July 25, 2017

Jim Beers for Director, USFWS, The Frosting on the Cake

Share

Argue the Premise

By James Beers:

I am in agreement with those that say we are living in a “Dictatorship of Relativism”.

Relativism refers to the lack of agreement in any one truth and the embrace of unlimited alternatives that conflict with each other in any and all matters of the day.  Consider all the deeply held and conflicting beliefs surrounding such matters as:

–       Hunting is and should remain legal.

–       Grazing and logging on private and public property is beneficial and sustainable.

–       Private ownership of animals is a legal and beneficial tradition.

–       Prosecution and punishment of criminals should be the same for all races and sexes.

–       Churches should be subservient to government controls.

–       Gun ownership is a valuable right of all Americans interested in protecting themselves, their families and their community from criminals, terrorists and government factions determined to establish a dictatorship.

–       Government should never discriminate based on sex or race for any purpose.

–       Central government should be grown and lower levels made subservient to it.

–       Government should control sermons, healthcare, native/non-native species, water, land uses, life support decisions, etc.

–       Fetal (in the womb) humans should receive the total legal protection afforded federally-protected migratory birds.

–       Central government bureaucrats should decide bathroom use, education priorities, endangered species’ decrees, dam construction, energy development matters, whether to cooperate or not with State or Local officials, access roads and Local decisions affecting Local communities and their economies, etc.

*Note that I do not mention the Endangered Species Act or the US Forest Service or government regulations or some politician’s latest distraction disguised as some all-good proposal to solve some big problem he concocted in the first place.  What appear above are the PREMISES claimed to justify government allowing or prohibiting everything government controls or aims to control, as believed and supported by the most powerful among us.

dic-ta-tor-ship, n. 1. a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.  2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.

“Dictatorship of relativism” means the emergence of a ruling class with absolute power simply declaring under the auspices of what is in THEIR best interest what is right; what is wrong; what will be allowed; and what will be forbidden.  There is no “right” or “wrong” beyond what the dictator decrees.  There are no “rights” beyond what government allows or prohibits.  Regarding the PREMISES examples list; what government allows today, they may well prohibit tomorrow.  In other words, there is no truth or consistency guaranteed by government and the powerful that control it: there are only their individual interests served by such uncontrolled and unresponsive government.  It has always been so.

I must constantly remind myself of this.  While the day-to-day confrontation of the latest US Fish and Wildlife Service lies about government-imposed large predators; or the public refutation of the latest land closures to grazing or logging or hunting or trapping or access or beaches by government; etc., etc. are each and totally necessary: too often we limit ourselves to the minutiae of the problem at hand.  By that I mean we refute and argue the “study” or the “regulation” or the court precedent or the bureaucrat’s lie or the scientists misleading humbug and collapse in a heap either as winners emboldened to keep fighting or as losers mumbling “what’s the use, it is hopeless”.

Whether we are hunters, trappers, fishermen, wood cutters, ranchers, animal owners, small businessmen, rural residents, beach-goers, property owners, Local governments, State governments, or the foregoing’s Non-Government Organizations; we all are guilty of not arguing the PREMISES.  When we have numerous disagreements among ourselves we are like armies without discipline or any agreement about what we are fighting for.  Thus we avoid the conflict associated with taking on the PREMISES with government and those controlling them to savage our rights, our families, our culture, our traditions and our way of life.  As long as this persists, we will steadily diminish and ultimately vanish into the maw of a dictatorship like plankton disappearing into the gullet of a whale shark.

For instance, arguing about wolf/coyote hybrids and their “protection” is like arguing about how many angels can coexist on the head of a pin.  It is meaningless trivia to avoid reaching agreement that angels exist or not; just like the hybrid question avoids the resolution of the question that government either has or does not have the authority to introduce, protect, take property, reduce rural economies, or endanger rural residents on behalf of any animal not accepted or welcomed by those forced to accommodate them.

Is it “just” (i.e. “actuated by truth, justice, and lack of bias – to be just in one’s dealings”) for government to “prefer” certain “races” and “sexual designations” for everything from jobs and college admissions to housing and financial assistance?  What is the Constitutional and “just” role of US government?  What is the truth?

