September 19, 2019

Buffalo as Metaphors

By James Beers

(METAPHOR, n. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable, in order to suggest a resemblance, as “A mighty fortress is our God”.)

I have just finished reading the latest federal EIS/Plan/Federal Register Notice/Request for Comments written by the US National Park Service (or is it the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or the US Forest Service, or some other federal bureaucracy – I forget) about FREE ROAMING BUFFALO IN THE YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM (my underline).

Think about that for a moment – A Federal Plan for a common critter throughout AN ECOSYSTEM! Translation; since “Ecosystem” can be whatever you choose it to be, this federal plan composed by federal (i.e. unaccountable) bureaucrats, and buffalo being the critters they are, these central government “planners” are outlining what they will do – 1) in Yellowstone Park, 2) on the federal lands beyond Yellowstone Park boundaries, 3) on private property surrounding Yellowstone Park, and 4) on all the public and private property surrounding all the public and private property that surrounds Yellowstone National Park. Shades of Soviet Central Planners creating Stalin’s “Plan” to starve millions of Ukrainians to kill all the farmers that thought they still owned their land and replace them with the Soviet Collective Farms that, like this buffalo lunacy, will be a harmful and dismal failure, except in the halls of government where bureaucrats will slap each other on the back like the Soviets did for 60 years while giving each other bonuses as people, families and their communities disappeared.

There is NO authority or jurisdiction for federal bureaucrats to consider, much less delineate, where buffalo will occur or under what conditions they will be tolerated and who will pay for it OUTSIDE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone National Park is unique in this character that it shares with only the District of Columbia. State governments have jurisdiction under the Constitution over the plants and animals in or about to be in their state regardless of who (federal, non-profit, private, etc.) owns it.

Consider:

– Buffalo are not “endangered”.

– Buffalo are among the most dangerous animals encountered by visitors to the various U.S. and Canadian National Parks and will attack humans if provoked. They appear slow because of their lethargic movements but can easily outrun humans—bison have been observed running as fast as 40 miles per hour (64 km/h). This fact is studiously either avoided or downplayed in the federal “plans”.

– Between 1980 and 1999, more than three times as many people in Yellowstone National Park were injured by buffalo than by bears. During this period, buffalo charged and injured 79 people, with injuries ranging from goring puncture wounds and broken bones to bruises and abrasions. Bears injured 24 people during the same time frame. Three people died from the injuries inflicted—one person by buffalo in 1983, and two people by bears in 1984 and 1986.

– Romance Biology accounts of the “massacre” of buffalo by “hunters” in the 1800’s never mention how towns, roads, farms and ranches could have ever been established, much less co-existed, with free-roaming buffalo.

– Romance biology accounts of the disappearance of buffalo also mention frequently that “livestock diseases decimated buffalo”; federal planners today downplay and ignore the threat that free-roaming buffalo would present to livestock such as brucellosis, hoof-and-mouth, BSE (Mad Cow) and Anthrax.

– Buffalo are cantankerous; a point I thought about as I hunted pheasants in Montana prairie hill country slated for a free-roaming buffalo referendum that was soundly rejected soon after my visit. (There was a BIG sign by the church entrance on Sunday morning that read, “NO BUFFALO IN MALTA!”) Imagine some guys on foot with shotguns behind dogs coming on a band of buffalo that get irritated by the dog’s, miles from anything but grass, pheasants and sharptails. Where do the dogs go? Why to YOU. Who storms after the dogs? Why the buffalo. What do you do? Why you either die or suffer injuries that YOU will be blamed for causing by some sort of regulatory violation based on some Romance Biology Professor’s nostrum paid for by government.

– Imagine living where buffalo knock down fences (commonly); where buffalo wander through crops and destroy them routinely; where buffalo (they are dark and heavy like moose) standing in country roads are struck by vehicles causing death, injuries, and property destruction to local men, women and kids; and where buffalo attacks on livestock are common.

But I digress: in what way you may ask are buffalo, metaphors? Let me count the ways.

Buffalo and their enablers are like:

Federal Wolf Planners that bear no responsibility for the lies and mayhem they create for their own benefit and the continued reelection and sponsorship of their political patrons.

State Wolf Planners that do federal bidding and spend scarce hunting and fishing revenue money on federal schemes designed to ultimately destroy hunting and fishing.

