December 8, 2019

Yet Another “Benefit” of Forcibly-Imposed Wolves?

Please read the following disease notice (titled as an innocuous “Pet Health Topic”) presented under the auspices of Washington State College of Veterinary Medicine. Note the lines I have underlined and highlighted.

If as is known, but frequently denied:
– Tapeworm eggs of all sorts found in the feces of wolves (Apex contractors and spreaders of such Canine maladies throughout their range) and other canids last for years on vegetation, in the soil, in carpets, in campgrounds, yards, places frequented by dogs and on floors in homes.
– Tapeworm eggs can be carried into homes on boots, camping gear, and work clothes as well as by infected dogs.
– Dogs, even those vaccinated or recently “dewormed”, can contract and transport tapeworm eggs into homes subsequent to mouthing, rolling in, or licking items (sticks, bones, etc.) infected by tapeworm-infected wolves and other canids that do the same things. Eggs can also be transported into homes and yards on the dog’s paws, hair and even between their toes
– Dogs contract tapeworm infections from frequenting yards and areas frequented by wolves and then bringing the eggs into homes or yards where eventually the tapeworm segments full of eggs are not only are ejected in their feces but also ooze from their anus (hence the tell-tale sign of an infected dog that drags his itching anus wherever he happens to be from a porch floor to a carpet in the home or even on a child’s bed.)

Inquiring minds might ask, “Can this ‘rickettsial’ organism infect humans, since they are known dangers to mammals in general?”

As the human threat from this “rickettsial organism” Neorickettsia helminthoeca goes unmentioned in the Pet Health Topic”, (*See Below) I can only mention its’ absence and recall what was claimed by bureaucrats and “scientists” in the early years of forcible wolf introductions. You remember, regarding Echinococcus granulosis and E. multilocularis, “You have to eat feces to get tapeworms”; “Wolves don’t transmit tapeworms”, “Tapeworm fears are exaggerations by anti-wolf extremists”, etc.

*According to the Merck Veterinary Manual, “In people, Neorickettsia sennetsu causes a disease known as Sennetsu ehrlichiosis”, this is a mononucleosis-like fever carried by fish and for which the transmitting vector to humans is unknown as I write.

Regarding the consumption of fish by wolves (in addition to documentation of wolves eating plums, grapes, watermelons, fiddler crabs, and every form of mammal including each other) , Stanley Young wrote in Wolves of North America how wolves were documented to eat fish from Hudson Bay to Alaska and British Columbia and the states of Washington and Oregon. Page 221 shows a photo of a bank full of Alaskan salmon “partially eaten by wolves.” He reports later how “Indians in Oregon hung salmon to dry on tree limbs to protect them from wolves.”

Let us simply focus here on dogs: Pet dogs, Watch dogs, Hunting dogs, Service dogs, Show dogs, Guard dogs, Herding dogs, Stray dogs, etc., that occur in what the government blithely calls “Wolf Country” and millions of rural Americans call “Home.”

Wolves have and maintain a high rate of tapeworm infection since they are;
1. Unvaccinated and never “dewormed.”
2. Stick their noses, muzzles, and mouths in to every gut pile dying critter and dead critter infected with tapeworms they encounter.
3. Move, sleep, frolic, fight, bite, travel, etc. in groups such that what one has; they all get much like bats. Additionally, those dogs they encounter and do not kill but injure are likely to have a wide range of such infections.
4. Wolves deposit feces and mouth every sort of item (often leaving tapeworm eggs) where humans live, work, recreate and raise their families.

Wolves cover large areas routinely frequenting, prowling and depositing feces in yards, campgrounds, parks, towns during the night, bus stops, garbage sites, playgrounds, outbuildings and other areas of human presence as they look for food.

Knowing all this, why is there no or has there not been any “science” or “research” or simple, common-sense observations by neutral experts (believe it or not; once, long ago experts were respected and heeded precisely because of their neutrality) spoken, conducted or made available to the common citizen about the actual and expected numerous such effects on inhabitants of settled landscapes where wolves are ubiquitous versus settled landscapes where wolves either are tightly controlled or where no wolves exist?

The fact that there is no such information available (as we are invited to “submit comments” only to be marginalized as ignorant, speaks volumes.

In the Sherlock Holmes mystery, Silver Blaze, the following exchange takes place:

Gregory: “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

He (Sherlock Holmes) was referring to the fact that a watch dog didn’t bark and wake the family, which implied that the villain was someone familiar to the dog.

Like the characters in the mystery, we must consider the absence of any mention of actual wolf effects just like the dog that didn’t bark in the night. It is a clue to the hidden agendas that continue to be carried out under the table as we listen to romance biology and lies concocted to divert our attention.

Jim Beers
1 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

American Life without The Endangered Species Act

A guest post by James Beers:

By passing The Endangered Species Act (ESA) Congress and the President (Nixon) did two things.

First they catered to the 5-year orgy of environmental hyperbole (much like the current global warming/cooling/climate change extravaganzas) that generated political support and energized the radical environmentalism and animal rights’ organizations and their agendas during the turbulence of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Second, Congress and the President, cleverly like Pontius Pilate washing his hands after sentencing Jesus, gave the responsibility and authority for whatever happened to federal bureaucracies, especially the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the “scientists” they would employ to justify the past 40 years of:

– Taking private property without compensation.
– Shrinking the timber, ranching, and farming economic sectors.
– Shrinking Local governments, their jurisdictional authority; and their revenue sources from shrinking rural economies.
– Stopping road projects and demanding the removal of dams used for power and irrigation.
– Subverting any State authority and jurisdiction over any plant or animal UNIT concocted by federal bureaucrats and their radical supporters to impede rural American prosperity and the “general Welfare” (per the Constitution) of rural communities and the rural families that compose them.
– The unjustified and unauthorized creation by bureaucrats of evil (the right word) “powers” to leap from saving “endangered” animals to a federal mission to “restore” the (imagined) “native ecosystem”; and the never-ending thread of absolute authority that even after “returning management of Listed endangered ‘species’ to the state” federal bureaucrats can set mandated conditions (that must be met at State and Local expense) or federal authority will be re-instituted by force.
– Creating Federal bureaucratic discretionary power to justify the elimination of highly desirable “non-native” or “out-of-(i.e. “native”)place plants and animals; steadily eliminate the management and use of renewable natural resources on and near Federally-controlled lands; and the unquestioned power to introduce and protect, or eliminate plants and animals at locations that serve other agendas from political pandering to current power structures to hidden agendas to achieve other goals from closing access and stopping new developments to further restriction of stressed rural communities that are subsequently purchased or eased with federal tax dollars.
– Inventing all manner of self-serving “science” from regulatory (yet legally-binding) concepts like “Distinct population segments” to arbitrary establishment of DNA definitions for Species, Subspecies, etc. distinctions that serve current and future bureaucratic agendas.
– Establishing an aura of “science says” that befuddles any honest judge and trumps any hope for an appeal by a citizen “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” as guaranteed in the 5th Amendment.