All of PREMISES underlying these matters are hidden and distorted by government and media propaganda as well as the schoolroom nonsense disguised as “education”.  Rationales from growing government power and the implementation of so many hidden agendas from gun control to elimination of hunting, ranching and timber management are all driving these “do-good” laws, regulations and policies.  We are reduced to arguing about these immediate issues based on things like:

–       Hunters and trappers are mean persons.

–       Ranchers destroy rural habitats.

–       Loggers kill animals, habitats, and precious vistas.

–       Federal experts are smarter than State or other “experts”.

–       “Scientists” (in the employ of or hoping to be favored by government fund administrators) say…

In short, we and “our” (mostly cowardly) organizations need to Argue the Premises of our interests loud and clear.  We need to stand firm about defending what we hold dear.  All the last 45 years of getting along, pretending to see the “wisdom” of radical government policies, and worrying about how neighbors or voters will see us and our interests has gotten us only deeper into the hole they are digging to bury us.  If the Founding Fathers had behaved like we do; we would have just had to vote about whether or not “we” (i.e. Great Britain) would leave the EU (BREXIT)?  If Britain was full of folks like us for that vote, they would probably still be in the EU and the papers would be full of pictures of boats full of refugees from not only Islamic war-torn lands but also from Terrorist-infested lands like Norway and Sweden.

Argue the Premise.  To do otherwise is like the Founding Fathers sending a Committee to London in 1776 to “appeal” tax and military policies of the King.  Lots of luck with that, just like our luck with all this arguing about meaningless things has been and will remain, all bad.  If we cannot agree on a common truth (the role of government; the responsibility for our surroundings; the very nature of our humanity; etc.) our fate will be dictatorship by a default we brought upon ourselves.

Jim Beers

10 August 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

A Wolf Letter to the Denver Post

(Kept to 151 words)

As a 32 year Biologist/Refuge Manager/Special Agent employee of USFWS:

  1. Wolf presence or absence is not and should not be a decision for persons outside Colorado.
  2. Wolves kill livestock; reduce big game herds, hunting opportunities and licenses,; and they kill dogs.
  3. Wolves are extremely effective vectors of over 30 diseases and infections of great danger to humans, wildlife and domestic animals.
  4. Wolves are deadly threats to rural children, elderly (women in particular) and adults as when rabid.  Asian, European and North American history and current events confirm this routinely.
  5. If Colorado residents choose to introduce or tolerate wolves, Counties should retain the final decision for Local elected officials to decide whether or how wolves are to be controlled, tolerated or exterminated in their County.  Local officials are the most responsive to those local residents that would live with wolves and their very many social, biological and economic ill effects.

 

Jim Beers

15 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

A Book to Read; A Book to Give

I just finished reading Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?. It is a book by Thomas K. Remington published in 2014.

The book covers the history of wolves. It describes ancient references to wolves in European history and the early history of wolves as America was being settled by European farmers, ranchers and other rural settlers.

It is mainly about the recent “restoration” and “re-introduction” of wolves in the Lower 48 states. The politics and bureaucratic “shenanigans” (a politically correct synonym for lies, ignorance and self-serving hidden agendas) of the past 40 years are covered in a way particularly geared for the general public, those casually interested in the subject, and those wanting to expand their understanding of how we got to where we are today in order to figure out what must be done if rural American communities are to be safe, productive and vibrant nurseries for families and communities that have been the backbone of the Nation for 240 years.

Tom is, like the Founding Fathers envisioned running the country, a citizen with a sharp mind, a deep interest in the wolf travesty, and the gumption to put together a book for others to understand what so many strive to keep “un-understandable”. His observations and insights are geared to others like himself, that is the American citizenry. They are refreshing for me and should prove useful to many others.

I believe it is a book worth reading and certainly a book worth giving to others in our families, workplace, church and neighborhoods.

The book is available in paperback and Kindle on Amazon, paperback of Barnes and Noble, paperback and signed copies on his website at tomremington.com (Link with book cover in right column, under “Tom’s Library.)”

NOTE: This is an honest recommendation for which I am not compensated nor awarded any tax break by faceless bureaucrats or omnipresent politicians. You can take that to the bank.

Jim Beers
1 June 2015

Share

Dingoes = Wolves = Coyotes = Dogs

By James Beers:

Dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs are all Canids. The name Canid comes from the Genus name Canis. All four of these animals are called species within the Genus Canis: Dingoes (Canis dingo); Wolves (Canis lupus); Coyotes (Canis latrans); and Dogs (Canis familiaris) but that identification of these as four “species” is misleading.

