June 17, 2019

Conservation Biology II

By James Beers

More on the Term “Conservation Biology”

Two days ago I wrote an article titled “The Etymology of ‘Conservation Biology’”.  The transmittal e-mail was titled “Word Games”.  In that article I attempted to explain the origin of the term “Conservation Biology” 100 years ago as a description of the American effort to describe practical fish and wildlife research and management to be used to guide federal and state government programs to conserve and manage fish and wildlife resources of the United States.

I explained in the article that the reason the term was important was that the inevitable advent of laws and property set-asides were to be justified and explained as the result of “scientific” facts obtained from “biological research” conducted in wild places on wild animals.

Further, I described how the modifier, “Conservation” was meant to describe a particular branch or mode of biology that attended specifically to the management of fish and wildlife resources amidst the Constitutional government, capitalism, and life styles of the USA.

Finally, I described how, until the emergence of the environmental/animal rights takeover of federal and state wildlife agencies in the 1960’s, “Conservation” was synonymous with the proactive management of a diversity of fish and wildlife to (among other things):

–       Maintain sustainable levels of sport fish and wild game to generate license revenue to fund wildlife programs of all sorts,

–       Cooperate with businesses, Local communities and Local governments to provide compatible fish and wildlife populations,

–       Minimize wildlife depredations, damage and threats to citizens,

–       Manage ALL fish and wildlife and their habitats on government lands for societal benefit,

–       Influence, as requested, the presence of fish and wildlife on private lands and the continued availability of fish and wildlife throughout the state and the nation.

The foregoing was accomplished for about 60 years (1900-1960’s) to the great satisfaction and benefit of the citizenry. Yet, when the environmental/animal rights interest groups emerged to condemn “Conservation Biology”, a term they found synonymous with hunting (i.e. “killing animals”), trapping (i.e. “wearing skins), logging (cutting trees) and grazing (“raping the land”); the term fell into disrepute and was dropped from the lexicons of US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and, finally, the State wildlife agencies whose new employees and political bosses were establishing a “New Age” of “ecosystem/native/benign/oligarchy autocracy” of managing people and human rights for the supposed purposes of the animals themselves.

A reader has recently informed me of their umbrage at me being so cavalier as to say that “Conservation” was a term used to describe wildlife management only for people, or that it was a term used 100 years ago to describe wildlife programs that differ from today.  The reader is mistaken.

1.) Anyone with the interest should review the writings and speeches of Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, Gifford Pinchot and even the semi-poetry of John Muir and John Burroughs.  The word “Conservation” is as common as desert flowers after a rain.  Indeed, on the flyleaf of my copy of Aldo Leopold’s nature classic, A Sand County Almanac appears the following, “He died in 1948 while fighting a brush fire on his neighbor’s farm. His death cut short an assignment as an adviser on conservation to the United Nation.

2.) It is not far-fetched to say that the term fell into disrepute with the advent of the current wildlife philosophy ruling government and our Universities that the killing of wildlife is wrong, the use of wildlife is wrong, the management of wildlife is wrong, and human conflicts with wildlife from death and injuries to loss of property and rights should always be decided in favor of wildlife and the human element in the equation be eliminated as a last resort.

3.) From the 1930’s to the 1960’s most state wildlife agencies adopted names as “Conservation Departments” or “Fish and Game Departments”.  At the same time many state wildlife agencies changed the title of their “Game Wardens” to Conservation Officers.  Both names denoted organizational and personal titling to suggest the origin of the applied science of “Conservation Biology”.  This was the period so despised by environmental/animal rights ideologues: it was the period of big game management and restoration or[of] deer and elk and moose.  It was the period of introduction of chukars and the proliferation of introduced game species like brown trout and pheasants.  It was the period of stocking striped bass in the West, and rainbow trout below dams, and muskies in Southern waters, and salmon in the Great Lakes – all for sport and human enjoyment and enrichment.  In short it was everything the new philosophy detested and the new employees hated.  As they gained control from the 1960’s on, is it any wonder that the term “Conservation Biology” and the word “Conservation” was rejected and ignored?

4.) Finally, I consulted my complete 1960’s-era collection of state (and Provincial) Wildlife Uniform Shoulder Patches.  In 1960, 21 states still either called themselves “Conservation” Departments or had the word “Conservation” in their title, or called their Game Wardens – “Conservation” Officers.

5.) Today, in our politically correct world of Orwellian terms where “war is peace” the wildlife rulers are no different than their education peers or their global warming “scientists.”  Words matter and we need look no farther than that state leader of idiocy, California.  The state that bans any management of cougars and ignores human dangers and property destruction from coyotes and wolves, has removed any vestige of the old “Conservation Biology”/managing wild animals for state residents crowd.  As a final touch, I offer the following news item:

“Call them words of war between hunters and wildlife activists: Starting Jan. 1, California’s Department of Fish and Game will become Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The change, hunters say, reflects a move away from traditional hunting and fishing values and is part of a bigger push by the Humane Society of the United States to eliminate hunting across the nation.

Environmentalists and animal activists say it reflects a move to manage all wildlife in the state, not just “game” for hunters.

California’s change will leave just 12 states using “game” in the name of the agency overseeing wildlife, according to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. (Those are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming.)

Eighteen states use “wildlife,” while the others use “natural resources” or “conservation.”

Moreover, data from the association and the National Conference of State Legislatures indicates the shift away from “game” is accelerating, the Associated Press reported.”

What’s in a word?  The question arose because those affected by growing federal abuse using wildlife “needs” as an excuse have seen “Conservation Biology” cropping up in news items, Federal Register Notices, government-generated “reports and papers”, and even in court transcripts.

To repeat what I said in the earlier article:

–       There is an election coming up and the feds want to set minds at ease and quell any negative news about what they are doing.  It is all “Conservation Biology” don’t you know?

–       They are keeping the great unwashed (that’s you Mr.  & Mrs. Rural America) off balance. The more they baffle you and the courts, the more you think them good guys just like grandpa’s old Conservation Department and all those legendary Conservation Officers he used to talk about.  The more you stay docile and forego challenging them; the deeper their hold on you.

–       Remember it is their game and their rules and your money paying for it.

We have been like Austrians during the March 1938 Anschluss; welcoming the Nazis in to take over their country without firing a shot.  The Austrians threw flowers in the street and cheered as the Nazis absorbed them into their foul nest; just like the environmentalists and animal rights bureaucrats are taking over rural America, one community at a time and often in league with compliant state governments.  Whether we think of it as a “Fatherland” or as a bygone world where “conservation” was a good word; it is only a diversion and lie by those that represent nothing good for us or our descendants.

Jim Beers

24 February

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

The Etymology of “Conservation Biology”

By James Beers: (Part II)

etymology, (et-e-mol-oji), n. The study of historical linguistic change, especially as applied to individual words.

conservation, (kon-ser-va-shun), n.  1. The act of conserving; preservation.  2. Official supervision of rivers, forests, wildlife, etc.  3.  A District under such supervision.

biology, (bi-ol-oji), n.  The science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena; often especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, etc.

I have been asked to explain the origin (i.e. etymology) of the term “conservation biology”.

The term “conservation biology” has a very interesting history in the USA that is fraught with hidden agendas, stolen credibility and its use as a means to grow government and increase bureaucratic power while disguised as both a harmless and beneficial means of “saving” renewable natural resources.

The mid to late 1800’s and early 1900’s were a chaotic period in American history: the West was settled, farms sprung up everywhere, Americans killed wildlife for personal food and to sell to others for food; buffalo herds dwindled and then were extirpated and large predators were eliminated or greatly reduced to make homesteads, farming and animal husbandry possible; and some wild animals like Passenger Pigeons and North American Parrots were recognized as having become extinct.  Large swaths of forestlands were cut to build homes, railroads, mines and infrastructure like bridges and tunnels.  Grazing on “open range” was intense as a result of government reluctance to transfer public lands in the West to private ownership after The Civil War thus leading to the historic abuse of “the commons” as seen in Europe for centuries.

Not all of the reckless abuse of renewable (forests, forage and fish/wildlife) natural resources was attributable to European settlers.  Native people were generally nomadic and abandoned sites as they became polluted, relatively devoid of food for a host of reasons, or increasingly dangerous due to human factors and/or the presence/behavior of dangerous wild animals. Native people used fires to drive herd animals off cliffs and for other purposes: these fires had both positive and negative effects on wildlife, trees and habitats including human dwellings.  Native people carried on lively trading for centuries in animal parts such as the bills of the now-extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker whose value outside its range up to and into present-day Canada was immense in terms of the economy of the day.

Mention of the impacts of natural phenomenon on North American species and the landscape are seldom noted when describing the American concern about the impact of European settlement on “rivers, forests and wildlife”.  For centuries the impacts of glaciers and low temperatures (Ice Ages) made many species extinct from dinosaurs to mastodons that are still being dug up and in some instances eaten and exploited for ivory in Northern parts of our globe.  Earthquakes such as the New Madrid Earthquakes (1811-1812) that rang church bells 1,000 miles away, rechanneled the Mississippi River and even caused it to run backwards for a period of time, caused great damage and desolation to “rivers, forests and wildlife”.  Add into this mix periodic overgrazing by wild animal herds; predator population highs and lows due to everything from food availability, disease, weather, human purges and competition with other predators; plus learned behaviors of predators as some like saber-toothed tigers became extinct and wolves, cougars and grizzly bears came and went with the factors mentioned earlier in this paragraph and you have a picture of a dramatically changing North American environment which was affected by European (“developed?”, “advanced?”, “technological?”, “industrial?” take your pick) rearrangement of the landscape, governance and human activities.

