October 20, 2018

RMEF, SAF Oppose Yellowstone Grizzly Ruling

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation disagree with a judge’s decision to vacate the delisting of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ruling places the population back on the endangered species list.
“We are highly disappointed with this decision,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “Once again we see that extreme environmental groups continue to clog up the delisting process at a time when we should be celebrating the recovery of grizzlies in the region. Scientists gathered data and population numbers that show grizzlies in the region surpassed all recovery criteria and are recovered. This ruling bolsters the case for Congress to update the Endangered Species Act.”
This follows a 2007 decision by the Department of Interior (DOI) to delist Yellowstone grizzlies, a decision that was also litigated by environmental groups and overturned by the federal courts.
“Despite this ruling, the basic facts remain the same: grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area have recovered, and no longer meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA and should be rightfully returned to state management,” said Evan Heusinkveld, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation president and CEO. “This ruling is just another example of why we need comprehensive reforms to the way we manage ESA-listed species in this country. We are evaluating all of our legal options to appeal this ruling.”
The DOI announced the removal of Yellowstone area grizzlies, numbering more than 700, from the endangered species list in 2017 based on sound science and millions of hunter dollars spent on researching and studying the bears. Idaho and Wyoming later announced intentions to hold conservative management hunts in the fall of 2018. Those hunts will not take place.
Environmental groups claimed the grizzly population in the Yellowstone region would be decimated if delisted and placed under state management. They made the same claims for the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population which is 200 to 400 percent above minimum recovery goals, depending on the state.
“State-based management of wildlife is a key facet of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. That is why the most healthy and robust wildlife populations in the world are found in North America. Grizzlies, like elk, wolves, deer and all other wildlife, should be managed by the states for their overall betterment. This ruling thoroughly frustrates that process,” added Weaver.
Share

Bursting the Bubble of “Normal” Bear Behavior

If anyone might be interested to return to my seemingly endless commentary on bear behavior and bear attacks, they would discover that I’m a broken record when it comes to the sickening echo chamber of “bears don’t ‘normally’ act that way” and “bears don’t ‘normally’ attack people for no reason.” etc. And of course the most childish of all lame comments, “Bears are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

It never ends. When children don’t act the way we WANT them to, or what the indoctrination institutions and doctors consider “normal” behavior, we feed them chemicals to alter that behavior to make them “normal.”

“Normal” is a subjective issue that we have willingly given over to centralized authority and as such are slaves to their perspective of normal. Whatever doesn’t fit the “normal” mold is left either unexplained or simply passed off as an anomaly regardless of the frequency of not normal (by chosen perspective) behavior.

We can’t harness and drug bears. Instead, we insist on sticking to human-projected behavior patterns, framed around the bio-perverse obsession with protecting wild animals (large predators like bears) even at the expense of human life. In short, we want animals to be human-like and therefore project human characteristics onto animals.

A recent attack by two bears in Wyoming on a guide and his client has created a bit of a stir. The Media including Social Media and Internet websites have, once again, revealed to us the very reason we should NEVER believe ANYTHING we read on their platforms. Written accounts of the event have proven over and over to be inaccurate and yet the bad information gets embellished and passed along – and worst believed.

The brain trust – those who know more about everything than anyone else and has an “expert” opinion – have provided all the answers to any question asked and even those that haven’t.

In all of this, once again we are subjected to the vomit of the Media as they try to choke back their regurgitated nonsensical misinformation about bear behavior – and refuse to change.

I read this evening in the Newscentermaine.com website how we will probably never know why these two bears attacked two men attempting to retrieve a dead elk. The entire article is rife with terrible information that is formulated in the manner in which I described at the beginning of this piece.

Based mostly on the perverse need, having been indoctrinated into the minds of most American’s these days, to paint a completely positive aura about bears and other large predators, officials, brainwashed in their strong delusion that “bears don’t normally act this way,” now want to tell us we’ll never know why these bears attacked. Could it be that they attacked because they are BEARS??? Geez!

Here is a laundry list of nonsense repeated in this Online Media article:

“Wyoming wildlife officials say we may never know why a grizzly bear and her cub killed a hunting guide in an unusual and unprovoked attack.”

We are to believe that this attack was “unusual” because it doesn’t nicely and conveniently fit the narrative used to protect large predators. We are also to believe the attack was “unprovoked.” Try to understand how stupid that statement is. Because we refuse to understand that all animal behavior is unpredictable, this attack is called “unprovoked.” Obviously, something provoked the bears to attack, even if they were provoked by the simple fact that they are wild, unpredictable, large animals. Geez!

“We’re very fortunate that bears usually behave like bears should… But there are occasions where bears don’t behave like other bears.”