State Bureaucrats that express only contempt and disdain for residents of their state and Local governments in their State that object to wolves, grizzlies and protected mountain lions in their communities.

Wolves that spread disease, kill domestic animals like dogs and livestock, kill or compete with more desirable (to sportsmen and local communities) game animals, and present clear and present dangers to humans forced to coexist with them.

Wolf Enablers in that they (their majority) live elsewhere; do not raise livestock; do not hunt, fish or trap; and do not rely for effective local government representation on County governments and their revenue streams.

Grizzly Bear Advocates that spread and protect these very dangerous and very destructive animals based on lies and denials of deaths, destruction and injuries. Grizzly bears, like wolves, no more belong in the settled landscapes of the Lower 48 States than elephants, tigers or Nile Crocodiles belong here in this day and age.

Anti-Hunting/Animal Rights Radicals that promise to compensate losses from these animals but never do: that deny the truths right before their eyes with widespread propaganda in enthusiastic newspapers, TV, and school classrooms; and all the while forcing (through lawsuits) state fish and wildlife agencies to drain their funds for wildlife management on these programs to destroy hunting and rural American life.

Environmentalists and their hidden agendas to vacate rural America by a combination of government land purchase; federally-financed and coordinated surrogate purchases of key easements and land options; closure of roads; closure of public lands to management, use, grazing, logging, hunting by contrived claims of “importance”, Wilderness, Roadless, Sanctuaries and other bureaucratic creations; and the elimination of Local governments while simultaneously co-opting state bureaucracies.

Central Government and World Government Activists that envision a world THEY RULE where there are no such things as Constitutional guarantees, Congressional oversight, Judicial Review, private property, or the opportunity for local communities to live in peace and prosperity, free from outside influences that only take from them for the benefit of others.

Progressive (choose your own term here) Activists that believe that ANYTHING you can generate a majority, or influential, or rich, segment of the population to support should be imposed by any means on the minority or less powerful NO MATTER THEIR OBJECTIONS.

HHHMMMM, roll all the above together, put all their little hidden agendas and activities in one pot, and what do you have? Whatever you want to call IT; IT is a metaphor all its own. IT is like:

– Islamist “Planners” outlining and incrementally forcing their worldview on the rest of the world, NO MATTER WHAT THEY THINK regardless of civilized standards of behavior or any moral considerations.

– Soviet “Planners” taking advantage of every incremental opportunity to expand the Soviet Empire by whatever means from lies and invasion to forcible occupation. Never forget that the “Soviet” or “Russian” nuclear plant at Chernobyl was in Ukraine, surrounded by Ukrainians and not in Russia.

– Mao’s “Planners” destroying the cities and intelligentsia inside China while gobbling up Tibet and the South China Sea’s resources outside China.

– Nazi “Planners” lying about their plans for outside Germany until resistance was impossible and then swiftly invading and establishing concentration camps and slave labor with the intent of killing “sub-humans”, enslaving “inferior races”, and restoring a Romance History Fairyland populated by “Pre-Roman” plants and animals, “super-men” and the estates of Nazi overlords.

– Margaret Sanger Population Control “Planners” justifying the mass murder of millions of fellow human beings by abortion and the sterilization of others by government mandates (China) with government funding based on racist beliefs and disregard for the intrinsic value of each human life.

– Same-Sex Activists that appeal for “equal treatment” and then proceed to destroy the legal concept of marriage and parenthood and then destroy businesses, individuals and now churches and Chaplains that object to what they represent.

– Gun Control Advocates that get politicians to do anything, no matter its Constitutionality, to ban ammunition, restrict “only certain” guns, negotiate and secretly write UN agreements to subvert the 2nd Amendment, and smuggle guns to Mexican killers as justification to restrict guns in the US; while protesting how they “hunt” and “don’t want to restrict all guns” and how they “respect” the 2nd Amendment.

– Current American Society with its government secrecy; erosion of checks and balances; vilification of police; flag bans on campuses; government sex and race preferences; loss of local government; debilitating debt; and growing disparate justice standards based on wealth, government standing, and the political party of the judge’s appointing sponsor.

In the study of Logic you quickly encounter the Syllogism. A syllogism is a verifiable argument wherein two verifiable (i.e. true) premises explain, or lead to, a verifiable conclusion. For instance:

Premise #1-

Buffalo are a current tool of a coalition of extremist agendas that aim to destroy American Constitutional governance.