I often remark in talks I give and in what I write that the ESA must be repealed or at a minimum drastically amended. Aside from snickers and smiles this recommendation is frequently used to demean what else I say as the ravings of an idiot. When I was asked by a young lady reporter a few months ago if I thought the ESA did any good at all, I was taken aback and after a minute or so I had to admit that I saw no good from the ESA in the past 40 years that could not have been achieved with far less harmful consequences without the ESA.

So what does “American life without the ESA” mean? I have taken this tack, no doubt, after reflecting on the movie “America” that my wife and I saw last week. While one, i.e. “life without America”, would be a great sadness and loss to the entire world: the other, i.e. “American life without the ESA” would be a great boon to all Americans by restoring the rule of law to invigorating the national economy by putting rural Americans back in charge of their own destinies and the natural resources that abound all around them.

WITHOUT the ESA:

– Citizens concerned about a certain fish or a bird would have access to the US Congress to seek some remedy. They could make their case and request funding or a new law within the confines of Section 8 of the US Constitution that defines the “Power” the “Congress shall have”.
– Any such proposed law or funding would be subject to review and a vote in the House and in the Senate, as well as concurrence (Veto Power) by the President.
– The review of such a proposal involves a PUBLIC Hearing including statements by the proposers, comments by bureaucrats, and the pros and cons of supporters and opponents. Unlike the rigged “public hearings” sponsored and conducted by bureaucrats (like the old Soviet “show trials”) of the past 40 years that simply rubber-stamp bureaucratic ESA plans; such public hearings before Congress give Americans a fair chance before-the-fact to expose, question, and either modify or defeat the sort of hidden ESA chicanery of the past 40 years.

Consider how such public Congressional Hearings might allow for those being targeted to address Congress and the sort of questions an honest Congressman or Senator might be briefed to ask:

– “What is the position of the State government?”
– “Who will pay for this after this federal subsidy ends in X years?”
– “What effect will this have on Local government authority and revenue?”
– “Do you have any statements of support from the affected Local governments? Why not?”
– “What is the estimate of the increased danger to humans posed by these animals?”
– “What will be the effect on ranchers and farmers? What will their costs be?”
– What effect will this have on disease transmissions to humans, livestock and dogs?”
– “Who will pay for the resulting damages?”
– “How will landowners and animal owners be compensated for reduced land values and other losses of their property?”
– “How will lost power generation or lost irrigation capacity be replaced?”
– “How will lost revenues to State and Local government be mitigated?”
– “What is the Cost/Benefit Ratio for the closure of this area and these natural resource uses versus the claimed perpetual increase in animal X?”
– “Where are the statements of Veterinarians and Agriculturalists about how these proposals will modify animal and plant health and communities?”
– “How do you propose to maintain hunting and fishing revenues and programs with this project in place and considering the necessary diversion of state fish and wildlife program funds?”
– “What is the position of Rocky Mtn. Elk, or National Cattlemen’s Assoc., or Southern Timber Owners Assoc., or Pheasants Forever, or United Great Lakes Fishermen, or the residents of Timbuktu who will see their roads closed and economies hard hit?”
– “What studies confirm that this project is necessary and that this recommendation will work? What if it does not work as stated? What are the other alternatives?”
– “Under what authority can you assign a federal responsibility like livestock loss compensation to a private organization like Defenders of Wildlife who is a supporter of this bill?”
– “Where, in Federal Statutes, is there authority for the federal government to restore the native ecosystem everywhere despite opposition from state governments, Local governments, private property owners, and/or rural American residents?”
– “Why do you propose we compensate livestock owners for losses but not dog owners?”
– “If we pass this proposal and some people are killed by these animals next year or several years down the road, are we liable for placing them there? If not; why not?”
– Why does access to or recreational use of these public lands need to be restricted in conjunction with this proposal?”
– “Are you seriously requesting that we devastate the (logging, farming, ranching, power) industry and the rural American communities they support because you cannot think of any other way to maintain this (owl, smelt, wolf, bear, darter, bat, etc.)? We need people that tell us how this animal can be maintained in OUR community: not how WE must be managed to exist in theirs.”

I could go on here for pages but you get the point. Yes it would be difficult for concerned citizens and time-consuming for Congress (if they entertained much of it). Yes the vaunted bureaucrat/biologists and their fellow-“scientists” would once again serve US and not the other way around. If something is REALLY and DEMONSTRABLY important Congress could baby it along and reap the grateful votes of supporters and a solution tested by open discourse and opposition would sink or swim on its’ own.

It’s the American Way!

Jim Beers
26 July 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Alaskan Romance Biology

Guest post by James Beers:

Regarding the following drivel presented as a quasi-book review/interview by Emily Schwing about Marybeth Holleman and wolves:

Wolves howl for “joy” like anthropomorphic biologists confuse the very human question (“How many and how much impacts of wolves can or will WE tolerate”) with the very judgmental ideology that somehow wolves are above, or superior to any human concerns.

While it is a testament to a free and prosperous nation that folks like Dr. Haber and Ms. Holleman can somehow spend (actually get paid for) a “lifelong effort to chronicle the lives of wolves”; too often the results are not HOW WE might better live with or manage said wolves, instead it becomes a social infection around which coalesces fevered movements to protect and sanctify the wolves in spite of human needs and desires where wolves exist. Invariably this modern saga is painted as below wherein the villains, i.e. the “old timers” and the “Board of Game” are fomenting a “dark future” for wolves and all that lies between them and Armageddon is the memory of a beloved Doctor, “environmental groups” and a lady’s paean to that memory. All that is missing is the interviewer closing with “Go Girl Go.”