Once again, we are supposed to believe their inconsistent mantra that bears’ behavior is “normal” and predictable.

“Grizzlies don’t typically attack humans like that…”

Says who? Well, the authorities, that’s who. They don’t want anyone to have any ill feelings toward grizzly bears so they repeatedly tell us bears are afraid of us and are harmless except if you “surprise” them or meddle with cubs. B.S.!!! They even tell us bears are so harmless we can effectively protect ourselves by arming ourselves with bear spray – the same bear spray the guide used and died anyway. And note these same authorities who want you to carry bear spray so you won’t harm bears had to kill the same bear that attacked the guide and hunter with a rifle. Hmmm.

“Attacks are more commonly associated with either a surprise encounter… or if the bears were defending their food.”

None of my comments are intended to tell people this information about bear behavior isn’t true – it is just incomplete and saturated with the human condition foisted onto an animal. Each and every time authorities go out of their way, and the press becomes their echo chamber, to tell us how RARE it is that a bear, a wolf, a fox, a mountain lion, a bobcat – you name the animal – attacks someone, it’s unusual and not “normal” behavior. The truth is they don’t know what’s normal or abnormal behavior. If it fits their determined narrative, then it must be “normal.” Anything outside of that convenient narrative is just “unexplained,” as though it never happens but once in a million years. And yet we are always reading about those “unusual” and not “normal” attacks on people while refusing to change our understanding of wild animal behavior and do and say responsible things like, “______ attacks are considered to be not man-created normal behavior. All animals, wild and domestic can be and are unpredictable. You should always approach every animal in every situation as though just about anything will happen…including one of those ‘unprovoked’ attacks.”

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to change what they say.

Share

Restraining Order Issued to Stop Grizzly Bear Hunts

A very biased report on the actions of a judge in Montana who issued a temporary restraining order to stop a grizzly bear hunt:

“A federal judge in Montana on Thursday issued a court order temporarily blocking the first trophy hunts of Yellowstone-area grizzly bears in more than 40 years, siding with native American groups and environmentalists seeking to restore the animals’ protected status.

The 14-day restraining order by U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula, Montana, came two days before Wyoming and Idaho were scheduled to open licensed grizzly hunts allowing as many as 23 bears in the two states to be shot and killed for sport.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Evolving Coyote Mythology & Urban Political Dog Whistles

By James Beers

I recently thanked the St. Paul Pioneer Press and one of its writers for exposing the controversy surrounding growing complaints in St. Paul, Minnesota regarding the presence of and conflicts with urban coyotes.  Phone calls by the author of the article to the St. Paul Animal Control Supervisor; who was quoted as saying, “It speaks well for our city that wild animals choose to live here”; had gone unanswered.  The writer noted that, “Most of us don’t want coyotes, only to discover we have as our animal-control supervisor a woman with a Golden Book view of wildlife” and wherein “at night all the creatures gather around a fire and the raccoons provide for story time.”

I noted the similarities between this urban newspaperman and his coyote concerns in the face of a city government bureaucracy that disdains to recognize or address his interests and the drama taking place in rural America between rural residents concerned with wolves and grizzly bears in settled landscapes in the face of an arrogant “Deep State” in Washington, DC and state wildlife agencies that have become little more than subcontractors to federal bureaucrats and agents of the same environmental/animal rights agendas exposed in the St. Paul newspaper.

My “thank you” to the newspaper and the writer took the form of a Letter to the Editor that was recently published in the Sunday edition.  It was placed in between a letter from a St. Paul lady that thought she was, “fortunate to live with a National Park – and its attendant beauties, including wildlife – running through our midst”, and an instructive wildlife letter from a lady assistant professor of environmental education at a local University.

The latter letter from the assistant professor brought to my attention two things.  One was a silly and contradictory modernistic biological theory justifying coyotes as beneficial to urban landscapes reminiscent of the after-the-fact of introduction of wolves that, “wolves restore willows along streams” nonsense.  She opined that:

When there are coyotes in an urban area, there are fewer skunks, feral cats, and even foxes.  Not because the coyotes are tearing them apart, but because of something known as ‘competitive exclusion’ – when more than one species relies on the same food source in a given area, competition for that food source becomes a limiting factor, driving out competitors (i.e. causing the other species to look for food and shelter elsewhere).  The result is a stronger, more robust and diverse ecosystem – more plant species, bird and small mammal species.”