Premise #2-

Current American Society’s Constitutional governance is eroding at an accelerating rate.

CONCLUSION-

Buffalo are contributing to the erosion of Constitutional governance in America Society.

Come to think of it; buffalo are far more than just a metaphor for our times. They are but one of the destructive forces we face and must overcome.

Jim Beers
17 March 2015

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Mexican Wolf Game Change: To Hiss and Boo or Stand and Cheer?

ArizonaWolfPlanRecently I wrote a book about my life as an Innkeeper/Hotel/Motel/Manager. Included in that book in the last chapter was something that I shared as a means of finding fault with myself in that it took me far too long to understand the mistake I was making in thinking I could remain in the hospitality business that I disliked.

Chapter One
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I fall in.
I am lost …. I am helpless.
It isn’t my fault.
It takes forever to find a way out.

Chapter Two
I walk down the street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I pretend that I don’t see it.
I fall in again.
I can’t believe I am in this same place.
But it isn’t my fault.
It still takes a long time to get out.

Chapter Three
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I see it is there.
I still fall in … it’s a habit … but, my eyes are open.
I know where I am.
It is my fault.
I get out immediately.

Chapter Four
I walk down the same street.
There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.
I walk around it.

Chapter Five
I walk down another street.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided it was going to change up the rules to their rigged game about trying to establish a population of hybrid wolves in the Southwest Region of the U.S. As is required by law, a Draft Environmental Impact pack of lies Statement was released and now a comment period is allowed, in which anyone wishing may offer comments, scientific studies, proof, facts, or maybe just tell a funny story. It really doesn’t matter because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already decided what they are going to do and they are just going through the motions to make themselves look good or that they actually care. History proves this point. (Please see street analogy above.)

You see, within the rigged system, much the same way as our rigged Courts use “Arbitrary and Capricious” to justify decisions made, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses “Best Available Science.” Best available science is a farce and works well within the rigged system. That’s why it is there. It can mean anything and in the crafting of the rigged Endangered Species Act, the Secretary is granted his “deference” and therefore can utilize, by hand selecting, the “Best Available Science” that best fits an agenda. History proves this point. (Please see street analogy above.)

I am in the process of writing a book. In that book is a great deal of information that comes from the dissecting of the Final Environmental Impact pack of lies Statement. There is not one single bit of information in that FEIS, now 20 years later, that resulted in truth. Not one thing. Everything in that FEIS was based on the fraud of 30 breeding pairs of wolves and 300 wolves, within 3 wolf recovery areas; a “recovered” wolf population.

Dr. Charles Kay sought the “scientific evidence” that supported this fraudulent claim and there exists none – therefore the claim of fraud.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, of their own will, chose to completely disregard 15 issues of concern pertaining to wolf (re)introduction. To show how rigged and either corrupt or inept the entire episode of wolf (re)introduction was, as I said, not one promise made by the Feds was upheld and nearly all of the 15 items they deemed to be “insignificant” have now proven to be very significant. Can our wildlife managers be that inept? Evidently because the most recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement, corrects very little of it.

In the Southwest, perhaps a standing ovation should be order for the Arizona fish and game and their supporters, who are trying to hammer out changes, specifics and agreements, that will carry consequences, to be included in a final impact statement.

Some of the specifics include a limit of no more than 300-325 total wolves divided between Arizona and New Mexico and a percentage cap on reductions in elk populations due to wolf predation. I think I read as well that proof of those numbers will fall into the hands of the state fish and game departments and not the “Best Available Science” of the Feds.

On the other hand please stand and offer boos and hisses because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Feds will adhere to their agreement, as they seldom do and we know for a fact that none of it will stand up in a rigged court system, in which environmentalists can use taxpayer money, hand select an activist judge, who advocates for “arbitrary and capricious,” and force Arizona and New Mexico to watch a seriously depleted elk and deer population turn to ruin. Instead of facing a maximum of 300-325 wolves and a 15% impact on wild ungulates, like the Northern Rockies, there will be 3,000 to 6,000 wolves, disease, unsustainable ungulate herds in places, and ranchers run out of business and it will be business as usual.

I see that there are two issues that might make a difference. Arizona’s plan calls for the state’s withdrawal from the wolf program with all their assets if the Feds violate the agreement. The second is perhaps a half of a difference maker. If Arizona can get what they want in this impact statement, they will at least have a signed agreement. However, it will not matter because the Courts will change the entire plans. They always have and always will. History proves this point! (Please see street analogy above.)