The early 1900’s saw a great awakening of the national conscience about what was seen to be the extirpation of renewable national resources everywhere you looked.  The speeches, writing and actions of the like of Teddy Roosevelt, his forester pal Gifford Pinchot, wildlife aesthete Aldo Leopold and semi-philosophers such as John Muir and John Burroughs all called for dramatic action by government to “save” Yosemite/Yellowstone/ Forests/Buffalo/Birds/”Wilderness”/etc.

America was growing rich and powerful at the time as railroads, steel mills, jobs and an immigrant work force combined to create a national vision that we could do whatever we set our mind to.  The 19th century idea of Manifest Destiny (the idea in the middle 19th century, that it “was the destiny of the U.S. to expand its territory over the whole of North America and to extend and enhance its political, social, and economic influences”) came to be viewed in an international sense in that we (the US) were becoming so much more powerful and rich than any other nation in the world that we would “lead the way” into the future.

Federal lands being withheld in the late 19th and early 20th century by an increasingly powerful federal government (thanks to the perception that the Civil War not only destroyed “States ‘Rights’” but also indicated things would be better if the federal government remained in charge of things rather than giving State governments too much jurisdiction) remained in federal “ownership’.  Some of these lands were classified as Refuges for Wildlife and others were added to the Yellowstone concept of being “National Parks”.  Other such lands were declared “National Forests” and still others (an enormous acreage) were classified as grazing or “public lands” to be “managed” for public benefit.  Suffice to say, thus were born the US Fish and Wildlife Service (formerly the Bureau of Biological Survey), the National Park Service, the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

Gradually, each bureaucracy began writing regulations and “working” with a compliant (even then) Congress to buy private lands and expand current landholdings and declare new units everywhere.  As in the last 50 years of the passage of the ESA, Antiquities Act, Wilderness Act, et al; Congressmen and Senators quickly saw the benefits to their re-election of a refuge/park/forest in every District and State (like the “chicken in every pot”).  Bureaucracies called for “research” activities, “education” activities, operations funding, maintenance funding, etc. and each year – “more laws”, “more” employees and “more” funding.

Let us return to that late 19th and early 20 century period.  As citizens in polluted cities and rural families developed an agreement with government that indeed human activities were causing too much devastation to “rivers, forests and wildlife”, an understandable accord arose between the governed and the governed that government action was needed.  Now let us concentrate on the “wildlife” aspects (in the broadest sense of all wild animals and their supportive landscapes and plant habitats).

The Bureau of Biological Survey (the precursor of the US Fish and Wildlife) was the lead government wildlife agency as the US Forest Service was the lead “forest” agency and today’s BLM is generally recognized as the lead (off Forest Service and Wildlife Refuge lands) agency for grazing and mineral development.

The Bureau of Biological Survey offered three nostrums to reverse the concerns of the American public about the future of wildlife in America:

  1. A robust federal Animal Damage Control Program nationwide to both reduce and eliminate the loss of valued wildlife like deer, elk and moose; and to reduce and eliminate damage by wildlife (mostly predators) to private property like livestock, dogs agricultural activities and to reduce and eliminate any dangers to human health and safety.
  2. A Wildlife “Research” Program to determine the Life Histories of “wildlife” and thus to make “scientific” recommendations regarding their survival needs and ways to minimize any threats to their continued survival or methods to control them.
  3. A “System” of Wildlife Refuges where practical wildlife management processes resulting from “scientific research” would be applied both to test their effectiveness and to provide exemplary models for management of State and Private lands where wildlife considerations might show benefits to the Nation.

Note that all three were to be based on “science” guiding “research”.  This was the age of American inventions and “applied science”.  Henry Ford, Cyrus McCormick, Thomas Edison, Tesla, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Albert Einstein made “science” almost biblical as the last word in whatever field you were interested in.  In the field of wildlife, the “science” of Biologywas clearly the basis for the promise of government deliverance of wildlife from what ailed us at that time.

But, biology alone was a somewhat disconcerting idea.  Would these government “scientists” sit around in laboratories looking into microscopes and puffing on pipes in some seminar in conference rooms?  Would they publish papers in Latin and require listeners to either have advanced degrees or simply take “their word” about what was needed?  No, the noun “biology” needed a modifier and adjective to set the public and politicians minds at ease.

The word “Conservation” fit the bill perfectly.  This was long before the concept of “renewable natural resources” (wildlife, timber, forage) as opposed “non-renewable natural resources” (oil, coal, natural gas) was used so the notion that “conserving” these precious resources (while continuing to USE them) was the goal that was understandable and supported by citizen and politician alike.  Conservation Biology was thought to have a “good ring to it”.

Now, before proceeding further with the term “Conservation Biology”, any discussion must consider a very important factor.  At no time was there any public intention or statement that this “Conservation Biology” would be the basis for:

–       introducing and protecting wolves;

–       introducing rattlesnakes into settled states like Massachusetts;

–       arresting persons for protecting their families and property from grizzly bears or cougars;

–       wrecking the economies and social structures of Counties on behalf of owls or woodpeckers;

–       federal/state “partnering” to introduce and protect free-roaming buffalo in the midst of settled rural communities and agricultural/livestock operations;

–       federal spending of Billions of dollars per year by the federal government to force state governments into a federal subcontractor status and to bribe Universities to become publishing houses for “science” that is little more than alchemy notes copied from medieval wizards;

–       etc., etc.

Had any of those early wildlife philosophers, bureaucrats or political leaders inferred that “Conservation Biology” would be used to:

–       close public lands,

–       condemn private property,

–       eliminate hunting,

–       eliminate fishing,

–       eliminate trapping,

–       justify using predators to shut down ranching,

–       justify closing grazing lands,

–       justify increasing lead ammunition and fishing tackle costs,

–       forcing rural families to live with uncontrolled deadly and destructive predators,

–       eliminate highly desirable wildlife like brown trout, pheasants, chukars, etc. while undesirable and destructive wildlife like pythons, boa constrictors and Asian carp are imported and allowed to escape into settled landscapes,

–       justify tearing down irrigation/power dams,

–       finance buying private property and easing private property and expanding federal authorities until the entire nation is under federal control,

–       etc., etc.

Not only would anyone making such a claim have been thought daffy, if there was even the slightest chance that such unimaginable things would result – the very existence of these four agencies, their funding and their budgets would have been in great jeopardy if not eliminated all-together.

Make no mistake: “Conservation Biology” existed and grew NOT because it was thought necessary to impede or destroy American rights or the American Way of Life.

“Conservation Biology” existed and grew because the American People (i.e. We the People…”)wanted to make every reasonable and affordable effort to sustain wildlife in the midst of the settled American landscape and the American Way of Life so generously provided by our Constitutional society and our protected human activities as described in the Declaration of Independence as “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

Thus, once the bureaucratic wildlife ball got rolling during WWI, the federal government signed a Treaty with Britain to protect 212 bird species thereby seizing state jurisdiction over those birds.  Subsequent Treaties expanded the number of federal birds.  A federal law was passed to outlaw the interstate transportation of contraband wildlife.  Refuges were bought, “rounded-out”, and proposed annually.  Federal conniving (the correct word) with UN staffs and faux “Treaties” led to all manner of “necessary” land control and land set-aside maneuvers as well as all manner of import controls that have all but killed the sustainable international commerce in wildlife from big game hunting to commercial uses of wildlife parts.

States began to professionalize their own wildlife agencies made up at first of mostly game wardens and then with “managers” with titles like Upland Game “Biologist”, Big Game “Biologist”.  Universities began teaching courses and then forming Departments and then even Colleges granting degrees up to and including PhD’s in “Wildlife Biology” and “Wildlife Management” and “Wildlife Resources”; all based on or derived from “Conservation Biology”.

Simultaneously, the US Fish and Wildlife Service:

–       grew annually,

–       hired “more” biologists, refuge managers and enforcers,

–       lobbied and got an Excise Tax on fishing equipment, arms and ammunition to assist the states to “professionalize” under federal oversight (i.e. be more like their federal cousins),

–       joined with radicals in the 1960’s to lobby and obtain the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Animal Welfare Act, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Wilderness Act, etc.

The end result being a “Great Robbery” of State Jurisdictions and Authorities by federal bureaucracies based on fuzzy “science” claims of federal “experts” and romance “Biology” ground out by Universities kenneling sub Rosa federal subcontractors with initials after their names.

While “Conservation Biology” started all this, the term fell into disuse from the 1970’s forward.  The reason “Conservation Biology” fell into disuse was because of the steady takeover of the US Fish and Wildlife Service by environmental/animal rights activists and interest groups.  These radicals absolutely hated (the correct word) hunting, fishing, trapping, grazing, timber management, fur products, and all the trappings of European settlement and the American system of government.  They advocated an all-powerful central government enacting Rural Clearances and abolishing every human activity and things like guns that they did not favor.

In the US Fish and Wildlife Service they transferred the timeless and beneficial animal damage control program to the Agriculture Department where they could roundly condemn it and advocate its elimination.  They imposed ammunition restrictions for wildlife under federal jurisdiction.  They shifted refuges from models of wildlife “management” to sealed enclaves where non-management led to worthless and overgrown disasters.  They shifted enforcers from wildlife protectors to human regulators and overseers as happened in the BLM and US Forest Service.  They began lying like National Park Service employees (“the elk are in the back country”, “don’t believe people that say that wolves kill and eliminate elk”, etc.) and State employees (“global warming has killed most of the elk and moose”, “don’t believe anyone that tells you that wolves killing moose calves has eliminated most of the moose”, and the whopper “wolves don’t attack and are not a danger to people”).