The reality of the presence of wolves; what that means; and what must humans do if they are to live with them is an important matter in constant need of research and (public) dialogue. This romance biology, that is also common in locations like Minnesota and the West Coast States, only quashes dialogue in the ooze of feelings and emotions intended to substitute fantasies in the minds of the widest and most far-away voting blocs to use raw government might on those living with and directly affected by not only wolves but bears and cougars and every other fish, fowl and critter that will:

1. Generate election donations and votes for accommodating politicians.

2. Generate donations for radical organizations and their subsidiaries from lawyers to “specialists.”

3. Generate budget and personnel increases, promotions, autonomy from control, bonuses and increased power to federal bureaucrats.

4. Generate #3 for State bureaucrats.

5. Generate greater and steadier cash flows from government to Universities.

My lifelong passion concerns those affected by wolves and what works and doesn’t work. So I will pass on a book about details concerning wolves and why WE should avoid affecting them despite what those humans being affected believe and experience.

The subject of either people manage wolves or wolves manage people is like the “question” of is a human fetus a “person” or a blob of tissue. Any sentient person know the answer to each question but persons with other agendas bob, weave and deny the answer so often and with such vehemence and threat of government retribution that too many of us stay quiet and watch our children come to believe the unbelievable as we smile and avoid comment. The only thing worse than this romance biology about wolves is the Quisling government “biologist” or the traitorous “hunter’ or “rancher” warbling about how WE should forego any management of wolves because of everything from “they belong or were here first” or “they only eat the old and infirm” to “fladry works” and when their “old and sick” food supply dwindles, they will too.

Take a stand or eventually be run over by these “concerned” romantic’s et al.

Jim Beers
22 July 2014

Share

A Suggestion for Rural Americans

Guest post by James Beers:

If you are a rural American that:

– Realizes that you are being harmed in many ways by a central government environmental/animal rights apparatus.

– Is concerned about what lies ahead in your community and County for your children and grandchildren as jobs dwindle, grazing and logging are eliminated and hunting and fishing are being vilified and abolished.

– Sees the expansion of government ownership and easement-taking as the ultimate threat to voiding your property rights and jeopardizing your and your family’s future.

– Doesn’t know who to turn to as urban voting blocs, both nationally and within your state, work with national and state politicians to vacate rural America and turn it into a government-controlled enclave by the use of unjust laws and bureaucrat-empowerment of regulatory tightening for personal their gain.

– Is rightly afraid of the human safety, property damage, diseases and impacts on rural American life posed by the introduction, protection and sanctification of uncontrolled and unmanaged predators like grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions and coyotes.

– Understands how Wilderness Declarations, expanding government-controlled lands and government bureaucrats that are no more than radical activists with both a disdain for American Constitutional government and human hegemony in the world causes increasingly common catastrophic fires with increasing destruction of homes, communities and lives.

– Knows that federal bureaucrats from US Fish and Wildlife Service manipulating unjust laws like the Endangered Species Act for the benefit of themselves, friendly politician’s re-election and radical Un-American agendas; to the BLM invading a Nevada ranch with all the equipment and tactics of a US Ranger attack on an Afghan village; to the current revelation of USDA buying submachine guns for unstated purposes, are all matters for great public concern especially for rural Americans.

– Is anxious about how state fish and wildlife agencies are mirroring federal agencies’ hiring and staffing of radical employees that are deeply opposed to rural Americans and their way of life.

– Cannot understand how or why state fish and wildlife bureaucrats have become subcontractors for harmful federal policies and actions while increasingly not only ignoring the harms they are causing to rural residents and communities of their state but steadily aiding the federal bureaucrats in their destructive laws and policies.

I could go on here but I think I have made my point and stretched your patience sufficiently.

As an old bureaucrat writing and speaking on this matter for well over a decade, I believe rural Americans have only 3 choices.

1.) Continue hoping for the best like Oregon loggers and mill owners did; like Minnesota moose hunters did; like all the former grazing allotment holders did; like all the ex-sheep ranchers did; like the cattle rancher that committed suicide did; like the people killed and seriously injured by unmanaged and too-numerous predators did; like the thousands that have lost dogs to protected predators; and like current rural old folks and kids especially, living in rural America in the same sort of stress and fear common in primitive Asian societies where guns are prohibited and to quote Thomas Hobbes writing in Leviathan about a similarly out-of-control central government in England in 1651 described the resulting life of the people as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and a “war of every man against every man.”

2.) Tinker around the edges of the destruction by “increasing participation”. “transparency”, and understanding why our destruction is “good” and “beneficial.” Tolerating teachers indoctrinating our children; politicians that worsen and refuse to better our condition; and bureaucrats that abuse us and treat our families, our communities and our way of life with haughtiness and contempt. This is similar to current approaches to immigration, Islamic interfaces and current handling of Constitutional rights from freedom of speech and religion to the right to bear arms that are all only digging the holes deeper and giving a false sense of hope as things get worse and worse.

3.) Begin taking concrete actions to reverse, not amend or modify, the political and bureaucratic actions that are strangling rural America.

Numbers’ 1 and 2 above are not acceptable. They lead to either:

– Living as slaves under tyrants and dictators as all Constitutional “guarantees” are eliminated and all power over all things resides in the most powerful factions and individuals that seize and hold power. Or…

– Armed conflicts between government and the governed, and the “war of every man against every man” that Hobbes wrote about and our Founding Fathers fought in addition to British Troops during The Revolutionary War.

If you want to begin taking back the rural America we built and enjoyed until what I write of here took hold, I submit the following for your consideration.

Neither federal nor state government (politicians & bureaucrats) will be reformed without solid pressure, just as they have been perverted by radical agendas promising rewards from radicals and the Treasury to politicians seeking re-election and bureaucrats seeking their own enrichment. Where is this pressure for reform to come from?

Either it will come from the military ( a horrible thing to contemplate) or it must come from Local Governments strongly advocating for Local Communities and Counties.

Just as strong Local governments are the venue for reforming state governments gone astray, so too are strong state governments the venue for reforming an out-of-control federal government.

But, the fact is that Local governments and their revenues have been prime targets for these radical agendas of destruction right from the get-go. Their presence and their voice have purposely dwindled as their revenue dwindled from economic destruction of rural areas and the growth of federal rural restrictions with state tolerance and the expansion of federal ownership and land controls.

The first step is to elect Local politicians that will fight for you at the state level. That means reasserting Local power in your state Capital.

– Overhaul your state agencies that are harming you and make structural changes in the State Legislature to balance rural representation. Consider that the US Constitution originally designated TWO US Senators for EACH STATE to balance tiny Rhode Island and Delaware with Leviathan’s California and Texas. Something similar is needed to balance the “800 lb. gorilla” effect of the Chicagoes and Manhattans in the states they occupy.

