July 12, 2020

The Right Reverend Rambo

“Israel needs to exist because it is where Jews can get guns, with or without the permission of the EU. And guns turn you from “hey” into “Mister”. Jews learned from the concentration camp that tolerance comes not from fine words but grows out of the barrel of a gun.”<<<Read More>>>

Europe’s Leading Rabbi: Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns

“The Paris attacks, as well as the many challenges and threats which have been presented to the European Jewish community in recent years, have revealed the urgent need to stop talking and start acting,” Margolin writes.

“We hereby ask that gun licensing laws are reviewed with immediate effect to allow designated people in the Jewish communities and institutions to own weapons for the essential protection of their communities, as well as receiving the necessary training to protect their members from potential terror attacks.”<<<Read More>>>


Europeans to Address Wolf-Dog Hybridization….Really?

“Hybridization between wild and domesticated animals poses a complex wildlife conservation challenge. A prominent example is hybridization between wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis (lupus) familiaris), which has been documented to occur in many parts of Europe. Because of the many dimensions and complexities involved, special care tends to be required in order to avoid a confusion of tongues regarding the issue, whether in the biological discipline or in the realm of wildlife law and policy.”<<<Read More>>>


Europe Proposes Protecting Feral Dogs Believing They Are Protecting Wolves

On display in Europe is either the epitome of ignorance, a perverted love affair with wild dogs or plain corruption targeting the destruction of public health and safety, property and the agricultural economy. Because these clowns don’t understand that hybridization threatens even the existence of their precious wolves and they don’t know how to deal with an event in which they have created by forcing, through over protection, wolves to coexist in human-settled landscapes, they are deciding whether or not to just protect all wild dogs.

From the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, in part, their proposal:

“Aware of the challenges posed to the conservation of wolves (Canis lupus) by hybridisation between wild wolves and domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris);

Noting the need to address these challenges through effective preventive and mitigation measures, including the detection of free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids and their government-controlled removal from wild wolf populations;

Noting, at the same time, that it is in the interest of effective wolf conservation to accord free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids a similar level of protection from the general public as wolves – given inter alia the difficulty of distinguishing between wolves and wolf-dog hybrids – and to ensure that the removal of any detected wolf-dog hybrids is conducted exclusively in a government-controlled manner;

Noting that the national legislation of several Contracting Parties already accords free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids a similar level of protection as wolves;

Mindful of the approach to hybrids taken under the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), in particular CITES Resolution Conf. 10.17 (Rev. CoP14) on Animal Hybrids;

Defining, for the purposes of the implementation of this recommendation, the term ‘wolf-dog hybrid’ as meaning a wild living animal with both wolf and dog ancestry which can be confirmed by the current taxonomic techniques (using both morphological and genetic features);”

Read the entire analysis and proposal.


Regurgitated Lies and Gobbledygook

Guest post by James Beers:

COMMENTS ON THE SPEECH BY THE EMINENT LUC BAS OF IUCN IN THE PRECEDING LINK. This speech should be quickly recognizable to Americans as the lies (the correct word) and gobbledygook regurgitated in our Nation by federal bureaucrats, State bureaucrats, “Defenders” of Wildlife, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Humane Society of the US, Center for Biological Diversity, et al. The only thing missing is the “ranchers” in their cowboy hats and the hunters” in their camouflage clothes holding bows and arrows behind the speaker to show how EVERYONE supports the poison being spewed forth.

The following ITEMS (I) are from the (call it what you will) by Luc Bas. My Comment (C) follows each Item:

1. (I) “The European Commission launched a multi-stakeholder platform.”

(C) These government entities and the radical groups that are integrated into them dump the wolves (bears, cougars, jaguars, wolverines, etc.) on the public, give those living with and harmed by these animals NO SAY or NO RECOURSE under pain of draconian penalties and then “launch a multi-stakeholder platform” (“working group”, “partnership”, “regulatory review”, etc./etc.) firmly controlled by themselves and their allies and feed it to the public like giving candy to a starving child. It may taste good but it changes NOTHING!