Species is a term that historically referred to animals with similar characteristics and the ability to freely interbreed and produce viable offspring. For instance, horses and mules are similar and do interbreed but their offspring are infertile and thus horses and mules are separate species. Our four “species” however (dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs) share similar characteristics, interbreed freely, and produce viable offspring. A dingo (despite their absence outside Australia) breeding with a wolf or a coyote or a dog will birth or sire pups with shared genes and behavioral tendencies of the parents. Theses pups will grow to adulthood and similarly have viable offspring from breeding with any of the other “species”. They will be as recognizable as to parentage of say a Lab crossed with a Golden retriever or a Staffordshire terrier (AKA Pit Bull) crossed with a Doberman. In addition to these outward similarities, behavioral tendencies like the unpredictability of Chows or the aggressiveness of Dobermans will likewise occur in the offspring of say a wolf crossed with a dog or a dingo crossed with a coyote.

Dingoes are Canids that were probably introduced to Australia by aboriginal immigrants many centuries ago. Question: Ask your favorite “Native Ecosystem” enthusiast, if dingoes were brought to Australia by aborigines; are they – the dingoes and the aborigines – “Native”???). But I digress. Dingoes are yellowish-brown “dogs” or “Canids” that are the size of a medium to small German shepherd. When covered in a semi thick coat of fur they appear like a lean Shepherd-type dog, and when covered in a short hair they look like a lean pointy-faced hound dog with upright ears like wolves and coyotes. Dingoes travel in groups and behave very much like wolves. They are bold and very dangerous predators that (in Australia) kill many sheep, “rabbits, kangaroos and emus” as well as children and elderly people. Anyone doubting this last need look no further than the somewhat recent case of the camping Australian family whose little boy disappeared and the mother was charged and found guilty of (killing?, abandoning? I am unsure) the child and sent to prison. Only after an appeal and thorough investigation was it clearly determined that dingoes or a dingo in the campground had killed and carried off the child to be devoured in some remote location. Just like wolves in India and coyotes and cougars attacking a child for food, it is not at all uncommon for the predator to lunge at the child after approaching quietly as close as possible and then seizing them by the neck to crush or break their neck and asphyxiate them, if still necessary: it is also not uncommon for a child so attacked to make no sound.

The news article below concerns a 5600 kilometer (3,480 mile) long fence that has for decades represented an attempt to seal off the SE ¼ of Australia FROM DINGOES. Like Europeans and North Americans of times past, Australians have sought to eradicate or at least minimize the dangers and costs of having to live with these dangerous and destructive “Canids” or predators in the settled or being-settled landscapes of Australia. Anyone denying the facts as understood by those LIVING WITH THESE ANIMALS DAY TO DAY is seriously and ignorantly meddling in the lives of others instead of respecting their fellow-citizens’ rights to what Americans refer to as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Dingoes, like wolves, do not belong in settled landscapes for many reasons.

European history back to and beyond the days of Sparta and Athens were centuries of necessary and persistent wolf control until wolves were little more than occasional wandering remnants. Islands like Britain and Ireland finally exterminated wolves much to the delight of the rich, the poor and their rural economies.

North American is replete with the dangers and destruction that wolves presented to aboriginal Americans as well as European settlers and American and Canadian farmers, ranchers and other rural residents. With one or two minor exceptions, wolves were exterminated throughout the Lower 48 USA States by World War I and were being kept at tolerable levels or exterminated by government and private control in much of Canada that bordered the Lower 48 States and certain Maritime Island Provinces where farms, ranches and villages prevailed.

Russia and most of Asia have hosted the largest concentrations of wolves in the world from sweltering Indian villages across Central Asian scrublands to the forests of Siberia. To this day, wolves kill many people every year as well as destroy precious reindeer and other livestock and the dogs used as watchdogs for people and flocks. Dramatic controls like this Australian fence and techniques like killer dogs, poisons, shooting, traps, posses and other innovations have always been in short supply in these countries where weapons were banned; dictators Religious rulers and Czars kept rural people in helpless societies; and where effective, large-scale wolf controls have always been short-lived and susceptible to quick replacement of controlled wolf areas by the constant influx of wolves from robust wolf populations in surrounding areas.