Many of the activist employees came in under the shadow of Equal Employment Opportunity.  That is the federal program giving women and minorities preferences over white males.  This was done by eliminating requirements and standards for hiring, transferring and promoting much like Apartheid in South Africa.  Other activists began infiltrating the US Fish and Wildlife Service politically like the current Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and many lesser “appointments” not accurately publicized.

Beginning in the 1990’s these activists shared one sterling attribute.  They did not hesitate to say they “hunt and fish”.  Although in most cases this was a plain lie, it was used as a mask over their real agenda, the elimination of wildlife management for humans and the advent of strict human management by government justified where possible on claimed benefits for wildlife from the proclaimed “endangered’ mega-critter to the lowliest and unseen critter that provided a “necessary” niche in some contrived ecosystem and was in great need of yet another land purchase, regulation or arrest.

During this period (1990 – 2014) the term Conservation Biology was, to US Fish and Wildlife Service and its New Age cooperators and employees, much like the term “untermenschen” (A Nazi term for Jews and other inferior – to the Nazis –  races) is in Jewish and Eastern European conservations; that is a despicable word from the past.  However, as opposition to all the federal abuses of citizens in the name of wildlife grows and the “science” it is based on is seen to be bogus and as we approach a Presidential election wherein the biggest “citizen abuse by wildlife” political support Party (both Parties support all of this wildlife abuse of the citizenry, one only slightly less than the other) worries that they may not only lose “more” power but that anti-establishment candidates might actually get elected and reverse things: illusions and diversions are called for.

Reigniting the widespread use of the benign and fondly-remembered term “Conservation Biology” is one such illusion.  It is like wolf puppies in the tender arms of a young lady employee in a government uniform.  Who could be against this except for some pervert that tore the wings off flies as a youth and grew up into a misogynist?  It is like federal attempts to “List” the Sage Grouse and then suddenly realizing that the Sage Grouse were doing better than anyone could expect (“but it’s the thought that counts”).  Why “they” are once again using “Conservation Biology” as they (fill-in-the-blank).  Who could be against that?

So as I write, “Conservation Biology” is everywhere.  Like releasing thousands of criminals from prison or prattling on about how Planned Parenthood sale of fetal tissue rivals the Salk vaccine for Polio, don’t be misled by this restoration of an antiquated term like some quaint term in a Shakespeare Play.  It is simply one more ploy to keep you playing the federal carnival game of “which shell is the pea under?”  It is “their” rules and “your money”.

Like the once-greatest walleye lake in Minnesota, Mille Lacs, that Indians netted so much they crashed the walleye fishery and then began buying up the resorts and cabins on the shores at rock bottom prices with the millions Minnesotans pour into the Indian casinos; America is similarly being destroyed and bought up by the taxes we render to Washington and the debt we allow Washington to ring up.  Americans, like Minnesotans have “met the enemy and he is us”.

Jim Beers

22 February 2016

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

Beware of Professors

The following is a Letter sent to the Editor of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman Review.  It answers an article “Kick cows off refuge lands” by a Professor at Eastern Washington University that appeared in the paper. The article appears after the Letter..   Jim Beers

“Once proud” is a term overused in today’s dwindling newspaper publishing business.  A significant factor contributing to the demise of many “once proud” newspapers is their yielding to the temptation to pander to the imaginary boogeymen of uninformed readers with myths from reputedly informed writers.  Sad to say, you have entirely succumbed to this disgusting temptation by publishing, Professor Lindholdt’s “Kick cows off refuge lands” a composition worthy of some “Occupy Wall Street” handbill passed around during a demonstration.

The following refutations apply to the main assertions in your (i.e. Lindholdt’s) diatribe.

1.)  The Bundy’s and other occupiers of Malheur have very legitimate grievances with the USFWS, the BLM and the US Forest Service.  That they picked Malheur to give attention to their grievances is as logical as any other USDI or USDA facility.  The wildlife resources of Malheur Refuge are as healthy as ever.  One of those ranchers is dead and the other fathers and husbands face imprisonment.  Given the Professor’s animus toward ranchers, is it futile to ask him to “give it a rest?”

2.)  The Professor’s liking of the vegetarian diet is as relevant to the article’s title as is my preferences for snow goose cassoulet or walleye filets parmesaned.

3.)  Ranches are indeed corporations and as such they provide immense fuel for Local communities’ economies such as jobs, support businesses and revenue for Local governments to protect Local communities from both the federal government and uncaring interlopers like Professor Lindholdt.  Furthermore, when these refuges were founded like Little Pend Oreille in 1939; you can bet your bippy that the Local community was asked to welcome the refuge and their once benign efforts to benefit wildlife and by extension the Local citizenry.  Like the majority of refuges in the system, the Congressional Authorizing Legislation paid homage to Local communities and their governments and stressed (now slowly being eradicated like Jewish achievements under German National Socialism) that waterfowl and other Treaty species like songbirds were of primary consideration.

4.)  Speaking of the Professor’s fawning homage to two recent lady refuge managers that “ousted” the cows from Turnblull NWR (“ more than 3,000 acres of wetlands of the last quality breeding habitat available in eastern Washington

for waterfowl”), and Little Pend Oreille NWR’s; his enthusiasm is offset by the negative impacts the waterfowl production very likely suffered.  Regulated (by time, intensity and grazing species) grazing by livestock is an important tool in managing wetlands and associated nesting cover for desirable waterfowl species’ nesting success.  Like timber management (another modern boogeyman) as a regulated tool also provides benefits to desirable plant and animals species and their abundance is vilified, so too is livestock grazing besmirched as inherently harmful.  Both beliefs are false.

5.)  I see the Professor also accuses opponents of the ESA as involved in a “coalition” within the agriculture industry that sponsor “illegal measures” to punish “whistleblowers”.  I could write several books (I have written over a thousand such articles) about why the ESA should be “defeated”.  As a Utah State Wildlife graduate; a Utah Fish and Game former employee; a USFWS wetlands biologist in North Dakota; a US Game Management Agent in Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City and Washington, DC; a USFWS Animal Damage Control Program Coordinator in Washington, DC; Chief of the Branch of Refuge Operations in Washington, DC; wildlife biologist administering Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax funding to state wildlife departments from Washington, DC; member of both a State Department team and US Trade Representative Team battling unjust fur regulations in the European Union; and as a Congressional Fellow I oppose the ESA: that neither makes me a bad person or one in need of “re-education”.

6.)  As a “whistleblower” myself, I was amused by the Professor’s concern about suppressing “whistleblowers” he supports.  When I testified twice before a packed US House of Representatives Committee about the theft of $45 to 60 Million in state wildlife funds by USFWS managers to trap Canadian wolves, release said wolves in Yellowstone, and open an office in California – all 3 of which Congress had refused to either authorize or fund) – I became a “whistleblower”. I was threatened with loss of my health care and my pension after 32 years with USFWS and 4 years as an officer in the US Navy and I spent ten months at home with full pay and then was offered and accepted a large cash settlement  (thank you Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer) on condition I would not speak or write about the circumstances of my “retirement” for 3 years (so much for “transparency”.)  By the way this was all perpetrated by the same folks administering these Refuges and that the good Professor lauds while ranchers are imprisoned and shot.  Ooohh, the ranchers copied down his license plate?  Poor baby.

In closing, cattle should not be banned from refuges.  Refuges were created and remain funded to care for wildlife and the people that use and enjoy them.  Camping is a “secondary” use of refuges as it is these days for National Forests and National Parks, both of which were founded to provide camping but today are increasingly becoming closed federal enclaves that ignore Local communities, Local governments and any activity not favored by political bosses back in Washington, DC.  I suggest the Professor look for Parks and Forests the next time and that if he continues to attend rancher meetings he exert the sort of discretion one might at a Black Lives Matter Meeting and not provoke the Local folks or belittle their concerns.

Oh and one more thing, I am often asked when I speak and when I write, “Mr. Beers, how did these bureaucrats ever get like they have become?”  My new answer from now on will be. “Because they all studied wildlife under English Professors like Mr. Lindholdt at Eastern Washington University that not only are ignorant and biased about wildlife but that also harbor a deep dislike for rural Americans and the rural America that made (and makes) America great.

Jim Beers

7 February 2016

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

Settled Landscapes

By James Beers:

“Settled Landscapes” is a term both mellifluous and of primary importance as I write this in early 2015. It is especially important to the rural residents of the Lower 48 States of the United States and the rural inhabitants of the European continent.

I first became actually aware of the term and its’ importance about ten years ago while learning all I could and writing about wolves and grizzly bears, two large and impactful predators that had been declared “Endangered” for a wide range of hidden agendas and that therefore were being forcibly imposed by federal fiat and power on a growing area of rural America in the Lower 48 States.

I was reading some comments by Dr. Val Geist, a retired Canadian University Professor, Ecologist and Wildlife Biologist par excellence. He was making the simple, yet undeniable, statement that given a long list of very negative effects on humans, human communities, human economies and the wolves themselves; his words, “wolves do not belong in ‘Settled Landscapes’” not only caught my attention but have rung ever more true over the years. Although I have never met Dr. Geist, I have learned more from him over the years through frequent communications and collaborations.

So, what is a “Settled Landscape”?

To the environmental extremist, it might be the buildings on Manhattan Island, but not Central Park itself. It might be New York City’s 5 Boroughs (Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) but not Long Island or Westchester County. It might be the Eastern Seaboard but not everything West of the Appalachians and East of California, Oregon and Washington State.