2. (I) Large Carnivores “have made a dramatic recovery across Europe and numbers have now reached around 40,000, with most of the populations stable or increasing. This is mainly due to favourable national and international policies protecting large carnivores, such as the EU Habitats Directive.”

(C) “Favourable national and international policies protecting large carnivores, such as the EU Habitats Directive”? Let’s be honest: it isn’t “policies” increasing carnivores; it is draconian laws and punishments for rural Europeans that do anything other than meekly submit to indignities; property losses; human safety threats; disease threats; and the ultimate loss of family security, rural economic life, and the traditional freedoms to follow their cultural heritage and continue using the renewable natural resources that abound throughout Europe. Throwing bouquets to the EU about their “Habitats Directive” is like Defenders of Wildlife complimenting “useful idiots” like the “ranchers” and “hunters” pictured in their “working groups”. All it indicates is a rare but truer picture of who your enemies are in what is going on.

3. (I) “It is rare that a conservation success becomes a challenge to human activity – usually, the opposite is the case.”

(C) “Rare??” What is he smoking? Wind farms kill millions of birds annually. Climate change claptrap increases energy costs prohibitively and reduces available heating and cooling. Solar mirror energy fields eliminate everything under them while we are supposed to get overwrought by some caws grazing nearby. Environmental nonsense opposes nuclear energy while destroying dams for power and irrigation. Farming over millions of acres is either eliminated or regulated into oblivion for smelt and darters. Ranchers are driven off the land and even to suicide for wolves, bears. Illegal Immigrant routes are kept open for jaguars. Wilderness Declarations waste Billions of dollars of renewable natural resource use and rural economies annually. I could go on here but my two fingers are getting sore. Name some of those “success: stories and then we can talk!

4. (I) “When it comes to large carnivores, not everyone is as delighted to see the return of wolves and bears to their neighbourhood.”

(C) Wow, an understatement. Who are they? How many are there? Are they the ones living with and affected by your “conservation success”? Do you plan to do anything other than justify trips, per diem meals, overnight lodgings at some spa about them. Truth be told, you say “not everyone” because the real number and the depth of their objections are far more than you can afford to recognize or mention.

5. (I) “It is understandable that the presence of large carnivores in areas where humans live, work and recreate can cause a variety of conflicts, such as depredation on livestock (and semi-domestic reindeer in Scandinavia), interaction with hunters, as well as social and cultural conflicts related to broader tensions between rural and urban areas.”

(C) How erudite! Anyone expressing how it is “understandable” is either someone to work with or some patronizing overlord that does not deign to change anything. A quick pat on the head and back to your village and outdated lifestyles, get on now! How about human attack dangers from wolves? How about wolves as Disease and Infection vectors to humans, domestic animals and other wildlife? How about wolves as destroyers of rural traditions, cultures and lifestyles? How about urban residents leaving rural carnivore management and decisions to those rural residents affected and in return rural residents will tolerate urban crime leniencies that disturb rural Europeans (and Americans)?

6. (I) The Honorable Luc Bas lauds the “set up by the European Commission’s DG Environment to facilitate constructive dialogue among key stakeholders including farmers, conservationists, landowners and hunters. The aim is to find commonly agreed solutions to conflicts arising from people living and working in close proximity to these large animals.”

(C) The “constructive dialogue among key stakeholders” is reminiscent of the old Soviet Show Trials where the illusion of justice and the common man deciding the verdict masked the brutal reality of tyranny. These guys appoint the “stakeholders” and marginalize any dissent as hopeless ignorance by non-conformists.