Until recently, Europe, Asia and North Americans were in complete agreement with Australians about the undesirable nature of these large Canid predators in settled landscapes, especially where men and women are forced to go about unarmed. While Russians and Central Asians agree with these views to this day, when told of European and North American actions to introduce and protect wolves they are as stunned as if they were told that Americans were foregoing oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power in favor of windmills or that Europeans were happy with and celebrating the steady increase in livestock deaths, dog deaths and mental instability of European grazers (that support rural economies, reduce fire dangers, and manage European plant communities for many purposes like erosion control and suppression of undesirable plants by grazing their flocks) resulting from wolf increases in both population and habitats across Europe.

This recent wolf worship (the correct word) has spawned a fantasy/science library of articles by grant and publicity-seeking “scientists” claiming “discoveries” of wolf benefits like “wolves change rivers” by killing big game animals and dispersing remaining animals from river banks thus causing trees and shrubs to proliferate as well as “Native” fish, animals like frogs and plants like Indian paintbrush. I call this pseudo-“science” Romance Biology. Unmentioned in these writings are always:

* The loss of big game hunting and the revenue it once provided to conservation programs by wolf activities.

* The dangers to human safety from the recent wolf attack in a Minnesota campground to the deaths of a schoolteacher on the Alaskan Peninsula and a young Canadian man in Saskatchewan. The impact on children, the elderly and families is enormous.

* The loss of livestock and ranches to wolf predation.

* The huge loss of dogs of all stripes to wolf attacks.

* The financial losses to rural communities, rural businesses, rural families and rural government revenue and authority.

As an American, I am always fascinated (less and less of late) by American innovations copied by others. Europeans are grinding out Romance Biology lies as more and more justifications are needed both in the popular media and as justification for more and continued wolf protection in the face of increasing death and destruction from the wolves.

Now, I can add the Australians as copying this propaganda technique that I call Romance Biology. Note the last three paragraphs of the following short article replete with pictures. A professor at the University of Sydney claims that “reintroduced and existing dingo populations” will “restore the balance of nature” (a meaningless term).

The final picture below is a cleverly (just like in the US and now Europe) worded bit of anti-human society propaganda. The composer (very likely an environmental or animal “rights’” radical group) would have us believe that dingoes (or wolves or coyotes or feral dogs or cougars, etc.) killing all manner of wildlife and livestock is both good and offsets any destruction, mayhem or human pain or death otherwise inflicted by these Canids.

Whenever you see this dingoes increase “the biodiversity of small mammals, lizards, and grasses’ or wolves “change rivers” Romance Biology, ask yourself and anyone believing this, “And your point is?”

Any area can have more or less biodiversity and that is to be expected where man lives and raises his family. The priority should always be the welfare and benefit of man, saying that man must abandon places or community supports simply for the sake of more “small mammals, lizards and grasses” is both silly and a declaration that man and his needs are inferior to any and every mix of plants and animals desired by the rich and powerful. Our challenge is to create and maintain a high standard of living for all persons while simultaneously providing for the endurance of all species and a rich biodiversity of plants and animals WHEREVER POSSIBLE. The dingo/wolf et al enthusiast refutes the “simultaneously” part of the equation and ultimately substitutes “primarily” thereby making their “Native”, “Ecosystem”, “Ecology first” mantra superior to man and his society. That is not only nature “worship” it is the rule if tyrants based on their visions of “nature.

For instance, if riverbank diversity was so valuable (assuming wolves, dingoes et al really do what they say, an assumption akin to climate change justifying population control, and the justification on one world government without any checks or balances) why weren’t hunters simply told to kill more grazing wild animals over the years and then manage the remainder in consonance with human activities and “biodiversity” targets? Anyone that thinks unregulated predation that cyclically varies wildly as do the prey, the predators and the resulting “biodiversity” is in any sense comparable to continuous wildlife management of all species is incapable of grasping the issue in any understandable manner. The real answer is that the dingo/wolf et al protection is meant to ultimately vacate the rural landscape and convert it to closed-to-the-public real estate run by bureaucrats and managed for the benefit of powerful interest groups, the rich and politicians.