To an old Alaskan bachelor trapper, it might be everything South of the 60th Parallel that roars out of the Bering Sea by Nunivak Island heading East just North of the Alaskan Peninsula and Skagway to make the Northern Border of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Many older Alaskans still see those lands South of that Parallel as what they once called a century ago, the place of the Cheechakoes or those that were new to or recent arrivals in the “real” Alaska.

To many urban Americans, it might be all of the Lower 48 States outside the current edges of suburban sprawl form the metropolitan center they tell others from far away they are “from”.

To politicians, it is where (like Willie Sutton the notorious bank robber once answered the question in prison about why he kept robbing banks and answered matter-of-factly “because that is where the money is”) the “votes are”.

To the government bureaucrats it is anything they want to make of it or even ignore it in the regulations they write under the burgeoning authorities they reap as present-day politicians pass law after law to garner the votes and financial support of the urban worthies who see the results as affecting only those places and bumpkins outside the urban sprawl surrounding where they live.

What, you might be asking, did I see of such importance in Dr. Geist’s observation? What I saw was the simple and undeniable truth that as humans advance, order and improve their living conditions and communities certain animals that once occurred in those now “settled landscapes” must of necessity be either controlled at certain levels (i.e. big game, furbearers, upland game) or eliminated in those “settled landscapes”. Some examples of animals that can become incompatible with growing or advancing human societies and therefore call for management controls on their numbers and distributions, or for their elimination would be:

* Elephants in areas of agriculture where their wanderings destroy crops and endanger children and elderly persons as they pass through inhabited sites as free-roaming buffalo once did and would do again if imposed on rural residents of the Lower 48 States.

* Poisonous snakes, constrictors, poisonous spiders and frogs, etc. that reside in or near and wander into human living sites.

* Animals that carry and transmit diseases and infections like tapeworms, hoof-and-mouth, plague, rabies, anthrax, etc. like wolves and coyotes that endanger human lives or property such as livestock, valued wildlife or dogs.

* Animals that compete for forage with livestock or game animals; or that destroy haystacks, orchards or food-producing plants like elk and deer.

* Animals that denude property of plants and are responsible for deadly disease outbreaks or that make holes that cause livestock and humans to injure themselves like prairie dogs.

* Animals that are unpredictable and present threats to humans from rural children and the elderly to hikers, campers, joggers, dog walkers, hunters and other rural recreationists and workers like grizzly bears, cougars and wolves.

Uncontrolled large predators like grizzly bears, wolves, cougars or panthers, jaguars, coyotes, or black bears that kill and attack people, destroy livestock operations, kill dogs and other pets, carry diseases and infections dangerous to humans and other animals, generally make rural life regress toward what Thomas Hobbes described in his 1588 book, Leviathan, as “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

It is entirely sensible to recognize and address these conflicts with wild animals as matters to be reckoned with as “landscapes” are “settled”. Tolerance for large predators was the only option for Native American communities before European settlers arrived; just like tolerance for large predators in and around “landscapes” being settled by Europeans with primitive guns and almost no other means of reducing the growing conflicts they experienced as “settlement” began and continued to grow was the only option. As settlement grew and intensified; awareness of human dangers, livestock losses and rudimentary recognition of the health dangers to humans and desirable animals escalated with the sophistication and intensity of control of certain species that could be tolerated like black bears and cougars, and the elimination of those that could NOT be tolerated due to their inherent and uncontrollable danger to humans and the extent of their destruction to human communities and their economies like wolves and grizzly bears.

The tolerance for some species like black bears, cougars and coyotes was composed of many aspects from the difficulties inherent in trying to rid any area of coyotes to the behavior of low-density black bear and cougar populations to generally avoid humans and human communities WHEN THEY ARE HUNTED, TRAPPED AND OCCSIONALLY SHOT AT thereby making them what we call “shy” and “furtive”. Wolves and grizzly bears exhibit no such tendencies. Wolves and grizzly bears persist as dangers to humans and as behaving in exceedingly destructive ways to all manner of human interests no matter their density or the densities of humans IN SETTLED LANDSCAPES.

But, what is a settled landscape? A “Settled Landscape” is all of the Lower 48 States with three exceptions.

The first exception to “settled landscapes” is the POLITICAL exception. This exception is often mentioned regarding the Yellowstone’s (i.e. National Parks); the “National” Forests/Refuges/ BLM et al lands; the “Declarations” and Executive Orders decreeing “Wildernesses”, “Sanctuaries”, and “Preservation”/”Scenic”/”Historic” et al Areas: and the two clearly and exclusively federal land holdings that elude any State jurisdiction, i.e. the District of Columbia and all “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards, and other needful Buildings” as mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. These are, with only three exceptions, NOT exceptions in any legal or Constitutional sense to definition as “Settled Landscapes” as those landscapes “settled” under the authority, jurisdiction, protection and government authority of that State in which they occur.

A “Settled Landscape” is legally and Constitutionally ANY and all land in the Lower 48 States (Alaska is an exception due to the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act and I am unfamiliar with the State/Federal relationship in Hawaii) under the authority and jurisdiction of the people and government of THAT STATE. Unless a State relinquishes its’ sovereignty and authority over any land within the state to the federal government, the federal government’s ownership of National Parks, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, BLM lands, and all other “Declarations” and “Orders” are subject to State laws. In other words, although federal agencies that “own” parcels of lands within a State are not required to pay State and Local Taxes to the State and Local governments they are subject to State authority like other landowners, with only three exceptions:
1. Yellowstone National Park was placed under the jurisdiction of the US Army and withdrawn from the Territory of Wyoming in 1872, 4 years after becoming a Territory in 1868 and 18 years before it became a State in 1890. It therefore remained independent of the State of Wyoming and was transferred to the National Park Service in 1917. Other National Parks outside The District of Columbia are. Like their counterpart National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges, et al, merely landowners of property subject to state jurisdiction. The federal government exercises what is called “Exclusive Jurisdiction” over Yellowstone similar to:

2. The District of Columbia as defined in the US Constitution, and:

3. The “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful Buildings” (i.e. Department of Defense lands when taken and maintained as properties “needful” for national defense but not when sold off or given to political patrons like environmental groups or transferred to federal agencies.

The foregoing is an explanation of POLITICAL claims of exemption from the commonly understood concept of “settled landscapes”. In other words, “Settled Landscape” not only includes (politically) land with a certain density of “settlers”; it covers all the lands that were, are or could be “settled” under the auspices, protection and laws of the state within which they lie. Federal agencies (with the 3 exceptions above), while landowners within the State, can close certain areas or roads or uses in accordance with the laws of the state governing all land owners in the state, they are not free to introduce animals prohibited within the state or to kill or trap animals within the state outside state authority unless they have specific permits to do so. Now read that again and ask yourself, – “HOW did the federal Congress and President and Supreme Court contrive and invent the ‘power’ to simply say ‘wolves will be here and grizzly bears will be there’? If I own a ranch with deer on it, I can’t just shoot deer in my crops or haystacks the year-around without a state permit any more than the federal government can just decide to kill or poison certain birds or fish or mammals on federal lands (with the aforementioned 3 exceptions). I can no more decide to introduce and release lions or jaguars on my ranch without state authority than can federal bureaucrats decide to release wolves or grizzly bears on their lands. If my dogs get loose and bite your kid or kill your foal or kill grandma out by the mailbox or chase down your son on his bike or kill your dog on your porch or run your sheep over a cliff, etc.: why am I held responsible for compensation and subject to incarceration AND FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS LOOSING WOLVES AND GRIZZLY BEARS ON OUR “SETTLED LANDSCAPES” THAT DO THE SAME THINGS ARE NOT??

The second exception to “settled landscapes” is the BIOLOGICAL exception. There is biologically no exception to the concept of “settled landscapes” be it the Chicago Loop Area or the Big Hole Valley of Western Montana. Each has a human community engaged in whatever supports healthy families, children, elderly members and the community services they need and can afford. Each has dogs and wild birds and furbearers (raccoons, skunks, etc.): each has predators like coyotes: each has available fishing and netting (smelt): and each prohibits those animals that are dangerous like poisonous snakes, constrictors, and alligators; each controls those animals that are destructive (rats, coyotes, foxes, skunks, pigeons, etc.); and each encourages desirable species like songbirds, waterfowl, and rabbits.

Notice that residents of the Big Hole Valley in Western Montana (a vast area of large ranches and few people) has trouble with species like wolves that kill cows and calves and sheep and lambs and dogs but they can neither control the wolves nor eliminate the wolves as was the case for many happy and productive decades before federal laws and federal interlopers put wolves back in The Big Hole and cowed the State bureaucracy into not only acquiescing but also in singing a duet about how wolves only kill the old and sick; wolves don’t kill livestock or reduce big game numbers; and wolves will restore stream banks and make the lame walk, the blind see and generally clean up the air and the water. We must ask ourselves, if the Chicago Loop and the State of Illinois can manage the wildlife under their authority, why can’t Montana and The Big Hole do the same? Under what authority in a just and Constitutional Republic with a Constitution can the federal government simply decide to put deadly and destructive animals into one “settled landscape” and not another? Finally, why does the federal government choose to exercise this questionable and unjust authority in The Big Hole of Montana and not, Stowe, Vermont or Napa Valley, California?

The remaining biological aspect of exceptions to the “settled landscapes” concept is the one being used by every charlatan politician for the past 40 years; that is excluding places that (reputedly) “need” protection. This may be a desert area (like the California deserts long milked incrementally for political support and votes by the two ancient US Senators from that State) or it may be an expanse of ocean recently made into a “Sanctuary” by a Presidential Executive Order or an Alaskan oil-rich area or a Utah low-sulfur coal deposit set aside from any future exploitation by Presidents looking for adulation or to divert public attention from other matters: all of them have in common that 99% of the population neither knows nor care what is happening, they only “feel good” that such vacant space or unsettled landscape is being “saved”.