7. (I) “Already today, there are many positive examples of peaceful coexistence of humans with large carnivores across Europe, even in relatively densely populated and farmed areas. Much can be done to find solutions, from reinstating some long-forgotten shepherding practices to installing modern electric fences. Of course, due to the long absence of large carnivores, readopting the former practices can be a major challenge for social, cultural, economic and logistical reasons. This requires willingness to change, as well as technical assistance and economic support.”

(C) There he goes again with the “many positive examples of peaceful coexistence”. Were he to engage in a public discourse about his “examples” with some rural advocate with gumption and not someone hand-picked by him, his vague references would be shown to be not only “vague” but purposefully misleading. However the real peek at the danger here is the phrase “willingness to change”. Do you think IUCN will “change”? The EU? Environmentalists? Animal “rights” advocates? Teachers? The media? How about the sheep herders and the hunters and the rural dog owners and the rural lifestyles and the rural economies and rural traditions and the use of renewable natural resources for human benefit? If you answered “YES” to the first six, you are a fool. If you answered “YES” to the last seven you get an “A”. Finally, never doubt with this bunch of do-gooders, “change” means eradication as surely as the Etruscans, Mandans and other historic curiosities are little mentioned in the no longer taught History books.

8. (I) “Reintegrating large carnivores into the fabric of the European countryside therefore requires making a number of adjustments to practices of many sectors. It also requires dialogue and sharing of both positive and negative experiences with all the groups affected.”

(C) Reread the last ½ of 7 (C) above. Guess who must make a “number of adjustments”? One is reminded of how years ago in Utah, someone condemned to die was given the choice of shooting by a firing squad or hanging. In its own way that might qualify as a limited “stakeholder platform” with “constructive dialogue” by an “understanding” authority!

9. (I) “This laudable initiative to foster a positive dialogue.”

(C) Years ago when I was a practicing bureaucrat I tried to learn how to pat myself on the back like all those boys and girls that got the big bucks. It is harder than it looks and all it ever seemed to result in was sore back and a sore arm that kept me from playing catch for a period of time. To call this meaningless blather is to accord it undue respect.

10. (I) “We have thus long experience in finding common ground. Dialogue, facilitation and convening different stakeholders is in IUCN’s DNA.”

(C) Common ground is what Germany “found” with Poland in 1939 and China “found” with Tibet in 1950 and again in 1959. And, in this one regard and statement The IUCN and all its bedfellows mentioned in the introductory paragraph of this commentary about how they mask their agenda ARE TELLING THE TRUTH!

So what does all this make me? Since Mr. Bas is a male, I must not be a sexist. Since Mr. Bas is not a minority, I must not be a racist. Since I advocate Local Government control of Local wildlife, I must not be anti-government. Since I am on old bureaucrat with a long pedigree and a Congressional Fellow, I must not be too dull to understand the complexities of government. Since I am an experienced federal and state wildlife biologist, wildlife law enforcer, refuge manager, member of US Delegations dealing with EU Fur/Trapping Banners, and attendee at UN Wildlife Conferences in New York and Nairobi; I must have some grasp of what I am saying here. Since I am a former US Navy Officer that served on board a ship in the western Pacific and ashore on the Aleutian Island of Adak, I must not be unduly harsh though I am breaking one golden rule about not “admonishing in public.”

What I am is a guy with some knowledge and experience that thinks human concerns trump animal concerns and that governments that cater to urban fantasies that harm rural realities are no different than governments that rule for the benefit of those few that keep them in power and the rest of us be damned!

Jim Beers
8 July 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


European Carnivores: Idealism, Romance Biology and Refusal to Believe History

“Many conflicts persist, and some are escalating. Finding solutions is going to require patience, ingenuity and a willingness to make compromises. Although research can provide some guidance, there is going to be a lot of trial and error because quite simply this experiment has never been tried before. For almost the entirety of human history we have been at a state of war with these species. We are now trying to find a way to coexist with them, although nobody knows how this coexistence is going to look in the end. Who could resist being a part of such a process?”<<<Read More>>>


Godfrey Bloom: The State is an Institution of Theft