I am reminded of a luncheon I attended almost 20 years ago in Brussels. I was sitting next to a Russian (actually a western Siberian with the look of a Greenlander or Northern Alaskan) wildlife expert. He was from Magadan on the Pacific coast near the Kamchatka Peninsula. He leaned over and said to me in a low voice, “Beers, can I ask you a question?” I said sure, and he said, “Is it true that you are putting wolves back into areas where they were exterminated years ago and protecting them?” Somewhat embarrassingly I answered, “Yes that is true.” He shook his head and mumbled to me. “How did you ever win the Cold War?”

What a world when a guy from Siberia tells a guy from Illinois that our people are nuts; and the Illinois guy could do no more than nod and shrug his shoulders in agreement.

That Siberian and I have more in common with those that built the Australian fence than all the expert Romance Biology “experts that invent diversions and lies about things that do not matter, be they “scientific papers” or “signs”. Unless and until the autonomy of Local communities to determine what plants and what animals in what mixes are to exist in THEIR community and how that mix is to be maintained; this rule of far-off dictators, interest groups and bureaucracies will only sit and grow like mushrooms after a rain. Local authority like this has only existed intermittently for millenniums in Europe and Asia: it has only existed in Australia and North America for a few centuries and it is disappearing right before our eyes as you read this. The real trick is to enable the humans that live with these animals to manage them for their own good and to permanently abolish the ability of far-off governments to rule the rural people, in their broadest sense, on behalf of the fantasies and imaginings of rich and powerful blocs with both obvious and hidden agendas.

Jim Beers
23 March 2015

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

Share

Buffalo as Metaphors

By James Beers

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

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

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

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

Consider:

– Buffalo are not “endangered”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buffalo and their enablers are like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premise #1-

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

Premise #2-

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

CONCLUSION-

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

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

Jim Beers
17 March 2015

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

Share

Wolf Sermons by the Head Druid

By James Beers

*Editor’s note – In order to understand Jim Beers’ following article and rebuttal, readers must first read the article in the Pioneer Press that Beers refers to. Below is a short teaser and a link to the article, followed by Jim Beers’ response.

“”What it sounds like is a dog chasing a car, doesn’t it?” quipped David Mech, a senior research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey and one of North America’s foremost wolf experts.

Mech, who has been briefed on the Voyageurs wolf, said the behavior is a mystery to him. Almost invariably, wolves avoid motor vehicles, he said.

“Wolves doing things like this can end up being killed, either by accident or intentionally,” Mech said.”<<<Read More>>>

Today’s Sermon from, “Book of Wolves, Chapter 6, Verses 2-7”

“Playing”? “Practicing” for what? “Inconsistent with territorial behavior”? “Unlikely mating (one would hope not!) or denning behavior”? “Not chasing” but “playful”??? “Not aggressive”?

Telling us there “is no record of a rabid wolf in Minnesota”, is like having a Doberman breeder (i.e. one who sells Dobermans) tell us there has never been a case of a rabid Doberman in (fill-in-the-blank). As if rabies doesn’t happen in a “Nice” state like Minnesota because… of the ticks that killed all the moose (?) or climate change that is killing the deer (?) or some mysterious and sacred secret that only more funding for DNR/State University research will one day uncover?

Does our top Wolf Druid only know of one Canadian incident of a wolf chasing a vehicle? Has he not heard of the Idaho schoolteacher chased on his bicycle on the Alcan Highway by a snapping wolf and only saved by a semi-truck driver the summer before last? (“Haven’t seen before”?)

Alas, the best advice the Head Druid gives is, it’s a “mystery to him”. He is concerned that the wolf “might end up being killed”?

And lastly, he thinks it “sounds like a dog chasing a car”! To quote old Sherlock Holmes frequent reply to Watson, “Precisely my dear Watson!”

Wolves, coyotes and dogs interbreed frequently to produce fertile offspring. In addition to sharing this commonality, they share behavioral traits. While free-roaming dogs chasing cars and kids on bikes is not unusual, acting as if protected wolves (Ergo, comfortable around people and human habitations) might not do such things or might not do such things more often; is like saying there has NEVER been a rabid wolf in any state as if back when Indians were here they recorded such things or while early settlement (and the necessary wolf control gained steam) wolves were examined when found dead or shot. There are numerous accounts of rabid wolves in Army Fort records and small town newspapers in other Territories and States. All wolves and all unvaccinated dogs plus all other mammals (raccoons, skunks, foxes, coyotes, etc.) get rabies everywhere the rabies virus emerges in ANY STATE, COUNTRY, AND CONTINENT (except Antarctica). Saying there has never been rabies in Minnesota wolves is like saying no one ever ate a hot dog at a baseball game!