Be it vast tundra, desert lands, mountaintops or an arbitrary expanse of ocean; the concept of it being “unsettled” or never being “settled” is unsupportable biologically. Even the mountain tops and ocean visited infrequently by hunters, geologists or fishermen are connected to the “settlements” from whence these men come. Like the desert and tundra are connected to and utilized by men for transportation and sparsely-settled communities, who is to say they are independent of adjoining settlements human activities biologically?

To conclude, all this is very relevant to the USA and the European Continent where the same things (forcible wolf presence and gradual elimination of animal control for human benefit) are being perpetrated by the EU in Brussels with the same enablers and incentives that we see being imposed by the federal government in Washington, DC. As in the USA, real political or biological exceptions to the “settled landscape” concept are rare to non-existent though frequently mentioned and inferred.

The presence or absence of various wildlife species; the abundance and distribution of wildlife; the costs and revenue sources for management and control of wildlife; the uses of wildlife; and the authority over wildlife in “Settled Landscapes” should always rest with and remain with the LOWEST level of government THAT REPRESENTS THOSE HUMANS AND HUMAN COMMUNITIES LIVING IN THE SETTLED LANDSCAPES AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTIONS AND WHO ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING AND ENDURING THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. The only practicable exceptions to this rule of law in the Lower 48 States are Yellowstone National Park and large Department of Defense landholdings.

Dr. Geist, in discussing alternative sites for wolves (and by my extension grizzly bears) often mentions large, FENCED government reservation like nuclear power plants, military lands, etc., as practicable sites: though such contained wildlife communities would require intense and expensive perpetual management to sustain. When considering “reservations” or “refuges” for animals like wolves and grizzly bears in “settled landscapes” it must be recognized that visitors to Yellowstone, or defense sites made available to the public, and resident workers are in danger and the questions of liability for injuries ON SITE and the disposition of animals OFF SITE ought to be established before any release on the excepted area adjoining any settled landscape. Impacts on defense operations and facilities in such locations would have to be carefully measured and evaluated as well as protected from likely future behavioral adjustments by such animals There cannot be any arguable business about wolf control outside Yellowstone affecting Yellowstone wolves or their pack structure if that is what the residents of the settled landscapes adjoining the Park deem is in their best interest when such animals stray back under State and Local authority and jurisdiction.

“Wolves”, like far-off powerful government dictates about plants and animals like grizzly bears, “do not belong in ‘Settled Landscapes’.” It is a testimony to American and Canadian ethics that wolves and grizzly bears have been maintained in Alaska and much of Canada to date. Likewise it is a testament to European concern that supporting a similar “rewilding” of the European continent is occurring. That said, the presence or absence of either dangerous or destructive animals must, in the final analysis, be the responsibility of those living in the “Settled Landscapes” affected by these species be they Chicago Loop picnickers or French shepherds.

If there is to be any hope for such animals in the future; only the continuing acquiescence of those living with these animals in their “Settled Landscape” and the continued financial support of those from elsewhere desiring the presence of these animals in the “Settled Landscapes” where others live, gives any hope of anything but a repeat of the historic accounts of the inevitable human reaction to these animals since the time of the Ancient Greeks and The Thirteen Original Colonies of what is now the USA. That is to say intolerable incident after incident until; despite Washington, despite Brussels, despite the King, despite the Lord of the Manor; the residents of the “Settled Landscapes” decide they have had enough and take things into their own hands and using a wide range of methods and even some new ones not even seen before once again make the “Settled Landscapes” safe and productive for human settlements.

Jim Beers
14 February 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

Brucellosis And Wolves

By James Beers:

It was 1957 and I spent a touch-and-go week in a St. Charles, Illinois hospital with a swollen spleen, swollen glands under my arms in a semi-conscious state. I was diagnosed with Brucellosis, called Undulant Fever in humans and my parents were worried that I wasn’t going to make it. The local newspapers did not cover this and my parents soon found out that our County did not have a Health Department and certain factions, like dairy farmers, were opposed to having one established. The doctor said I must have gotten it from “bad” milk (we bought all our milk from a store) or had somewhere been “exposed” to brucellosis. My folks knew I had been hunting in and around dairy farms that fall so everyone assumed I had somehow “picked it up” while hunting pheasants.

In spring of 2010 I was preparing Testimony for the Oregon State Legislature’s House Agricultural Committee on Wolves and particularly on the Diseases and Infections they contract, transmit and spread. As I composed a list of over 30+ such diseases and infections I discovered that wolves, like dogs, contract, carry and transmit Brucellosis. I never knew this and certainly 60 years earlier, no one mentioned this or likely even knew it. I remembered that, those fall days right before coming down with Brucellosis I had hunted with my dog and he was often very good at finding and retrieving pheasants that I shot. In those early kid days I would lavish the dog with praise when he was “good” and he would often lick my face as I squatted and scratched his ears with hands that often had cuts on them as I was praising him. THAT is where I got Brucellosis. Some of those cows in those Health Department-free days probably had Brucellosis and my dog probably had:

“contact with infected birthing tissues and fluids (e.g., placenta, aborted fetuses, fetal fluids, vaginal discharges). The bacteria can also be found in the milk, blood, urine and semen of infected animals.

Animals can get the bacteria by ingestion (oral), direct contact with mucous membranes (eyes, nose, mouth), or breaks in the skin. Brucella can also be transmitted by contaminated objects (fomites) such as, equipment, clothing, shoes, hay, feed or water.

Some animals are carriers; they will have the bacteria but show no signs of illness. These animals can shed the bacteria into the environment for long periods of time, infecting other animals in the herd.” (From The Center for Food Security and Public Health)

The Center for Food Security and Public Health goes on to say that:

1. “Brucellosis can affect sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, horses, and dogs. Brucellosis can also affect rats and wild animals including deer, bison, elk, moose, camels, water buffalo, and marine mammals.”

AND

2. “Brucellosis causes reproductive problems (e.g. abortions, stillbirth, infertility) in most species of animals. Other signs can include arthritis in cows and pigs, mastitis and lameness in goats, and oozing skin lesions in horses (“fistulous withers”).”

NOTE: Under # 1. There is NO mention of Wolves or Coyotes that interbreed freely with wolves producing viable offspring and are for all practical purposes the Same Species, especially in their Disease and Infection capabilities and capacities. This is a reprehensible act of political correctness (to avoid the wrath of environmentalists) and a not insignificant breach of the Public Trust that withholds information of significant importance from those rural persons increasingly at risk due to the spreading presence of WOLVES. (Jim Beers)

The National Association of Public Health Veterinarians tells us that:

“Brucella canis is transmitted among dogs by mucosal contact with infected material. Vaginal discharges, semen, and fluids and tissues associated with birth and abortion contain the highest concentrations of the bacteria, but urine, blood, milk, saliva, and feces also contain organisms.3 Pups can be infected in utero, intrapartum, or during nursing. The infective dose in dogs ranges from 104 for the conjunctival exposure route to 106 for the oral route. Concentrations of 103 to 106 organisms per ml have been found in urine of infected dogs.2 Dogs can remain bacteremic for at least five years.”

In summary; dogs are wolves are coyotes. They contract, carry and spread a very serious infection (Brucellosis) that infects and debilitates humans; and additionally destroys livestock, big game, and pets. They can contract, carry and spread Brucellosis for “at least five years”.

WOLVES are the most effective and therefore most dangerous vector of the highly infectious Disease Brucellosis. Why is that? Because:

* Wolves roam over a far wider area that any other vector.
* Wolves can contract Brucellosis from livestock, big game, dogs, rats and coyotes, all of which they eat, attack and/or kill for one reason or another.
* Wolves that contract Brucellosis are extremely likely to frequent similar habitats and similar animals (cattle, wintering elk, moose giving birth, sheep pastures) as where they have contracted the disease thus exposing similar animals to “mucosal contact with infected material. Vaginal discharges, semen, and fluids and tissues associated with birth and abortion tissue, urine, blood, milk, saliva, and feces” that infected them and that “is being passed on in their blood, saliva, feces, mucous, milk, vaginal discharges that they leave behind as they roam chasing and killing animals similar to the ones that infected them”.
* Wolves roam, fight, play, sleep and feed in packs, all but guaranteeing that, like bats, what one gets – they all get.
* Wolves kill, eat and attack cattle, big game and dogs. They will tear out their prey’s rear end and often the fetus they carry thus exposing themselves to “Vaginal discharges, semen, and fluids and tissues associated with birth and abortion (sic, that) contain the highest concentrations of the bacteria.” They sniff, roll in and smell urine and blood as well as feces and saliva of infected animals, thus making them almost perfect 100% contractors of any Brucellosis-infected material wherever they encounter it.
* Wolves sneeze and deposit mucous material on plants and other items for an undetermined time. Wolves deposit feces for other animals to smell and/or to consume nearby plants that have become contaminated by infected wolf feces. Wolves leave blood at various sites that is smelled and licked by coyotes and dogs. Wolves leave saliva on items that dogs and coyotes smell, lick, pick up and even swallow. Wolves leave urine and vaginal discharges at various sites in their wanderings.