According to this “something known as ‘competitive exclusion’”; “driving out competitors (i.e. causing the other species to look for food and shelter elsewhere)” makes, “a stronger, more robust and diverse ecosystem – more plant species, bird and small mammal species.”  Is it me or do others wonder how making less of some predator species probably makes for more of the winning predator (in this case coyotes) and this then makes more and hungrier top predators to decimate the prey species ever more efficiently and not a“stronger, more robust and diverse ecosystem” whatever “stronger” and “more robust” connote?  The contradiction here is all the more regrettable when spewed by a professor at a University; even when dressed up with animal rights drivel about how coyotes do not tear apart “skunks, feral cats, and even foxes” but merely drive out competitors “(i.e. causing the other species to look for food and shelter elsewhere) one must assume here in some sort of “Grapes of Wrath” convoy into oblivion.

The second thing that caught my eye was her comment that:

St. Paul doesn’t have a coyote problem. The city’s approach to coyotes hardly represents the ‘Golden Book view of wildlife’ that Soucheray (i.e. the newspaperman) claims.  It uses science to inform policy and aims to educate the public so they can form educated opinions based on sound reasoning, evidence and data.”

Just as with so much of the “science” and “good intentions” surrounding wolves and grizzly bears in settled landscapes this is hilarious nonsense attempting to eliminate any opposition to whatever is imposed by bureaucrat/ideologues with government power based on animal rights and preferences.  You have no right to question the fact that the city Animal Control lady won’t return your calls and answer questions; she is rightly busy “educating the public”.  You have only uneducated opinions and we are tasked with getting you to ratify (our) “educated opinions based on sound reasoning, evidence and data.”  Just as with calling someone not supportive of what you are saying or doing a “racist”, or “misogynist”, or “Islamaphobe”, or “homophobe”, etc.; environmental/animal rights ideologues categorize troublesome citizens as “uninformed”, “uneducated”, “questioning ‘science’”, and incapable of basing opinions “on sound reasoning, evidence and data.”  Methinks the ladies should first inform the “public” rather than hiding from and disparaging a “public” that deigns to question their brilliance and chicanery.

Lastly, the other urban lady that imagines she lives in a “National Park” “and its attendant beauties” closed her letter with:

By all means be on the watch for coyotes.  Also dogs, cars, cyclists, tweeting while walking, ticks, needles, poison ivy, storm warnings, and Archie Bunker reruns.  Danger, as well as beauty, is everywhere.  You’ll find what you seek.”

Setting aside the sarcasm here, remember this is the urban area of Minnesota and there is perhaps no more liberal/progressive political concentration in America.  When you compare the newspaperman of the paper to “Archie Bunker reruns”, you have destroyed any credibility he might have with 75 to 80% of the readers.  In Minnesota, such an epithet is a classic “dog whistle” with a double meaning ending all discussion.

As I mulled over these three ladies (one hiding in her office, another preaching nouveau biology to justify the unjustifiable, and the third in her imaginary ecosystem all too glad to disparage anyone questioning her nature beliefs) I was reminded of the 3 witches in Macbeth reciting their famous ditty.

Doubledouble toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble’ are two of the most famous lines in English literature. These lines show how what the witches say can have double meanings and can be contradictory.  The three ladies in St. Paul exhibit all of the misleading perfidy and disdain for others that we see in Macbeth and nationally regarding wolves and grizzly bears in settled landscapes and as with Macbeth they will lead us into great harm as long as we let them intimidate us and mislead others.

For your edification here is the whole poem from Macbeth that the witches, speaking of animals by the way, spoke that gave them a place in infamy.

Song of the Witches: “Double, double toil and trouble”

(from Macbeth) by WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and caldron bubble.

Fillet of a fenny snake,

In the caldron boil and bake;

Eye of newt and toe of frog,

Wool of bat and tongue of dog,

Adder’s fork and blind-worm’s sting,

Lizard’s leg and owlet’s wing,

For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

Double, double toil and trouble;

Fire burn and caldron bubble.

Cool it with a baboon’s blood,

Then the charm is firm and good.

For my money, the three St. Paul ladies should keep their “charms” to themselves.

Jim Beers

10 August 2018

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.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

RMEF, Sportsmen’s Alliance File Brief in Support of Yellowstone Grizzly Management

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed a joint summary judgement brief supporting a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to remove federal protections from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear population.

“We stand alongside the Sportsmen’s Alliance and our fellow conservation organizations in supporting federal scientists and wildlife biologists who declared the grizzly population fully recovered,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “The next step is keeping grizzly management under the umbrella of state agencies that manage all wildlife in accordance with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, which uses hunting as a management tool.”

“Despite the emotional rhetoric of the animal rights crowd, the time has come to return this population of bears to state management,” said Evan Heusinkveld, Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “The truth is, this is a historic moment for the species and the Endangered Species Act as a whole. Returning the Yellowstone area population of bears to state management should be a monumental achievement widely celebrated as a conservation success story.”