– Enact and enforce Ordinances and Regulations that require the state government to side with you against unjust federal intrusions. For instance, require a County Permit to introduce or release any wild animal in YOUR County. That means federal or state bureaucrats. If your state government will not recognize its role as protecting and nurturing you and opposing federal abuses that you will not tolerate then Reform it with all the enthusiasm and determination of those that took it from you in recent years!

– Elect good Local politicians to state offices. Then elect good state politicians to federal offices with an agenda of repealing and amending unjust laws and reducing the power and agendas of out-of-control federal bureaucracies.

– Repeal the 17th Amendment that, in 1913, changed the way US Senators were appointed (from “chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof”): this began the steady and incremental loss of States Rights under the 10th Amendment that underpinned the growth of the problems facing us today. While the Senate and its awesome powers (Ratify Treaties, Confirm Judges and high Appointees as well as passing on all Legislation and Budgets) were designed to Represent Each State; today they represent and advocate for the changing and variable (mostly urban) voting coalitions that elect and re-elect them AND NOT THE STATE they reputedly “represent.”

So, here is my suggestion on getting started. Since I am on old wildlife guy, this concerns wildlife but I challenge you ag guys and timber guys and road guys and rural businessmen to come up with some similar beginning at the Local level.

Enact an Ordinance that establishes that you (the Local Level) are the Primary Authority for the presence, management and control of wild and domestic animals in Your County. You will determine if, what, where and how many cougars, coyotes, free-roaming dogs, black bears, foxes, raccoons, etc. will be tolerated in the County. You will set the seasons, conditions, limits, methods and circumstances that said animals can or will be taken. You will provide a County where cattle or hunting or fishing or recreation or all in some mix is what is desired by residents for their own good in their own communities. You will prohibit the state to release cougars or coyotes or bears from urban areas where urban residents think that wild animals can be managed in line with human necessities by live-trapping and kicking them out on some rural County road in the dead of night. (This latter phenomenon is going on all over the country as I write.) You will require a permit from any federal, state or local entity releasing wild animals and that application will have a written permission of any landowner in the vicinity of the release. You will prohibit certain species like grizzly bears or wolves from becoming established in the County and authorize landowners, hunters, ranchers, County Animal Control and others to shoot, trap, snare, etc. any arriving in the County or live trap them for the agency responsible who then pays a fine the first time after proving the animal has certain vaccinations and the second time the animal is euthanized.

The state government should back you up in this. The state game warden and the state wildlife budget should recognize, protect and nurture the Counties in these regards. The state wildlife managers and wildlife control agents should enable Counties to create Local environments for the Local people.

Now, if you think there won’t be extreme blowback on this, you are mistaken. The state is “superior”, “it won’t work”, “they don’t know what they are doing”, etc., etc. will be screamed everywhere. Massachusetts’ Constitution, California’s laws, Illinois’ regulations will all suddenly take on all the importance of The Ten Commandments as the Capitals are filled with squeals. This is EXACTLY what must eventually take place in Washington when a majority of the states get squared away and real reform of the federal government begins.

Finally, as this is “pooh-poohed” by state and (behind the scenes) federal government; try this. File a Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request with your state government and the federal government for a summary of the circumstances of all live-trapped wild animal in your state for the past (3?, 5?) years AND the LOCATION of where they were released. You will be surprised whether you live in Oregon, Illinois or Connecticut .

Now I personally expect that just like the numbers of wolves or the numbers of elk/moose in wolf country, some states may, like their federal “partners, lie about this since they believe they are truly unaccountable but, some will be rightly fearful that being misleading or lying or destroying records could possibly wind up in a court before a judge that does not see them as above the law.

Maybe this could be accomplished with the help of some legal aid or law advocate firm or organization or maybe even some firm interested in American Civil Liberties? Maybe some of the elk/deer/hunting/fishing/Unlimited/Forevers/Sporting Goods Stores, et al might possibly see how this affects them and drag themselves away from the federal buffets long enough to help legally and financially? Maybe even ranchers and farmers and loggers and rural businesses might even discern a stake in such a move to begin getting things back on the right path?

The following cartoon was drawn over 250 years ago before there was ever a Declaration of Independence, US Constitution or a United States of America. Just as Ben Franklin was addressing the colonies to unite and address British tyranny peaceably at that time, so too must rural Americans either come together and prevail or the consequences will be far more awful than anyone will admit. This idea for bottom-up reform starting with Local government that I am suggesting here is made in the same spirit that Ben Franklin addressed those colonists centuries ago.

JoinorDie

Join, or Die by Benjamin Franklin was recycled to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule

Join, or Die by a well-known cartoon by Ben Franklin appeared in the :Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule. It is the earliest known pictorial representation of colonial union produced by a British colonist in America. It shows a snake cut into eighths (New England was treated as one) with each segment labeled with the initials of one of the 13 American colonies or region.

Jim Beers
24 May 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

Bringing Wolves Back: “That is no Good!”

Today I was reading through an article about how wolves had returned to France and are now being found on the outskirts of Paris. For some, with extremely ill minds, returning wolves (actually probably wild dogs) is even better than France being liberated from Hitler’s Nazis.

As I was reading, I recalled a comment I had read a bit ago that was written by James Beers, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, who, during his tour of duty in Washington, D.C., traveled to Europe to meet with delegates from the European Union, Canada and Russia. At this time, around about 1998, the European Union, firmly in the grasp of the environmental movement, was attempting to ban the importation of furs from the United States, Canada and Russia.