While it sounds cute to say a wolf chasing a snowmobile is like a dog chasing a car. Avoiding the old joke, “what will he do with it when he catches it (?)”, there are some very real differences. First, the snowmobile driver is right there in the open where he is available to a snap or bite by the wolf.

Second, think for a moment about those free-roaming dogs of yore that chased bikes. They frequently bit the kids. Now the kid would stop and go at the dog that would frequently run home or the kid would outrun the dog. Let us do an autopsy here about dogs like the Cardinal Druid above did for wolves. Would you ask “was it ‘playful’”? Even though it bit the kid, it could have been simple protection of the dog’s territory and perhaps really the fault of the kid. Would we be worried that the chow that bit the kid was one of many unmarked chows and that any of them might be “killed”? Would we go to some far-off academic/bureaucrat/”expert”, like one of those cartoons of some guy climbing a high peak to ask some old geezer contemplating his navel, “what caused this”(?); “what must we do”(?) “Oh high priest”? The fact is that dogs (some (?). all (?) or most chase cars and bikes. When they see other dogs doing it (like free-roaming dogs join in killing/chasing sheep or a foal in a pasture) they join in. AND when the dogs drag down or chomp onto the critter or critters that can’t fight back, they all do likewise until all the prey is dead. Anyone that believes (much less pontificates that as an expert it is undocumented and unlikely that a 100-150 lb., unvaccinated, wild wolf and other wolves witnessing this behavior of chasing snowmobiles won’t join in for whatever anthropomorphic reason preached by our Druid and soon enough pounce on the driver or tip the snowmobile or cause it to roll and then jump on the driver and the machine like a greyhound dog that just ran down a coyote and doesn’t stop biting and snapping until the coyote is dead ) – well I wouldn’t send my wife or kids to him for advice about how to behave around free-roaming dogs or wolves roaming the neighborhood at night.

Isn’t it funny how the very same people that want wolves everywhere (else) are the same folks demanding that all dogs be leashed at all times; and all dogs must be vaccinated; and that when they see a “loose” Labrador retriever out the kitchen window immediately call 911 and demand that the same government they want to introduce and protect wild, very large, aggressive, unvaccinated wolves (elsewhere) immediately capture and remove the free-roaming dog out the back window in their neighborhood?

Thankfully we have our Druids and “a team of park officials, including an expert researcher, on Tuesday headed into the park to attempt to track the wolf and learn more about its behavior.” I feel so relieved that if I had one of those old Southern “swooning couches” I’d take a nap.

As if all this news twaddle wasn’t enough, I have tried to reason in the past with the novice “outdoor” writer that wrote this before about these matters but to no avail. Then, as I went online this morning to copy the newspaper article, an interview by an animal “rights” activist with Wayne Pacelle, the CEO and Titular Head of The Humane Society was played on my computer as I called up and copied the article. They were talking about the “sex”-seeking hunters, wolf trophy “hunting” as some sort of fantasy, how wolves kill and control harmful species like beavers, blah-blah-blah.

So the St. Paul newspaper employs a guy that never hunted or fished to write the “outdoor” stuff; he writes wolf apologetics with copious quotes from a guy that has made his fortune from imposing wolves and the newspaper posts it online with a recording of Wayne Pacelle and one of his acolytes spewing every manner of lies and innuendoes about wolves and those opposed to their presence. Beam me up Scotty!

Finally, when someone dismisses what I write as merely vicious diatribes by a bitter ex-Fed, ask yourself how do you oppose liberal newspapers, naive writers, self-serving bureaucrats, and propagandizing academics that are even more sarcastic and demeaning? As with ISIS & Iran, some will say talk to them or find them jobs; others will say, take no prisoners. I am, proud to say, in the latter group.