Numbering more than 700, the Yellowstone grizzly population meets all delisting criteria. These factors include not only the number and distribution of bears throughout the ecosystem, but also the quantity and quality of the habitat available and the states’ commitments to manage the population in a manner that maintains its healthy and secure status.

RMEF and its partners helped permanently protect more than 169,000 acres of vital wildlife habitat valued at more than $131 million in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Additionally, RMEF also directly contributed more than $3.1 million and leveraged an additional $17.5 million to help enhance wildlife habitat on more than 426,000 acres in the GYE. RMEF also contributed more than $1 million in funding and leveraged an additional $10 million from conservation partners to carry out 118 GYE wildlife management and wildlife research projects.

“These projects are crucial and helped to contribute to the understanding of wildlife populations, ecology and habitat needs, including increasing the understanding of grizzly bears and conserving the habitat needed for them to thrive in conjunction with all wildlife populations,” said Weaver. “Habitat needs to remain the focus of on-the-ground conservation work, not seemingly non-stop litigation.”

The federal judge laid out a schedule that includes several more filing deadlines as well as a hearing in late August. He has stated he will make a ruling before the hunting season begins in September.

Share

Or Maybe We Are All Gonna Die: Possible Grizzly Bear Hunts on the Horizon

Panic is setting in with the environmentalists and animal rights perverts as they learn of two public hearings scheduled to receive input about possibly having limited grizzly bear hunts. Disaster and a slaughter of the grizzly’s population in Idaho will happen, according to bear lovers, because it plans on allowing ONE male bear to be killed…ONE!

“The formula for the number of bears that can be hunted in each state involves a region surrounding Yellowstone National Park called the Demographic Monitoring Area. The number of bears for each state is based on how much land area is in the monitoring area. The number of bears allowed to be hunted in total is based on mortality studies. The result is that this year, Idaho can hunt one male bear and Montana six male bears. Wyoming can hunt 10 male bears and two female bears.”<<<Read More>>>

Officials say they will “educate” hunters on how to identify a male grizzly from a female grizzly. Isn’t it risky to get close enough to a grizzly bear to be able to tell which genitalia they may be sporting? Perhaps if you wait and watch long enough you can watch one of them urinating in order to tell the difference.

But seriously, how difficult is it to identify male and female outside of the obvious? I’ve never hunted them. For that matter, I don’t recall that I’ve ever encountered a grizzly up close and personal. But, I think I could tell a fully mature adult male grizzly from a female. Like with today’s young ‘uns it’s difficult to tell the difference in sexes in immature bears.

Share

Perverse Values (and a vote) Outweighs Real Science

*Editor’s Note* – This is further proof of the imminent doom of our hunting heritage along with the actual and real scientific approach to wildlife management. “Values” as found the context of this decision by the British Columbia government, is laced with nothing but emotional clap-trap and perverted perceptions of animals as part of our existence. It runs completely counter to the proven practice of the North American Model for Wildlife Management that employs hunting and trapping as a means of controlling populations of wildlife in order to sustain and maintain healthy animals. At the same time, hunters have paid for this animal healthcare and filled their freezers at the same time.

This action by the BC Government is another element of our “post-normal” existence. We can expect more of the same. Whether or not any of us will live long enough to witness the ultimate destruction remains to be seen.

“The British Columbia government is bringing an end to the hunting of grizzly bears throughout the province, Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, and George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, announced today.

“Through consultations this past fall, we have listened to what British Columbians have to say on this issue and it is abundantly clear that the grizzly hunt is not in line with their values,” (emphasis added)<<<Read More>>>

Share

Draft Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan: Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan: Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE). The draft supplement, which will be appended to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan upon finalization, proposes to establish habitat-based recovery criteria for the NCDE grizzly bear population. In addition, the Service hereby gives notice that a public workshop will be held to review the habitat-based recovery criteria for the grizzly bear in the NCDE. The workshop will allow scientists and the public to submit oral and written comments. The Service solicits review and comment from the public on this draft supplement.

An electronic copy of the draft Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan is available at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0057, and also at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php 

<<<Read More>>>

Share

Possible Effects of Court Decision on Wolves, on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Conterminous United States

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are seeking public comment on a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that may impact our June 30, 2017, final rule delisting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear Distinct Population Segment (DPS). In Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Zinke et al., the court opined that the Service had not evaluated the status of the remainder of the listed entity of wolves in light of the Western Great Lakes (WGL) wolf DPS delisting action and what the effect of lost historical range may have on the status of the WGL wolf DPS. We also describe in this notice our strategy to recover grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower 48 States of the United States and provide a brief recovery update for each ecosystem.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Insane Grizzly Bear Nightmare

Share