During a roundtable discussion that took place early in 2010 with Jim Beers, Dr. Valerius Geist, Bill Hoppe, Robert Fanning, Will Graves and Dr. Delane Kritsky, Beers recalled a comment made to him by a Russian government representative (wolf technician) during one particular meeting. Here’s that comment:

BEERS: It is ironic you should mention the Finn solution. In 1998 I was involved in traveling to Europe multiple times that year fighting European unions’ attempt to ban the import of furs. The United States worked very closely with Canada and Russia to do that and we were having lunch one day arranged lunch by the Europe Union and there were two Russian representatives there one with a Ph.D. from Moscow and the other a wolf technician from a region close to Siberia. The technician sat next to me and we got along real well in the meetings. He actually said to me about halfway through the meeting . . . he said Mr. Beers, “Can I ask you something?” I said “sure.” I thought we were going to talk about fur bearers because he was really into sables and the export of furs, but he said, “Is it true that your country is bringing wolves back and protecting them and trying to breed them?” He looked at me right in my eyes and he was unbelieving. I said, “It’s true . . . they’ve just done that in Yellowstone Park.” And I said, “I don’t know where that’s going to lead.” And he actually said to me, “That is no good . . . I do not understand how you ever beat us in the Cold War.” I’ve since reflected on this Russians incredulity at the U.S. folly and the humor of this guy wondering with our bungling mentality on this matter, how we could have ever beaten them.” (emboldening added)

Some may disregard anything the Russians might have to say about wolves but they have been studying and “living with” wolves for a very, very long time. When the United States Fish and Wildlife Service decided they were going to force wolves onto people and lie about it all, one thing that they DID NOT do during the compilation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final EIS, was talk to anybody in Europe, Finland or Russia; actually not one ounce of effort was put into communicating with countries world wide that had dealt with wolves for centuries. The USFWS obviously had an agenda and they wasn’t going to have it ruined by employing any truth about wolves.

Coming from a man from a country that knows about wolves, willingly going about bringing wolves into a country and protecting them so they can breed, “That is no good!”

That is no good!

Share

So the bartender says to the vertically-challenged guy on the stool …

A guest post by Jim Beers:

Although I enjoy a good joke, I don’t generally share them with a wide audience but this is an exception.

* After 30 + years of Minnesota “scientists, bureaucrats and self-righteous environmentalists” warbling incessantly about the marvelous wonders of nature’s “apex” predator (i.e. the wolf) REDUCING the moose population on Isle Royale National Park since the wolf’s vaunted passage across an 18 mile “ice bridge” on Lake Superior from Minnesota 50 years ago.

* After constant annual newspaper articles about how vegetation has “returned” and “recovered” and blossomed (so to speak) on Isle Royale since the wonderful wolves REDUCED the moose and thus relieved the pressure on the plant life that was never quite so important or desirable that hunting to MAINTAIN the desirable numbers, distribution and density of moose (as well as support other wildlife management on the Park and in the State) to achieve the highly stupendous plant communities that are so touted from sea to shining sea.

* After 15 + years of explanations by “scientists, bureaucrats and self-righteous environmentalists” in annual newspaper articles about how there was ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP between the steady disappearance of moose on the Minnesota mainland and the steady increase of protected wolves throughout the range of the mainland moose until the recent permanent closure of moose hunting in Minnesota.

* After 10 + years of “scientists, bureaucrats and self-righteous environmentalists” out West in Yellowstone Park and Idaho/Montana surroundings copy-catting this scam by denying wolf numbers they found politically-incorrect; inflating elk and moose numbers with lame excuses about census-affecting weather anomalies, changing migration patterns and bad Karma; denying vehemently that the simultaneous loss of elk and moose hunting that coincided with the introduction, protection and spread of wolves were related.

* After 5 + years of watching Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington wildlife bureaucracies claim “slightly increasing”, “steady” or “declining” wolf populations as hunters, ranchers, dog owners and rural residents’ screams and objections have reached crescendo levels it is becoming evident that “trust” is not a word to be mentioned when discussing “scientists, bureaucrats and self-righteous environmentalists’ and “wolves”. Keep in mind that even estimates of annual changes for (notoriously hard to count) wolves are only slightly easier to generate than “counting” the field mice in the state, much less to fabricate these”nine-hundred and eighty-THREE” or “three thousand eight-hundred and sixty-two” wolf “count” placebos for friends and foes.

* After all of the above being conjured up as “science” to bamboozle hunters, befuddle ranchers and generally flim-flam rural Americans and their political representatives AND NOW as “some of the people some of the time” seem to be waking up about the disappearing Minnesota moose and now deer, and the loss of elk, moose and deer in states where wolves have become ubiquitous in the West: along comes this fortuitous “discovery” that:

1. Moose “COME BACK” after being decimated by wolves. So quit whining hunters and admit the “scientists, bureaucrats and self-righteous environmentalists” were right. Take up curling and TV for a couple of years and everything will be back the way you once had it. We’ll call you when it happens.

2. Wolf numbers decline and STAY LOW. So shut up you ranchers, dog owners, parents and rural residents and recreationists: you don’t know what you are talking about! Either take the easements we offer and live as we say or move elsewhere.

3. Soon, wolves and moose (and elk, deer, wild and domestic sheep , goats and cattle, et al?) will be “in balance” and everyone will be happy.

Those wolves and moose on Isle Royale are as comparable to mainland American, Canadian and European wolves and their impacts as are articles about Russian landowner/peasant relations in the Middle Ages relevant to modern US college athlete lawsuits to unionize college athletes for pay and collective bargaining rights from University administrators.

Isle Royale wolves have no – deer, elk, horses, foals, cows, calves, dogs, domestic sheep and lambs, bighorn sheep, rural garbage pits, nighttime rural town and residence yards and outbuildings, school bus stops, sleeping campers, etc., etc. to shift to when the clearly vulnerable moose cows and moose calves get scarce (due to??). The answer is “wolf predation”. They also do not have constant genetic infusions from dogs, coyotes and every manner of Canid attracted to females in estrus from miles and miles in every direction as do the wolves on the mainlands.

Articles like the one below are so absurd as to be humorous. They are probably written by activist government employees and writers that moonlight under nom de plumes of romance novels written for young girls and what sailors once referred to as “skin books”.

I recommend you dismiss such romance propaganda but if you read it, read it for the unintended humor it contains and imagine Jay Leno or Jimmy Fallon explaining it. Remember all this as deer and elk disappear and wolves get more and more “bold” around settlements and dogs become liabilities and ranchers reduce herds and rural towns decline further. Remember Isle Royale and laugh.

*Link to the article in reference*

Jim Beers
3 April 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.

Share

Wolf Canards and Other Agendas

A Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal – by James Beers

The “Wolf’s Return is Big and, for Some, Bad” has one major prevarication and a humbug paradox intended to keep the wolf issue cloudy while advancing other agendas. The wolves introduced into The Lower 48 states by federal fiat are only good for Non-Government Organizations, urban readers and bureaucracies; while being “Bad” for rural economies and residents from children, ranchers, and the elderly to hunters, dog owners and campers.

