, surely the same problems exist concerning peer review for any document. The short of it is, no longer can peer review be trusted.

Recently the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) released a working paper addressing many of these same problems. In the Executive Summary, page x, it states:

Fueled by decades of ineffective oversight, federal agencies’ respect for science and the scientific process has severely diminished. For that reason, one can easily foresee many potential applications of the enforcement framework offered in this paper.

Clearly we are seeing more and more concerns about important decisions being made based on what more and more people are seeing as biased, unsubstantiated, politically and monetarily driven trumped up “science.”

In 2000, Congress passed the Information Quality Act, (IQA) supposedly for the purpose of making sure crap wasn’t brought into decision making processes. WLF writes:

The law requires federal agencies to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the scientific, technical, and statistical information that federal agencies adopt and disseminate to the public.

Fifteen years after passage of the IQA, and what we are hearing from places like the House Committee on Natural Resources, is that it’s still “crap in and crap out.”

Evidently the Office of Management and Budget is responsible for implementing the 2000 IQA law. The OMB’s guidelines were supposed to set minimum standards.

OMB’s IQA Guidelines required that each federal agency develop and adhere to their own IQA guidelines, and set out minimum criteria for scientific peer review of agency-drafted and third-party studies and scientific assessments, as well as criteria for the selection of peer reviewers. OMB dictated that these peer-review standards be especially rigorous for “highly influential scientific assessments.” Federal agencies must also provide an administrative review mechanism that will allow affected entities to seek correction of agency-disseminated information that was not adequately validated. Agencies routinely carry out this mandate by addressing requests for correction as part of their responses to public comments in a final regulation—an approach, the paper argues, that does not afford sufficient due process to stakeholders.

Sounds nice but obviously it’s not working. To be honest, with this sort of self-regulation within a corrupt government and rigged process, I have just about zero amount of faith that there can ever be reliable science-based documentation done with valid, quality peer review. There’s just too much money involved. Best Available Science therefore becomes a travesty.

It’s a crying shame for the science industry. We live in a post normal scientific era. People are crying out for honest and reliable scientific processes and information. Yet, nothing and no one can be trusted. Agendas run too deeply. People must understand that peer review is garbage. Do not accept it and do not rely on it – even when it involves stuff you want to hear. You are being used.

Whether Maine buys into the sales pitch to accept 150,000 acres of land for the purpose of a national park, that is up to the people in the state of Maine. As far as the rest of are concerned, we should make sure that we let the National Park Service and our congressional representatives know how we feel about another park and this idea of peer reviewed science.

However, Maine residents need to tread lightly over claims that any data necessary to make these major decisions is “peer reviewed science.” It may be valid or it may not. It’s up to you, because nobody else can be trusted, to find out.

And we know that will not happen. Good luck!