That is why we are slaves within a rigged system. Maybe it’s time to walk a different street but I am not sure I know what street that is.

Share

Wolf Meeting and Talking Points Expanded Boundary

All content comes from an email source:

Wolf meeting tomorrow, 8-13-14 at the TorC civic center. Public input meeting at 6 PM; information session from fish nd wildlife service at 2 PM. [This is]About the new proposed draft rule and Environmental Impact Statement the rule is based on. Please come and speak if you can. Map and short zone explanation attached. Talking points attached.

Designate three wolf management zones with a larger Zone 1 within the expanded MWEPA:
• Zone 1 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to occupy and where wolves may be initially released or translocated. Zone 1 would include all of the Apache and Gila National Forests (the existing BRWRA) and any or all of the Sitgreaves National Forests; the Payson, Pleasant Valley, andTonto Basin Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest; and the Magdalena Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest.
• Zone 2 is an area within the MWEPA where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy and where wolves may be translocated. In Zone 2 initial releases of wolves on Federal land would be limited to pups less than five months old. Pups less than five months old, juvenile wolves and adult wolves could also be initially released on private land under Service and state approved management agreements with private landowners and on tribal land under Service approved management agreements with tribal governments.Zone 2 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone 1or 3 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico
• Zone 3 is an area where Mexican wolves would be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy but where neither initial releases nor translocations would occur. Zone 3 would include the area of the MWEPA not included in Zone1 or 2 south of I-40 to the international border with Mexico.

ZoningMap

Mexican wolf Draft EIS and Rule Change

Talking points for Agriculture

1. Any population change in the wolf recovery program must be based on a recovery plan that has been published in the federal register and vetted by the public . The most recent recovery plan in place meeting those requirements is the 1982 plan. None of the ongoing attempts at recent planning have been subject to peer review in accordance with 59 Fed. Reg. 34207 July 1 1994

2. Recovery planning needs a defined number of wolves to allow the public to understand clearly the objectives of the recovery of Mexican wolves in the SW.

3. Livestock on federally administered grazing allotments are private property legally occupying the range to disallow take of wolves attacking livestock is wrong. Ranchers should be allowed to defend and protect their domestic animals regardless of land ownership, without having to beg for a permit.

4. FWS isn’t using best available science or information in the DEIS. Nowhere is there a requirement that county data and reports must be peer reviewed to be used by the agency in rulemaking. Thus far FWS has cited no data to support the finding of no significant impact to livestock community by this program, nor the harm that has been documented to the human element particularly the children in areas where wolves are present.

5. FWS failed to mitigate livestock depredation and ranch sales due to wolf depredation in wolf occupied areas. nothing in their draft suggests they will do so this time.

6. FWS has failed to mitigate the impacts to children in wolf populated areas, in fact have largely ignored the habituation problem of these wolves. There is very little in the DEIS and Draft Rule that allows for mitigation of these significant problems.

7. FWS has failed to consider cumulative effect of economic losses and social impacts when this program is coupled with all the other environmental planning that is going on in our state.

8. FWS has failed to address catastrophic affects on wolf habitat.

9. Cooperative agreements with private landowners to host wolves on private land can and likely will have significant impact on neighboring ranches domestic animals and the human element on adjacent private lands, this should not be available.

10. FWS must stay within the bounds of the DEIS and draft Rule, during the last rulemaking process, David Parsons significantly changed the draft rule and EIS and there was no public vetting of his teams decision-making. This DEIS cannot be significantly altered other than to incorporate ongoing comments in the current commenting cycle. Parsons now works for an environmental organization devoted to preserving predators.

Remember, DOW CBD WEG Sierra Club and all the other environmental and animal rights organizations, will be bussing in people to speak, crowding the comment session and complicating this meeting with public grandstandings perhaps even a howl in like they did in Albuquerque last year. It got them a cover on the Albuquerque Journal. If you are up to a little public grandstanding to ensure the media gets our side of the story feel free to do so, I have protest signs and we can stage a protest ourselves if necessary.

Public comment session, stick to realistic points similar to but not limited to those above, and the injustice and unfairness behind the management of the program.