Jim Beers
4 March 2015

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

Share

North Carolina Defies “GI” Wolves

“As someone with a long involvement in US and European wolf debacles of the past three-plus decades, it is with admiration and a wry sense of amusement that I have followed the sordid history of federal red wolf impositions on the good people of North Carolina. I admire what you are doing about “wolves” and I am deeply amused by your resurrection of the lost power of State governments as spelled out in the US Constitution.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wolf Wisdom from a Wolf Authority

Dr. Val Geist is a retired Canadian University Professor now living in British Columbia. While his title is “Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science” his field of expertise for which he is internationally recognized is the biology of wildlife and the societal implications of wildlife policy options. I have no greater respect for any academic in the field of predators and predation; two topics of great moment as you read this in North America and Europe.

Below are some very succinct and candid comments by Dr. Geist regarding the controversies and complications swirling around European wolves, their effects of rural Europeans, and the question of what is a wolf. This last question involves the genetic definition of a dog v the genetic definition of a wolf and when is a hybrid one or the other. As I have written many times over the years; I believe a wolf is a dog is a coyote (truly one species using the classical definition of a species) since all three interbreed freely and always produce viable (reproductively capable) offspring. The emerging question of what genetically is a dog or a wolf (or a coyote in North America) is both an academic (i.e. pedantic) determination as well as a value decision by government. The real, everyday aspect of this question is the many current and growing numbers of hybrids that can easily look like one another while carrying vastly different genetic make-ups.

This question of hybrids; which is what, what is protected and what is the government purpose overall is another one of the interminable sidebars that confuse the public and make informed decision-making by the public and government merely a matter of bureaucratic interests, emotions and propaganda fantasies. I would refer you to wolf effects on big game herds like elk and moose; wolves as disease and infection vectors endangering humans, domestic animals and other wildlife; wolf effects on domestic dogs; Red v Gray v Mexican v Timber, etc. wolves; and wolf effects on rural economies and the general welfare of rural residents as all similarly ignored and undefined ramifications of wolves kept totally beyond the control of those forced to live with them by powerful, remote governments.

Dr Geist’s comments are in response to a European proposal – after just sentencing some Finnish hunters to jail for killing some wolves/dogs/hybrids (?) – to legally define just what is a wolf and what is a dog. These comments should be read by everyone involved with or soon to be involved with GI (Government Issued) wolves, dogs, hybrids or “whatevers”. If you agree, PLEASE SHARE THEM FAR AND WIDE. Thanks.

Jim Beers
19 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.

————————-

Wolves cannot be kept in settled landscapes, because of the impossibility of keeping wolves and dogs apart, and the destruction of the wolf genome by creeping hybridization. While I whole-heatedly agree that there should be no keeping of wolves and wolf hybrids as pets, the sheer size of the “wolf-dog” industry as well as past releases of wolf hybrids will insure further erosion of the genome of free-ranging wolves. Secondly, how is officialdom to know of wolf hybrids unless wolf numbers are strictly and closely regulated so that plenty of specimens are available for testing. Thirdly, from my experience identifying wolves or dogs from photos sent my way I have serious doubts that European wolf specialists can currently distinguish wolf from dog. Unless limits are set early to wolf numbers – and I see no hint of that – wolf populations will expand to destroy the populations of deer and turn to livestock and humans.

Do the authors of this manifesto really think that they can significantly keep wolves and dogs apart by minimizing the number of free-ranging dogs? Even if they have some success in doing so, are they not aware that lone wolves themselves seek out dogs? Do they really think that lone wolf females in heat will desist from visiting suburbs and farms looking for a mate? Do they think that chained farm dogs will not copulate with a female wolf in heat at night? Has nobody had the experience of holding a young very large male dog in training while they come in contact with am estrus female canid? I had a Bouvier de Flandre on the leash while we came across a small wolf track in the snow – and the Bouvier went wild! He then weighed only about a hundred pounds. I had my hands full! An amorous male wolf threatened my wife when he approached an estrus hunting dog in an enclosure. No neighborhood male dog had been that bold! In short, given wolves with a desire to mate and they will intrude deep into human habitation. There is no way to effectively segregate wolves from dogs in settled landscapes. Moreover, as this is written, there is now way to protect wildlife from marauding packs of dogs either.