All of the above can transmit the Brucellosis bacteria from infected wolves to coyotes and dogs for further transmission (coyotes) and to carry back into homes and kennels (dogs). The bacteria can be deposited in pastures to linger on plants for consumption by livestock, or they can be given directly to animals that survive an attack for transmission to others. The bacteria can infect big game animals and their unborn young that survive an attack for later transmission to pastures and haystacks frequented by both big game and livestock.

And the beauty of all this is that the veterinarians won’t touch this with a 10 ft. pole; the academics say, “there is no research”; the state wildlife biologists’ say, “where is your proof”; and the federal “experts” that put the wolves there just remain silent and smirk: thus there is no problem and therefore no responsibility or liability. A federal bureaucrat can’t have a finer dream.

Jim Beers
15 February 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

Helping “Bunnies”

This is Most Precious

How Absurd Journalism and Childish Nature Propaganda Are Being Used by Federal and State Government to Eliminate Hunting and the Funding for Management of Renewable Natural Resources for Human Benefit

The following article was given (the media does not generate these sorts of articles, they are “given” to them, often as already finished or partially drafted articles, by government agencies and academic “researchers” for a wide range of purposes from manufacturing support for budget or license increases to activating outrage and political support for proposed controversial actions) to the Poughkeepsie (NY) Journal recently. When I read it, I was skimming it as yet another Sesame Street-level bit of trivia until I read the last three short paragraphs that, while not really surprising me, floored me in their audacity by identifying how government hunting program money was being diverted into uses intended to eliminate hunting in the belief that the general public was too dumb to recognize it. Shades of that arrogant Obamacare “advisor” from Harvard or MIT

I have arranged my comments (A through G) corresponding to the sections of the news release on “Peter Cottontail” that follows them. The last comment (G), while insulting enough to sportsmen in its’ own right, is even more galling after reading all that precedes it.

*Editor’s Note* Please read the “bunny” article.

A. Note “bunny” and “Peter Cottontail” identifiers to introduce the article. How serious can the article be? Will there be any mention of why the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (i.e. DNR, Wildlife Agency, Conservation Commission, Fish and Game, etc. in other states) just spent $519,000 and five years on a “bunny” study? We are told it is for “helping restore, monitor and manage”; but for what, or for whom? Hunting is nowhere mentioned in what follows.

B. How cute! Rabbits as “the epitome of prolific breeding”, yuk, yuk. Oh, and the federal US Fish and Wildlife Service is evidently considering “protecting” said bunnies “under the Endangered Species Act.” A half-Million spent on “bunnies”, “the epitome of prolific breeding” by a State government on an animal that could skyrocket in numbers next year if timber and pulp cutting or odd strips of weedy-crops were planted on public and private land was undertaken? Federal ESA Listing being considered for “bunnies”? Like the observation in Hamlet about Denmark, there is something rotten going on here in New York.

C. So, let me get this straight: The “Native” habitat was “forest” that was “cut down in Colonial times” and therefore was, similarly devoid of “bunnies”. So, wouldn’t the bunnies be (like brown trout, pheasants, Great Lakes Salmon et al) Non-Native and a similar violation of the sacred pre-1492 America? Wouldn’t the remaining 14% of the 1960 “bunnie” population cited as a reason for alarm really be (according to current government mania about “Native Ecosystems) a target of eradication rather than a reason to suggest the full-Monty of the draconian federal takeover of the ESA? Actually this “bunnie” of concern is no different than any other rabbit in SE Canada or the N Lower 48 States. “New England” bunnies have all the biological significance justifying federal “intervention” as “red” wolves that are simply dog/coyote/wolf hybrids. “Bunnies” in New England are dwindling for the same reason that woodcock are dwindling in the woodlands of New England – the woodlands are no longer cut for either timber management, pulp or fire prevention on public or private lands. Thus there is no shrubby forest succession anymore for woodcock to nest in and feed their young just like there is little sunlight and little shrubbery on the forest floors for “bunnies” to live year around in cover. Agricultural land is not only shrinking due to everything from paving and home construction; agricultural crops no longer exist in weedy fields and disturbed edges so hospitable to “bunnies” and game birds. Add into all of this the government discouragement and resulting absence of consistent furbearer/predator hunting/trapping of any significance and robust populations of predators that eat “bunnies” from hawks and owls to coyotes and foxes; and you have yet another reason for this topic of “bunnies” that seem to be “using a different flyway” as government has been known to explain dearths of migratory birds in the bag in bad years. None of this; unmanaged woodlands, dwindling and sterile (for such wildlife) agricultural areas, or predation are mentioned in this article about a “bunnie” emergency that it is suggesting.

D. “Homeless” rabbits, how cute and how emotionally alarming to a large swath of urban voters anguishing over climate change and finding new worlds as ours is about to implode. Rabbits come and go periodically over time for a host of reasons. Other than dwindling predator food supplies, why is this a problem? Clearly hunting or human consumption of rabbits is never mentioned so here we have a “species” that admittedly must have been as rare as hen’s teeth when those European destroyers invaded the pristine America. Could the State be burning up a half-Million dollars in hunting program -intended money to assemble claptrap about such animal? Could State funding be being used to alarm the public about some critter that is about to be (needlessly in a biological sense) seized and (with all its’ claimed “critical habitat” as well) made into federal government grist for human activity, private property rights and economic restrictions plus further elimination of State and Local Jurisdictions and Authority? Isn’t this the “protected” Progressive Northeast where “empty wolf habitat” ignored by federal wolf Overlords whilst every nook and cranny of the rest of the Lower 48 States in slated to get wolves come “H!!! or high water”? Aren’t these those “love every environmental/animal rights law” States that insist on telling the rest of the Nation how to live their lives? Is it possible that the federal government no longer must rely on these fantasy-loving voters and their financial supporters and that somehow it will advantage federal politicians and federal bureaucrats to begin running rural New England as they are Wisconsin and Washington and Oregon and Arizona et al?

E. High deer densities are identifiable when you can see bare ground and nothing but tree trunks for six feet above the ground for a mile or more as you approach a “forest”. What all the Northeast environmentalists used to bemoan and use as rallying cries to close grazing, timber management, hunting and all other use of renewable natural resources on western public and private lands (“oh look at how they are raping the land”, “ranchers leave no stream bank vegetation”, logging has denuded the slopes and erosion is happening”, “hunting is cruel and it kills the healthy animals, not the old and sick like predators”) is exactly what they have done with their public and private property in the Northeast with deer. How is deer overgrazing impacts any different from hysterical and untrue claims of livestock effects out West? No hunting; no logging; no grazing and lo and behold none other than the august federal “Fish & Wildlife Service describes the current densities of deer in New England as “unprecedented.”

Let’s see, if hunting isn’t controlling deer (Closed-to-Hunting public and private lands abound and bureaucrats that are not strongly anti-hunting are, well, no longer bureaucrats), what will? What will save the “bunnies”? Why more predators of course. Stop all trapping and hunting and release wolves. Coyotes and foxes will supplement the expected deer massacres. But wait, weren’t we told that predators like wolves were good for the environment and big game like elk and moose and DEER? Won’t stream banks become lush once again and won’t all those rich Northeasterners, and the poor ones too, thrill to the sound of howling wolves “out back” while they reduce deer numbers? That is what Westerners and South Westerners and Southerners were told and how is that working out? Are there federal bureaucrats scheming at this moment for such a move to be announced like the Bergdal Terrorist Trade or the Cuban “Reset” in which no one knows and no one has any say because our “betters” are called that because they are simply “better” than you or me?

(F.) “The two rabbits look nearly identical and are only reliably identified by genetic testing of tissue, fecal samples or examining skull characteristics.” What can I add to such foolishness as the basis for government to use as a basis to abuse the populous (from incarceration, fines and loss of voting/gun rights) and to grow federal power at the expense of (supine) State and Local governments? Those that let this sort of thing to happen to State and Local governments, and to our freedom to hunt are those that Ben Franklin would have said “deserve neither!”

(G.) Read these last lines carefully:

“Three-quarters of the money for the project — about $389,000 — comes from federal excise taxes paid by sportsmen and sportswomen when they purchase guns, ammunition and archery items.

(The amount New York is using for this study is only a tiny portion of the many, many millions of dollars it receives each year from the federal government by way of the tax.)

The rest, about $130,000, is coming from the state and other sources.”

1.)$520,000 from “federal excise taxes paid by sportsmen and sportswomen when they purchase guns, ammunition and archery items” are funds intended for hunting programs in each state based on the amount collected each year and the size of the state and the hunting licenses they sell. A clever and unprotested change 15 years ago renamed the funds “Wildlife Restoration Funds” precisely to allow state agencies to spend the money just like this on whatever they wanted to or (remember it was feds that made the change) on what Federal Bureaucrats want them to do. Hunters be damned and ask yourself why you never heard about this or hear about these things such that they (the feds) have come to take for granted your tolerance and ignorance as fostered by your hunting organizations and those State bureaucrats that you have more often than not believed to have had your interests and rights at heart. As an aside, these are the funds that in the mid 1990’s the US Fish and Wildlife Service stole from the funds due to the States in order to capture Canadian wolves and release them in Yellowstone. Not only were the stolen funds never replaced, the state Wildlife Directors never even asked Congres to replace what federal bureaucrats stole from state programs and the American Hunters.