There is no, No Wolves alternative, this program is far far beyond that issue the reality is, the courts have ruled this is legitimate. Even if there was a No Wolves alternative, and it was chosen, the population explosion we have now would allow the agency to immediately re-list this animal with full ESA status critical habitat and a no take policy under the ESA and there would be wolves out here forever with NO removals for problem animals and private property curtailment due to the critical habitat status.

Within the past year our association Gila Livestock Growers Assn. has tried to fulfill some basic scientific testing that would have allowed us the basis for petitioning for de-listing of this animal along with the de-listing of the northern population, our access to historic samples fell through and our time has run out to do it before the new rule is in place. We will have to undergo the rulemaking process and try to find historic samples for testing at a later date.

At this meeting, we have to show the agency they will not and cannot get away with pretending there is no significant impact to our communities and industries whether it’s tourism, ranching or outfitting. pick a subject stay on point ignore the hecklers. Prepare for bizarre and really bad behavior from the wolf support activists.

When I was in Albuquerque last November for the preliminary meetings someone sat next to me and handed me the prayer attached here. Please print it and take it with you if you need to.

Prayer

Share

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.

Share

Does Future of Wolves Hinge On Public Perceptions?

It is my opinion, and one that can be easily propped up with existing evidence and results, that the reintroduction or introduction of wolves, depending on your perspective, was nothing more than a typical government bureaucratic, overreach and abuse of power. But that’s commonplace, is it not?

It matters not to which side, if there really are sides, you may come down on in the “Wolf Wars”, it is all too often an emotional, irrational debate among people (and in some cases the term “people” here is used freely). Why is it emotional? If I were to define the two sides in basic terms, on one side we have those who love wolves, believe wolves have rights, believe wolves are necessary for the ecosystem, that wolves should be left alone and that man should be destroyed for interfering with wolves, among other bits of nonsense. On the other side the call is there for wolves to be controlled, that all wolves should be killed, that people need to be able to protect themselves, family and property, etc. Regardless of the definitions of each side, the reality is that it becomes an emotional issue because people are involved and in some cases that involvement is very personal. I know of nobody who will argue that this issue of wolves and wolf reintroduction is not an emotional mess.

Why then, was this aspect of wolf reintroduction not even considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the reintroduction of wolves?

Go look at the EIS. Or better yet, go read it if you would like to gain an understanding about what a useless government document is and how hours and millions of dollars later the entire aspect of wolf reintroduction is a flaming disaster, as far as public perceptions go. The design of the EIS and the reality of what has transpired since, is a clear indication that somebody intended to reintroduce wolves regardless of any concerns or what might happen in the future.

On page viii of the EIS, in part it states:

Fifteen issues and impacts were not evaluated further in the FEIS because they were not
significant
to the decision being made
* Wolves not native to Yellowstone
National Park
* Wolf rights
* Federal “subsidies”
* Human safety and health
* Other predators and scavengers
* Endangered species
* Plants, invertebrates, fish, reptiles,
amphibians, birds, and mammals
* Diseases and parasites
* Private property rights
* Wolf recovery in other areas
* Existing wolves in central Idaho
and Yellowstone
* Existing wolves in northwestern
Montana
* Wolf subspecies
* Wolf and dog and coyote
hybridization
* Need for research (I took the liberty to embolden those “not significant” issues that I know directly impact the people.)

Isn’t this a clear example of how the government, i.e. the environmentalists because they run the government, doesn’t give two rat’s behinds about what the hell happens to the people or their property rights. They are going to do just as they please regardless of how you or I feel. How can many of those 15 items not be considered as significant. One would have to be either brain dead or a crook to think otherwise.

Two of the more prolific wolf “experts” are L. David Mech and Ed Bangs. Mech has studied wolves since before Columbus and Bangs was the wolf reintroduction coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Both men readily acknowledge that public perception played an integral role in wolf introduction and recovery and will play a significant role in the future of the gray wolf and yet both express that their interests are with the wolf far and above any concerns about the people. Mech even indicates that lying about everything wolf, justifies the end when it comes to selling wolves.

The above labels have been very useful in many circumstance and have contributed significantly to wolf recovery. They may still be useful in the future, but we should be aware that they are shortcuts to “sell a product” rather than good scientific grounds on which to build conservation.