As I have said before, all efforts to make wolves compatible with settle landscapes are a waste of time and energy. All marauding canids in settle landscape need to be removed. This raises the question of how to conserve wolves as a species. What we know for certain is that they need to be kept away from people and dogs. In the first instance that means that wolves and other large predators need to be kept where the public has no entry. And such areas need to be large. The very first step is to negotiate internationally for keeping large predators on military and atomic reserves. I doubt that national parks are suitable because the tourist lobby will balk. Secondly, means and ways need to be found to control closely wolf populations in such reserves to insure that the predators do not run out of prey, and leave the reserves for settled landscapes. Well-fed wolves will cause the least problems. Severe trapping and predator control in 20th century North America kept wolves out of settled landscapes, eliminated agricultural losses and disease transmission, retained their genetic integrity, while attacks on humans were unheard of.

Wolf conservation as proposed here (i.e. Europe) is not serious.

Sincerely, Val Geist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science

Share

Who’s Copying Who?

Guest post by James Beers:

A recent “scientific paper” from Finland:

Strong community support for illegal killing challenges wolf management

Abstract

In Finland, the conservation of large mammalian carnivores—brown bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine—is undermined by illegal killings that have commonly taken place after the implementation of national carnivore management plans. This hidden form of criminality cannot occur to such an extent without strong support from the local community. We examined the support of proximate groups by collecting data from hunters and women. In collecting data, we used non-active role playing with empathy-based fictitious stories. We used argumentation analysis to reveal the assumed species, the background of the illegal killing and especially the justifications and importance of community support for illegal killing. The results show that we have a conflict with strong basic emotions in hand as both illegal killing and support for illegal killing and hunting violators are based on anger and fear for children and domestic animals as well as frustration toward the authorities and the lack of proper management actions. The wolf is at the centre of the conflict due to the specific character of the species. Current policies have inevitably been lacking in terms of place-based policy, and that has led to conflicts between game management authorities/researchers and ordinary citizens. To facilitate a change in attitudes, we suggest focusing on affective factors via confidence-building measures.(emphasis added)

When Nixon was making his “Opening” to China he had the Smithsonian send over to our new found chums a cultural exchange. Good bureaucrats that they were, the “Smithsonians” recommended a display of Native American items to encourage solidarity between the Chinese (people) and the North American Native people. I am reminded of the reported reaction of Chinese visitors to that display as I read the above “report” from Finland. It seems the Chinese man-on-the-street was greatly amused by the American artifacts that only showed them what thieving rascals Americans were. You see, they were convinced that the capitalist/imperialist scum had clearly stolen the artifacts from Manchuria and Mongolia and shamelessly claimed them to be American artifacts.

Could the above article from Finland have been copied from Minnesota or Montana or Idaho or Oregon or Washington or North Carolina or Arizona or New Mexico or Michigan government “scientist/bureaucrat/undercover agents” presenting themselves as good-old-boy rural bumpkins to seduce the backward rustics and publish this paper?

All of those states have the same problem and slick, urban dandies want “government” to stop it. One must assume these bureaucrat know-it-alls have exhausted all other possibilities like hiring local spies or offering immunity or some other charge or recording bar room conversations or satellite photography or drones to identify the perpetrators of what the far-off elites see as crime and the local residents see as public service. Thus we see a glint of what lies ahead where I have underlined the ominous last sentence where the “ordinary citizen” (i.e. the local provincials) will be the target of “a change in attitudes, we suggest focusing on affective factors via confidence-building measures.”

Whatever that means, it is not good. If your attitude is not full supportive of government policy, it is off to a re-education camp in Hanoi or Phnom Penh. You see, current rural Europeans under the EU authorities are exactly like rural Americans under Washington DC authorities. If there is NO concern for them, their families, their communities, and their traditions and economies when wolves were made into weapons of the hidden agendas of powerful urban elites to be used at will on rural targets; can you be anything but deeply concerned about what these same folks will not shirk from doing when identifying and punishing those that think they have any Right to frustrate what these increasingly powerful overlords and their enforcers have wrought?

The parallels between rural Europeans and rural Americans grow closer every day. We should each keep an eye on each other because you can bet your bippy that the European, American & UN bureaucrats, “biologists”, enforcers and radical supporters are meeting and burning up the phone (do they still use “lines” anymore?) as they plot, scheme and “partner” about how to ratchet up the game and teach the rest of us a “lesson.”

If government decrees “brown bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine”; no matter the kids, dogs, sheep, cattle, families and economies affected. As old Sherlock Holmes once said and Shakespeare wrote in Henry V, “the game is afoot!”

Jim Beers
3 August 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