First, it is a prevarication to say, “In 1995 and 1996 federal biologists at Congress’s direction shipped wolves (from Canada) to central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park”. The US House of Representatives had previously denied a federal Budget Request for funds to do that. Under President Clinton and without Congressional knowledge, the US Fish and Wildlife Service “diverted” (or stole or misappropriated) $45 to 60 Million from Excise Taxes; that could only be used by state agencies for state wildlife programs; to trap, transfer and release those wolves on an Indian Reservation and in an Exclusive federal enclave (YNP) where state permission was not necessary. When this was revealed in 1999 by a GAO Audit Report to the US House of Representatives’ Resource Committee under Chairman Young of Alaska, the wolves were long “out of the bag” and state agencies had become so dependent on federal funds and federal career opportunities that they quietly refrained from asking for Congress to replace the funds. Hardly the honorable “federal ecological experiment” described in your article.

Second, it is a humbug and a paradox to continue this myth that “the US in 2011 and 2012 stripped wolves in Idaho and several other states in the region of protection by the Endangered Species Act”. In the very next paragraph you note how Idaho must be careful “to avoid a potential relisting under the Endangered Species Act”. Thus the feds release and spread the wolves and tell the State residents to pick up the tab for all the destruction and losses and to keep X amount or the feds will step back in and take over. Today, the urban enthusiasts and NGO’s go into federal courts to stop controls, forbid methods, and seek land closures while the fiction of “state management” drains state coffers. Actual state jurisdiction would include the authority to exclude or even exterminate wolves in line with state resident’s desires: no such authority exists today. This is like telling rural Americans that they have a “right” to freedom of speech but only insofar as federal bureaucrats and urban speech police allow.

Just as we are witnessing federal erosion of 2nd Amendment (gun) rights and 5th Amendment private property rights: so too is this wolf fiasco a glimpse of what is happening to the 10th Amendment rights of “States” and “the people” to all those powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”.

James Beers
22 March 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

Just Asking

Just Asking – Guest article by James Beers

After reading the article following this one about poor “Isabelle”, “a loner that had been bullied”, it took me several seconds to compose myself. When I had composed myself sufficiently to think clearly once again, several questions came to me and I was at a loss for answers.

Now I know all about Treaties, Reservations and Native American government. I know all about US government preferences and how Native Americans run their own voting Precincts and how they have counted and recounted votes in recent elections from Minnesota to Washington State. I know that all men and women are created equal and that we are all God’s children. So it is in this spirit that I am reminded of Mark Twain’s famous quip, “There’s one way to find out if a man is honest: ask him; if he says yes, you know he’s crooked.” St. Paul newspaper, National Park Service bureaucrats, Minnesota DNR bureaucrats, Defenders of Wildlife, US Fish & Wildlife Service bureaucrats and all you Environmental/Animal Rights activists and your lawyers; “are you honest?”

If some chubby, plaid-clad, middle-aged farmer had killed a wolf where his children played:
If a lady walking her dog had shot a wolf:
If a cattleman had killed a wolf killing his cattle;
If a sheepman killed a wolf killing his sheep:
If a hunter had killed a wolf attacking a moose or an elk:
If a father killed a wolf near his children’s school bus stop:
If a grandma killed a wolf nipping at her as she checked her mailbox:
If a young deer hunter killed a wolf as it approached him:
If all these things and more occurred, would we read about it in these terms?

Would the article begin with a stunning picture of “a gray wolf known as Isabelle takes refuge last year on an icy bluff over Lake Superior to lick her wounds after being attacked by other wolves”?
Would we be treated to a picture of frolicking wolves?
Would the wolf’s death be described as a “fluke thing”?
Would the “howls” (pardon the pun) from wolf-lovers from Minneapolis to San Francisco and UN Headquarters be as non-existent?
Would the “researchers” that “named her Isabelle” be as quiet and understanding about “her” demise?
Would the Native, federal and state law enforcers blithely tell us they “won’t try to identify the shooter”?
Would there to be no future education/assurances that this will not be repeated?
Would the crime be sandwiched between beginning and ending paragraphs of classic “Romance Biology” about “bullied” wolves with lovey-dovey names and how such wolves seize “the rare opportunity to traverse at least 15 miles of ice separating Isle Royale from an area along the U.S.-Canadian border”? (NOTE: This winter you could have convoyed tanks and Caterpillar earth-movers to and from the island.)
Would the crime serve as a platform for the trite and worn-out lie that although wolves have “ helped keep the moose population in check, preventing them from overbrowsing park vegetation” on Isle Royale, wolves and predation have NO EFFECT on disappearing moose and deer on the Minnesota mainland. Period!

Would the “fact” that the highly-romanticized “ice bridge”, that periodically (like Moses at the Red Sea) provides the means for wolves to go back and forth to the Isle Royale paradise, connects Isle Royale to “the Minnesota shoreline on property owned by the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa” where the law “allows people to chase away or kill those (wolves) creating a nuisance” not be closed to all people by any means necessary? Calls for such closures, lawsuits and “howls” from urban Americans and urban Europeans would certainly result for non-Native land so strategically located, so the question must be asked, “Are wolves more important than non-Native Americans and less important than Native Americans?”

Of course we all know that if one of those non-Native perpetrator instances I noted previously happened, all $%#& would break loose. There would be calls for gun control, investigations involving families, property and destruction of one or more citizens. We would be swamped with New Yorkers and Parisians telling us about “apex” predators, “native ecosystems” and rivers no longer meandering (due to all the thick bank vegetation since no herbivores, wild or domestic, are left). The perpetrator would be described as some rural bumpkin that abused animals as a child and who should be locked up to protect society from any further depredations. We would all live in mortal fear until dear Isabelle’s niche in the ecosystem was once again filled. Descriptions of the incident would be used in school classes as an example of why more laws and more government enforcement are necessary.

Instead, it is treated as some historic fairy tale without a scintilla of critical mention of the way the crime is no longer the subject: The perpetrator and the fabricated moral of the story determines how or if it is to be told. Welcome to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some animals are indeed more equal than others.

If any rural people are reading this, please note “The Grand Portage Band prohibits hunting or trapping wolves on its territory but allows people to chase away or kill those creating a nuisance”.