The labels Mech is referring to above are those given to wolves in order to better give the public a positive perception of wolves, while deliberately misleading. Lying to the public about a vicious and disease-ridden predator that few have much use for: “flagship species”, “umbrella species”, “indicator species”, “keystone species”, for the sole purpose of “sell a product”, i.e. wolves, to the public. How crooked can anyone get?

Mech has also said that the only thing allowing hunting of wolves provides is a greater tolerance for the animal. He states that hunting wolves will have no direct affect but indirectly it changes public perceptions.

Ed Bangs, wolf coordinator for the USFWS, shows little concern for the people either. Isn’t it just about his wolf?

Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with wolves,” says Ed Bangs, Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. “I think the folks who didn’t like them still don’t like them, and the folks who did like them still do. Wolves are mainly a symbolic issue that relates to core human values.

Or perhaps Bangs shows his love of the wolf and disdain for the human species more precisely when in a comment he made to a person who had just lost their dog to a wolf killing. His comment was, “What’s the big deal? It’s only a damn dog.” Many feel the same way about his damned dogs too.

When nearly every aspect of wolf reintroduction and the continued promotion of wolves directly involves many, if not all, humans, then why did the USFWS opt to not even include public safety and property rights in the Final Environmental Impact Statement?

Historically wolves were nearly extirpated from the lower 48 states because people were intolerant of the nasty dog. Rightly so, the future of gray wolves in this country is going to depend upon how much patience the people are going to have when it comes to public safety, private property, disease and effects on other wildlife, including game animals.

For those in positions of authority, then, to knowingly piss off the citizens and/or trample on their rights when it comes to dealing with the wild dogs, leaves one to conclude that one of two things exist….or perhaps both at the same time.

First, is that the citizenry is dealing with a government agency and as a government agency they believe they have the power to do just as they damned well please and to hell with the serf taxpayers. And secondly, those individuals and organizations are too stupid to know or care. They are driven by personal agendas and feel threatened or eagerly and willingly kowtow to the environmentalists who are always demanding and taking and never giving.

In a recent display of either government abuse or ignorance, the Washington State fish and game people set out traps in an area near Twisp, Washington. The traps were located on Forestry Service lands adjacent to private property. The purpose of the traps was to capture wolves, radio collar them and release them for study. Two pet dogs ended up in the traps.

Out of shear ignorance and stupidity, wildlife officials set these traps within short distances of the residents without notifying anyone living nearby. Officials did place signs along the road(s) leading into the area.

Residents became incensed that wildlife officials would set out traps next to private residents and not personally contact them about their plans and intentions.

If the future of the survival of gray wolves in this country is hinging on public perceptions, what good is becoming of this kind of treatment by government officials of citizens? Is it ignorance? Is it just plain stupidity? Perhaps it’s terrible leadership that non thinking employees can’t make good decisions? Or maybe it’s the usual governmental arrogance that nobody can or will touch them and ruffle their bimonthly paychecks or disrupt their retirement pensions. This is government out of control.

This sort of behavior is not relegated to only the state of Washington. This kind of attitude exists nationwide, I dare say within every fish and game department in this country.

Read what Ed Bangs says in his explanation as to why wolves were finally reintroduced into the Northern Rockies:

I think the only reason wolf reintroduction finally happened was that people with different values moved to Montana and diluted the strong agricultural influence. Plus, the economy changed from straight agriculture and natural resource consumption to areas such as tourism. …I think in time the debate will get less shrill because living with ‘real’ wolves does moderate the strong and highly polarized, all-bad or all-good opinions.

What a crock and a belly full of arrogance! This is absolute BS design to “sell a product”, i.e wolves, to the American public. The reason wolf reintroduction happened was because Bangs and Neimeyer just took it upon themselves to do it. They used their governmental power and force field to say to hell with the people. They wanted wolves and so they went and got them.

It was my perception from reading Carter Neimeyer’s book, “Wolfer”, that one day Neimeyer just up and decided he was going to Canada to trap and import wolves and Ed Bangs could join him if he wanted. Perhaps this is one reason no permits to import wolves was ever obtained.

The “strong and highly polarized” opinions or perceptions of people will not change, so long as everything is said and done to ensure the people aren’t cared for and the wolves are. With actions like those in Washington State and elsewhere, who can have a good opinion of government wildlife biologists and employees when consideration for the people, ironically who pay their wages, is far at the bottom of the totem pole.

Over the coming years, expect little to improve and mostly get worse.

Share