2.) “(The amount New York is using for this study is only a tiny portion of the many, many millions of dollars it receives each year from the federal government by way of the tax.)” Really? In 2013 the State of New York received $14.2 Million of these funds; in 2014 the State of New York received 20.5 Million of these funds. Anyone thinking that spending a half million of those precious hunting funds on silly science about an animal that is evidently not being hunted much and is not intended to once again be hunted as the federal government is tooling up (like some tin-pot dictator preparing for a surprise invasion) to take it over – well such a person probably neither hunts nor supports hunting. By the way, do you know the reason for the big jump? As President Obama’s final years approach, gun owners like a lot of other Americans are in great fear of losing their rights as well as many other things. Gun Rights are but one of those rights dangerously threatened as the federal government buys up billions of rounds of ammunition for untold purposes, closes the last lead smelter in the US, and has clearly embarked on an illegal and un-Constitutional campaign to rid the Nation of both guns and gun owners. Just like Obama’s first two years and Clinton’s first two years when gun control was also being pursued, 2013 and 2014 have seen an explosion of gun and ammunition purchases and an upsurge in Excise Taxes from those sales for State Wildlife Programs. How ironic is it that the more the federal officials buy up ammunition (thereby running up the price); close down domestic lead production (also raising the price and increasing our dependence of foreign sources; and threaten to confiscate guns – the more money goes to State Wildlife Programs to be squandered and thereby be denied to hunting programs and hunters. This makes federal bureaucrats and all the environmental extremist and animal rights radical groups happy as they progress toward their goals. Ask yourself why DU, Pheasants Forever, the NRA, Shooting Sports, Rocky Mtn. Elk, and your favorite State wildlife bunch never howled when this change was made or how this money is being spent today? I personally wonder why I am such a Pariah after years of trying to explain these things both verbally and in writing? I’ll give you a hint hunters, killing the messenger doesn’t change the truth in the message one “tiny” bit as this Poughkeepsie writer is wont to write.

3.) “The rest, about $130,000, is coming from the state and other sources.” The “State”? While technically true, it doesn’t come from the state employees union or the gas tax or the sales tax or the income tax – it comes from Hunting License Sales dollars and “other sources” like revenue from state hunting lands and state hunting program charges like entrance fees or consulting fees or other dollars generated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It is seriously illegal for any of those funds to be spent outside the state wildlife agency in order to continue getting future Excise Tax shares. So, it has finally come to this that the hunting dollars go to preparation to surrender another state hunting species to federal never-to-be-hunted-again Control and no auditor or no federal “wildlife person” or no hunting organization even notices.

If all the foregoing isn’t enough to jar hunters to see what’s up, consider this. By Law, State wildlife agencies must be audited every five years. In the 1980’s and 1990’s this went undone by federal bureaucracies as anti-hunting forces took over and saw easy access to those funds as in their best interest. When Congress found out in 1999 that the USFWS was stealing millions, audits were hastily re-instituted. Within three years millions of dollars of “diversions” and disappearance of funds were discovered but the theft was resolved politically behind closed doors, the auditors were fired, the audit reports redone with no findings of note, politically sensitive auditors were appointed, new audits or any negative findings have been invisible ever since.

Oh and one more thing, many states renamed and reorganized their wildlife agencies in order to allow the Excise Tax/License Revenue money to go into state motor pools, or to pay other state bureaucrats when their funding was low, or to take revenue from state land timber sales and put it in the General Treasury, or to allow a prison to be built on lands purchased with Excise Tax dollars, or even to allow illegal crossing access to favored land developers like Whitewater in Arkansas. One of the worst reorganizational setups for such skullduggery was the ones called “Environmental Conservation Departments”. This made all the sacred and blessed state programs like Pollution, Climate Change”, Environmental Education”,” Water and Air Management”, “Parks”, “Land Management”, etc. bedfellows with “Wildlife” and those Excise Taxes and License Revenues. The opportunity for chicanery and mischief is unlimited. But of course this was only a factor in a state where corruption was possible. Of course States like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey would be above suspicion so disregard anything I have written here that might seem suspicious of or negative toward about the State of New York, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, or those bureaucrats at both those levels that labor away day in and day out trying to unravel the mysteries of things like disappearing “bunnies”.

Jim Beers
2 Feb. 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

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The following is an editorial/Letter to the Editor sent to the Green Bay (Wisconsin) Press-Gazette in response to a “fawning” article about the recent decision by a lady, federal judge in Washington, DC to place all Great Lakes wolves back under federal jurisdiction, thereby precluding even a modest, “fig-leaf” illusion of states (i.e. those living with the wolves)managing wolves or having any say about how many, where, and to what extent wolf damage and destruction will be tolerated as enforced by draconian federal law enforcement. ..Jim

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The recent decision by an activist federal judge in far-off Washington, DC utilizing (not really enforcing) what is arguably the most recklessly un-Constitutional law in American history to abolish all State and Local authority over the presence of wolves in their midst is a Tragedy of a magnitude worthy of a Shakespearean Play. It would not be out of order to compare it to some individual cleric in W. Iraq issuing a Fatwa based on his interpretation of Sharia Law.

Your paper lauds how the lady judge has confronted “hostile state management” (i.e. of wolves). Hostile state management by State politicians and bureaucrats would have first and foremost been to follow state and federal law and forbid the expenditure of any state hunting license revenue or and Pittman-Robertson excise taxes derived from arms and ammunition sales on any wolves that were forced into the state by federal bureaucrats and that have caused great harm to rural life, livestock, game animals, and the “domestic Tranquility” of Wisconsin residents being forced to endure the harms spreading wherever wolves become established.

State government has become a handmaiden to federal overreach and Local government revenue, jurisdictions and authority have been severely restricted, for what?

What is “management” of any wild animal population other than achieving and maintaining numbers and distributions of the animals as desired by those that live with or utilize those animals?

How can anyone right-thinking person (the judge in question and your writer are as right-thinking as St. Louis demonstrators shown a Coroner/Police Report) describe a wolf season with stated number goals as “unregulated killing?

If Killing wolves is “barbaric”, what pray tell is wolves killing and eating an Alaskan schoolteacher or a Canadian college student?

What is “recovery”? As many wolves as can be shoehorned into 48 states (when there are millions worldwide)? What were all those early ESA “goals” for wolves other than lies?

Even the miniscule annual harvest quotas in our states are merely tiny efforts meant only to quiet critics. The 10-15% harvest quotas of the (asserted) wolf population (since wolves cannot be accurately counted we may be sure DNR numbers are as reliable as national jobless and inflation numbers) are even lower than annual harvest quotas of desirable game animals. These tiny harvest quotas do only 2 things, 1) they reduce winter competition for food guaranteeing more and healthier reproducing females next spring and 2) they encourage larger litters and therefore MORE wolves next fall. That nonsense about “pack structure” and “alpha males” is no more that romantic biological propaganda. To reduce however many wolves are out there, a harvest of 50-70% for at least 5 years and then a 35-50% reduction annually thereafter would be required.

If leghold traps (that by the way allow for release of non-target animals), snares, electronic calls and baiting are “cruel” and “unsportsman-like”; this latter term from organizations that would eradicate all “sporting” hunting, trapping and fishing activities tomorrow; are to be banished what is left? Evening classes for predators? A domestic Jane Goodall Corps?

Please spare us the use of the term “science”. Wolf/predator “science” over the past 30 years has become little more than propaganda purchased by government bureaucrats and radical environmental/animal rights organizations from University professors seeking funding, tenure, recognition and graduate students.

Wolves kill people, livestock, game animals, dogs and other predators like coyotes and foxes. Wolves spread, carry, and contract over thirty diseases and infections that kill and disable humans, domestic animals and other wild animals. Wolves cause great stress to rural families, rural communities and rural life. To call this “decision” a Tragedy is actually being kind. So what is so funny? Where is the “Humor” in this Tragedy?

The “Humor” lies in how your paper and all those wolf-lovers you serve in all those places distant from where the wolves and rural people are doing their “Danse Macabre”, (i.e. Dance of Death) can say with a straight face that it is “barbaric” to kill wolves with “packs of dogs – with hounding of wolves so out of the realm of responsible action that it’s drawn condemnation around the nation”.

Jim Beers

1 January 2015

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.

jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

The Shameful Saga of the Minnesota Moose

The following is an Abstract of a scientific research paper “Re-evaluating the northeastern Minnesota moose decline and the role of wolves”.

This research Paper was just published and can be found in The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(7) 1143-1150.

It was conducted and published by none other than Dr. Mech, the retired US Fish and Wildlife Service Wolf authority (still associated with the federal Wildlife research Center in Jamestown, ND and a major player with the August U of Minnesota Raptor Center). His co-author, Mr. Fieberg, is a biologist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

The mind boggles at the “gravitas” here. Mr. Mech, a long-time and current resident of Minnesota is highly revered in Minnesota and known internationally for his lifelong efforts to “bring back” wolves in The Lower 48 States. Dr. Mech resides in Minnesota and is held in as high regard in Minnesota as the latest running back of the Vikings football team. When he authors a paper on Minnesota wolves and Minnesota moose in cooperation with a DNR biologist under the auspices of the University of Minnesota; there can be no greater authorities nor can there be any greater acceptance about the results than had ex-Vikings Coach Bud Grant commented on Vikings football or Hubert Humphrey, rest his soul, commented on the upcoming election.

To the newspaper editors and outdoor writers that have treated me like an idiot for asking them to publicize or at least acknowledge that wolf predation on Minnesota moose was both significant and very likely the #1 reason for the recent decline of moose from a highly sought and profitable Game Animal to a Non-Game Species curiosity; and to the silent DNR and U of Minnesota “scientists” that publicly pooh-poohed the role of wolves in the moose decline and thereby gave encouragement to the general public and said newspaper folks and writers to be amused at my writing and to accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about both verbally to others and in e-mails – Please go to the Abstract at the bottom of this e-mail and read the 2nd sentence (my bold/underlining) of the 4 sentence Abstract.
Others are invited to do the same.