Is this not what rural Americans (since both the Original Colonies and the Founding of our nation) have found to be how wolves should be administered in rural America -BY COUNTIES – the Local and most responsive level of government (called Subsidiarity) under the protection of responsible State governments? Is this not what Europeans are discovering about expanding wolf populations under EU/UN bureaucrats and less than protective national governments? If what Native Americans can and are doing in-line with their culture and historical interface with the natural environment to “live with” wolves by successfully prohibiting “hunting or trapping wolves” while “allowing people to chase away or kill those creating a nuisance” works and is tolerated; why can’t or shouldn’t Counties follow this example? Since state governments are proven notorious cowards about protecting rural residents from deadly and dangerous wild animals of interest to federal interlopers and far-off urban dandies, forget about state licensing and state revenues – let Counties define “Nuisance” as broadly as they want to loose their residents and their agents with a broad range of “Nuisance Eliminator” devices and means.

Evidently this sort of Native American wolf “management” works for the urban newspapers, state and federal bureaucrats and all their wolf enablers. One might say, what is good for the Native American should be good for the non-Native American. Besides, after years of reading about how Native Americans live and have lived in “harmony” with Nature; I for one can only say we should emulate this ancient and honorable system that probably goes back as far as that other famous bridge, The Land Bridge across the Bering Straits between Asia and North America.

Ancient Egyptians credited Isis with the oversight of order, law and custom. Hellenic people first depicted their God of order, law and custom as Dike, the daughter of Themis. She was the first shown with a sword (for power), a blindfold (for objectivity) and a scale (to measure support and opposition). Romans gave this concern to their Goddess Lustitia or Lady Justice. Lady Justice has since appeared on coins and in front of courts and courthouses from Berlin to Seattle and beyond.

As I close with the question to the newspapers, bureaucrats and enviro-tyrants “are you honest?” allow me to suggest a replacement for Lady Justice on the basis of the wolf travesty you are perpetrating upon rural North America and rural Europe. I suggest a 200lb/kilo drooling baby in a diaper with only a sword (no blindfold and no scales), swinging the sword at anyone who will not feed him. That is how the media and bureaucrats in servitude to eco-tyrants really “weigh their options”.

What do you think? Just asking.

Jim Beers
15 March 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

Romance Biology – Now and Then

Guest blog by James Beers:

The following lurid prose is from a recent article about wolves in Yellowstone. It is foisted on the public as some sort of “scientific” factoid.

The following two paragraphs say all that need be said about the sad state of public information, public gullibility and government propaganda disguised as “science” today.

Regarding government-introduced wolves in Yellowstone National Park (totally isolated from the millions of acres surrounding the Park but who cares?) we are told:

“Photos taken in the early 1900s, when wolves roamed Yellowstone, reveal that young trees such as aspen and willow were abundant. In 30 years, after wolves were hunted out, the forest stopped regenerating. “Wolves are shaping what you see here,” Douglas W. Smith, leader of the Yellowstone Wolf Project, told Scientific American magazine. “In 30 years, when you drive through the park, it will look very different.”

Maybe more like it did a century ago. You can see the colour return to those black-and-white photos. If only Jack London had lived to read about this.”

So “young trees” “were abundant” “in the early 1900’s”. So what? Is it written somewhere that “young trees” are better or necessary or belong in particular places? Are aspen and willow prettier or better for stream fish you either can’t fish for or are being eradicated to be replaced by fish species that provide less fishing opportunity? Are the aspen and willows better for elk and moose that no longer provide hunting opportunity but only food for more wolves?

“After wolves were hunted out”? I thought job #1 for Park Rangers, since the Park was withheld by federal fiat from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, was to prohibit all use (hunting, predator control, trapping, etc.) of animals in the Park?

“The forest stopped regenerating”? When the “Cedars of Lebanon” (of Biblical fame) were cut for Phoenician ships that ruled the Mediterranean economy for centuries, rural Lebanese folk set sheep and goats to graze on all the grasses, brush and young trees that suddenly were so abundant. Between the slopes and all that hard grazing (before folks realized how important and beneficial it was to manage grazing pressure) on lands that were communally-owned, soil eroded and soon only grasses and brush were present. For many centuries that modified landscape has supported and supports pastoral communities of villages and herders. THAT forest truly stopped “regenerating”: Yellowstone merely began regenerating differently as it no doubt has done since time immemorial thanks to fires, diseases, predators, native impacts, drought, earthquakes, torrential rains, snows and snow melt, and all the other vagaries of nature. Thinking there is some absolute ideal picture that always was and always should be is as silly as saying wolves are benevolent and belong in settled landscapes such as The Lower 48 States.

Speaking of which, “Wolves are shaping what you see here,” is certainly true. So too is the lack of former elk and moose numbers and the presence of tourists and campers and tourists feeding animals and etcetera, etcetera “shaping what you see here”. That is merely an academic observation slanted to the observer’s wishes. Is the Park “better” with no wolves and abundant elk in the meadows and moose in the ponds being observed enthusiastically by the “once-in-a-lifetime” tourists and harvested outside the Park each fall by thousands of hunters supporting rural economies and state conservation programs to the tune of Millions of dollars annually? Or is it “better” with only a rare tourist glimpse of an elk or moose or a wolf and the presence of all the dangers (disease, human safety, etc.) associated with the presence of wolves even in this tightly regulated and scripted government enclave where there are no dogs or livestock or kids walking alone to rural bus stops or old ladies walking to rural mailboxes for the wolves to menace.

So the head Pooh-Ba scientist tells a “Scientific” magazine that “In 30 years, when you drive through the park, it will look very different.” Really? It looked different 50 years ago and it will look different 50 years hence despite all this twaddle about some mythical and sacred Park landscape that only government employees and environmental extremists with access to unlimited funding and political power can provide. The Park was set aside for “the People” as in “We the People”, the first three words of our Constitution. Making it into a federal reserve differing from the lands of bygone monarchs only in being unmanaged estates of unused renewable natural resources lacking herbivores and stuffed with trees and undergrowth that yield catastrophic fires in surrounding settled landscapes is not only a travesty, it is a betrayal of “the People”. It violates the Constitutional charge to a federal government to “establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, …”promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

For those unfamiliar with the spelling of color as “colour”; colour is the accepted British spelling. This anomaly may be attributable to the Yellowstone ecology author’s (Bijoy Venugopal) background as likely somewhat distant from Yellowstone? You see, Romance Biology compositions are only limited by the imagination of the author. Experience or truth are neither required nor expected.

Finally we have the piece de resistance, “If only Jack London had lived to read about this.” When I was young I greatly enjoyed Jack London’s fiction. So I searched high and low to discover the reason for this reference but while I found that old Jack abandoned his wife and kids, was an alcoholic, ran unsuccessfully as a Socialist for Mayor of Oakland, was picked up for vagrancy in Niagara Falls and had visited Korea, Australia and England; nowhere could I find an interest in or visit to Yellowstone. Thinking it may have to do with his frequent mention of wolves in his writing, I searched those mentions and discovered that Jack London too could have been a successful Romance Biology writer today if only he “had lived to read about this”. Perhaps it was due to passages like the following that Mr. London’s name is evoked?

In “Love of Life” a prospector who has abandoned a friend and walked for hundreds of mile in N Canada to reach the Arctic Ocean endures unbelievable hardships with the thin hope of finding a ship to rescue him. As he lies almost dead on an Arctic beach a whaler appears on the horizon as he encounters a sick wolf. The account of this man and wolf interaction must surely be why Romance Biology authors everywhere admire Mr. London and why he must have a secure place in the Romance Biology Hall of Fame:

“The patience of the wolf was terrible. The man’s patience was no less terrible. For half a day he lay motionless, fighting off unconsciousness and waiting for the thing that was to feed upon him and upon which he wished to feed. Sometimes the languid sea rose over him and he dreamed long dreams; but ever through it all, waking and dreaming, he waited for the wheezing breath and harsh caress of the tongue.

He did not hear the breath, and he slipped slowly from some dream to the feel of the tongue along his hand. He waited. The fangs pressed softly: the pressure increased: the wolf was exerting its last strength in an effort to sink teeth in the food for which it had waited so long. But the man had waited long, and the lacerated hand closed on the jaw. Slowly, while the wolf struggled feebly and the hand clutched feebly, the other hand crept across to a grip. Five minutes later the whole weight of the man’s body was on top of the wolf. The hands had not sufficient strength to choke the wolf, but the face of the man was pressed close to the throat of the wolf and the mouth of the man was full of hair. At the end of half an hour the man was aware of a warm trickle in his throat. It was not pleasant. It was like molten lead being forced into his stomach, and it was forced by his will alone. Later the man rolled over on his back and slept.”

In true Romance Biology fashion, the man on the beach is first seen from the whaler by “scientists” on a “scientific expedition” whereupon he is rescued. It doesn’t get any better than that.

Yet, what would Jack London have thought if he “had lived to read about this”, i.e. Yellowstone and wolves? My guess is he would have admired how fellow authors were making money from such silliness; he would have gotten a kick (do “Socialists” have a sense of humor?) out of a public so gullible as to believe even bigger tales than he wove; and finally he would have shook his head and wished to be back in his world where people knew the truth about things like wolves and understood that even a dying man couldn’t kill a wolf with his teeth and then suck out wolf blood.

But, all Romance Biology today must have these propaganda chestnuts in them to qualify; besides the only difference is that people once merely enjoyed such fiction unlike today when they actually believe it.

Regardless of what these authors and their bureaucrat/radical friends tell you, wolves do NOT belong in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States, bombastic prose or not.

Jim Beers
19 March 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

Romance Biology About Wolves

By James Beers

*Editor’s Note* – James Beers has published a rebuttal to a Washington Post opinion piece, presented as factual by the Post, by Jane Goodall, monkey expert, about wolves. Here is the link to the Goodall piece.

It is presented as a photo essay with captions along the right hand side. The comments and information Beers presents about Goodall, are found in those captions.

A Letter to the Editor of the Washington (DC) Post re: a 5 January 2014 article by Jane Goodall on WOLVES.

A Romance Novella about Wolves

That Jane Goodall writes lurid nature propaganda (For wolves a struggle to survive, 5 Jan.) about select species is no surprise: that The Washington Post publishes such stories as factual about wolves is surprising.

Where to begin? The “Buffer Zones” around federal lands are private property under state jurisdiction. If Ms. Goodall decries local communities, through their governments, managing wolves that harm their economies, their hunting and their “domestic Tranquility”; please remind her that the USA is not some African country without our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Wolf packs do not “disintegrate”, like all other animal species they fluctuate like the weather for almost as many disparate reasons. Silly assertions like a den site “occupied since the 1940’s” (i.e. 70 years) are akin to climate change assertions of the past 40 years meant only to line the pockets of researchers, increase bureaucratic power over the citizenry and gain re-election for career politicians.

We are to bemoan the fluctuation of “the most famous wolf pack on earth”? Who regrets the demise of the Lolo Idaho elk herd, or the N Yellowstone elk herd, or Minnesota moose: all of which have been eradicated to levels wherein millions of dollars in state license revenue and hundreds of millions in revenue to rural communities have been wiped out by and for as long as introduced wolves remain at high, unregulated densities.

Wolf counts down? Earth to Ms. Goodall; wolf counting like wolf hunting is a notoriously difficult matter and to think it can be done consistently and comparably year-to-year is simply ludicrous. This goes too for the “sky-is-falling” warning about sightings going down as a cry for even more federal intervention.

Yellowstone wolves have not declined because of hunting et al around the Park. Wolves have declined because they have eradicated the once-vast elk herds and moose that fed their population explosion for 20 years and are no longer available to feed them.

Finally, wolves were not “hunted” to extinction in the Lower 48. They were purposely and with great effort of time and expense eradicated over a period of 300 years by our wise forefathers that would not tolerate the dangers (over 30 deadly diseases and infections, human attacks and livestock losses, etc.) wolves create. When you assert that wolves “are beneficial to the ecosystem” you are merely dressing up your personal desires with a patina of meaningless gibberish: your wolf “ecosystem” is no more legitimate or desirable than my hunting/ranching/rural jobs/human safety/recreational safety “ecosystem”.

I suggest, as a Minnesotan that misses the moose that protected wolves have eradicated, that readers of the Post and Ms. Goodall interested in wolves disregard her African brand of environmental species tyranny and embrace the American system. Have the state agencies of Virginia and Maryland and the District wildlife agency steal some money (like the federal wolf introducers did from the States to introduce the wolves out West) and trap some wolves in Canada (they are bigger and fiercer there) and release them in western Virginia and Maryland. (Question: why has the East been spared this “wonder” to date?) Soon enough: dog owners, hunters, families with kids, livestock producers, campers, hikers, fishermen, the elderly and many others will join Western and Midwestern rural communities in howling to severely reduce wolves in some areas and eradicate them in others.

Those that think majoritarian rule should be used to forcibly impose wolves on their neighbors should remember Prohibition and all of its similar claims and unintended consequences.

Jim Beers
5 January 2014

FYI My Bio:

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.

Share