This is not about me: it is about the dithering and politically correctness about fear of offending powerful Minnesota and national environmental extremists and animal rights radicals that will truck NO negative comments about wolves. While this disgraceful diversion about ticks and global warming killing moose was taking place and common sense folks like me and many of those forced to live day in and day out with intolerable wolf densities were marginalized; one more magnificent and highly-prized game animal and hunting tradition disappeared.

Now that what has really been undeniable for years can no longer be denied, I say (without a hint of sarcasm or irony) we will now probably be treated to years of “science” and “the need for more research and money” to find ways to:
1. Control wolf predation without killing wolves.
2. Identify offending wolves and live trap them to train them not to hurt moose.
3. Keep seeing hints of ticks and global warming as being the problem with massive needs for more money for more research that can never be resolved or concluded.
4. Admit finally that the DNR has exhausted all the money generated by hunting license sales and there is no longer any Excise Taxes from the sales of Arms and Ammunition since President Hillary and a Democrat Congress and State government banned lead and then guns.

The loss of moose was as simple to understand as why high free-range cat densities in a suburban enclave might be the cause of the increased paucity of songbirds at suburban birdfeeders. The solution to both the loss of songbirds and the loss of moose is to reduce and keep reduced the densities – and perhaps even the presence of said cats and wolves’ if we prize moose hunts and what they mean or if we and our families enjoy seeing birds at our birdfeeders. Any North Country resident could have told us this years ago but what do they know? They have no initials after their name nor do they have any government sponsors or urban Romance Biology experts at an auspicious University to confirm their views.

ABSTRACT:

We re-evaluated findings from Lenarz et al. (2009) that adult moose (Alces alces) survival in northeastern Minnesota was related to high January temperatures and that predation by wolves (Canis lupus) played a minor role. We found significant inverse relationships between annual wolf numbers in part of the moose range and various moose demographics from 2003 to 2013 that suggested a stronger role of wolves than heretofore believed. To re-evaluate the temperature findings, we conducted a simulation study, mimicking the approach taken by Lenarz et al. (2009), to explore the potential for concluding a significant relationship exists between temperature and survival, when no association exists. We found that the high R2s and low probabilities associated with the regression models in Lenarz et al. (2009) should be viewed cautiously in light of the large number of fitted models (m?=?45) and few observations (n?=?6 for each of 5 response variables).

Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Jim Beers
22 October 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

Share

Wildlife “Science”- From Human Benefit to Buffoonery

*Editor’s Note* You MUST read the linked-to article but make sure your bladder is empty first and nothing is in your mouth.

Fifty-five years ago when I was searching for the best University wildlife biology School I could afford, Cornel’ was right near the top of high quality education schools and right near the bottom (actually not even on the list) of the list of schools I could afford. I chose Utah State University and have never regretted that decision for a moment. Thank you, Utah, for making that school available for me in those years. But back to Cornell.

Over the years, I met numerous Cornell graduates and found them to generally (I know I am stereotyping here) exude attitudes of superiority commonly seen in many Harvard and MIT graduates I have met.

During the 1980’s and 1990’s, Cornell research and notoriety in the wildlife area steadily mimicked the U of Wisconsin and Berkley publications and reports touting environmental extremism and animal rights nonsense. By the time of my retirement I no longer gave Cornell any thought other than to dismiss what they published or reports about what they were doing.

In 2005, five years after my retirement, I once again encountered Cornell and was astonished at how “far off the tracks” their snobbery and integration with federal bureaucrats had taken them. It seems the USFWS had obtained a “secret” fund of millions of dollars from Congress to “find and document” remaining Ivory-billed Woodpeckers that had recently been seen by “reliable” Southern birdwatchers. It was “secret” (oh how bureaucrats and politicians love such harmless intrigue as they seek to perfect our world in spite of our ignorance and stubbornness) because there was a chance that some ignorant redneck might find and destroy the “last” Ivory-billed Woodpecker (they are still extinct for over 75 years as I write) before federal protection and force could “save” them. Cornell was part of the (publicly-funded but :”secret”) “search and save” expeditions all over the South where their guesses as to where these “ancient” birds that “looked like pintails” (take note Southern woodland duck hunters) as they flew through southern swamps might find suitable habitat for planned federal woodpecker enhancements. Land was bought, land was eased and wooded wetland owners from N. Carolina and Florida to E. Texas were warned that they might one day harbor federally-designated Critical Habitat (yikes) for a bird once thought to be extinct!

When I wrote about this lunacy (if no hunter, trapper, farmer, or rural resident had seen or reported a “giant” woodpecker in 60+ years, the likelihood of federal bureaucrats or Cornell worthies finding even one were nil) I happened to mention how old-timers said the best habitat and draw for those big woodpeckers was a stand of trees purposely girdled and dying as swamps were being cleared for drainage and eventual farming. These trees were infested with insects in and under the bark (thereby drawing in lots of all sorts of woodpeckers from far and wide). I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) they try this old trick to see if there were any Ivory-bills in the neighborhood.

What I got in return from an Ivory-billed Woodpecker “Team Leader” who if memory serves was some sort of Cornell Grad student or Assistant Wildlife Professor was one of the nastier e-mails I ever received and that is saying something. The one “academic and scientific” comment I remember to this day from this person was something to the effect that if I “and my pig-farmer buddies” (oooohhh!) wanted to ruin the world he and science would stop us.

It has been 9 years since that little contretemps with Cornell. This morning, the following news report about Cornell, their campus and deer crossed my desk. Read it and enjoy the humor but consider the sadness of a once great wildlife school and how far it has fallen. It is as if an award winning actor like Laurence Olivier had taken to drink and late one Saturday night years later you turn on the TV and there he is stumbling through a Saturday Night Live skit mumbling his lines to the great amusement of the audience.

Cornell displays the fruits of environmental extremism and animal rights radicalism, and where they lead those that fall for their false values and agenda.

Jim Beers
21 October 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

Share

From When the New York Times Printed Truth

By Jim Beers

The following link to a New York Times article from 1907 should be considered by all those currently living in wolf country; those living in soon-to-be wolf country; and those supporting the forcible use of unjust central power to force wolves on their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Wolf History:

Wolves Killing Deer

The New York Times Published: May 26, 1907
http://tinyurl.com/ku9n5cn

When I try to explain to fellow Minnesotans the role of dense wolf populations on the disappearance of moose and deer, they smirk and sneer. They talk of global warming, ticks, unspecified diseases and the need for more research. Newspapers, Universities (especially the U of Minnesota and the U of Wisconsin that are true hotbeds of environmental/animal rights extremism), and State wildlife agencies that have become clones of these State Universities all avoid the mention of wolf predation and identify anyone questioning this as an uninformed crackpot.

Nonetheless, consider how everyone accepts the “fact” that year-around wolf predation on Isle Royale, an island far offshore in Lake Superior, steadily accounts for the disappearance of moose. This romantic notion of “Mother Nature” at work makes the very efficient but gory killing of calves, pregnant cows and adult moose by wolves into a “natural” and entertaining children’s story. The same scenario when proposed by hunters, trappers, ranchers, elderly rural residents and others regarding wolf effects on deer and moose in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan is merely proof of “old”, uninformed and anti-social political incorrectness.

There is no denying the following simple truths about wolves in settled landscapes like the Lower 48 States:
– Wolves kill moose and deer, reducing them to levels that will not sustain hunting.
– Wolves spread over 30 deadly and destructive diseases to humans, wildlife, livestock and dogs.
– Wolves are dangerous and deadly threats to children, the elderly, dog walkers, hikers, and a wide array of rural residents and recreationists.

The thing to remember about wolf predation; whether on an adult moose caught in a snowy woodland by a group of wolves, a pregnant cow moose giving birth caught by one or more wolves, a doe deer and fawn run down by a couple of wolves – IT IS ADDITIVE to whatever else is happening to moose and deer. Even if you accept global warming (I do not) or think maybe ticks or some errant and unknown disease has just popped up (each of which I find unlikely as significant until I see evidence I can trust) – wolf predation is steadily more and more efficient as wolves learn (just like that dog in your backyard) AND IT IS ADDITIVE!

Consider again that 1907 NYT article. In addition to what we deny as it is all around us today, weather phenomena like the winter snow depths, snow characteristics, and snow duration can and will create an environment wherein suddenly wolf predation both for food and for the joy and fun of killing (even dog packs will kill a large number of deer in snow or sheep by cliffs for “fun” and “excitement”) will dramatically reduce the number of deer and moose regardless of the “experts” protestations to the contrary.

When wolves are not kept at very low densities or eradicated from regions inhabited by people like the Lower 48 States or Europe, what happened in 1907 will happen again and again. This article is about but ONE of many reasons wolves were eradicated in The Lower 48 States and Europe by our wise and determined ancestors.

Two years before this article, in 1905, George Santyana, a 19th century philosopher and author said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Some say Santyana was paraphrasing the 18th century Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher Edmund Burke who observed, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” Posterity is truly what we no longer concern ourselves about as abortion, birth control, births out-of-wedlock and non-child-oriented marriages proliferate in these very same American and European societies looking to secular morality and self-gratification in matters like “restoring the native ecosystem” and returning large predators to settled landscapes no matter the human costs.

In either case, both men were telling us to heed the lessons of history. In the case of wolves, environmental extremists and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats have not only denied history: they have perpetrated a great crime against Americans and Europeans in a way that relieves them of responsibility for their actions and the terrible fruits of their crime.

One last quote from Edmund Burks seems in order:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Jim Beers
15 Sep. 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

Share