August 24, 2019

Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align With Science Say Researchers

wolfutah“Science:” – “Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe wolves.” This, with the exception of the lined-out word “universe,” and the added word “wolves,” is found on Wikipedia – that information website that Truth Seekers despise. It amazes me how such a word has been manipulated to mean just about everything except provide for a viable explanation of the real scientific process, which hopefully yields truth in the end. In essence, few people know the difference between scientific process and “science.” The bastardization of science is the result of some who understand this concept and exploit if for personal, political and financial gain.

An example of this might be when someone reads a “study” or a “theory” or a “proposal,” in their mind such becomes “science,” even when the real scientific process is unused, because they have been taught to react in this manner. It’s a dangerous proposition and has yielded great success for those seeking to promote personal agendas. At the same time it is destroying real, normal scientific processes.

I manipulated the title of an article I was reading that was sent to me via email, called “Carnivore Hunting Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers“. My title therefore reads, “Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers.”

In reading the article we find statements like: “policies regulating the hunting of large carnivores do not always align with basic scientific data;” “current harvest levels for…population of gray wolves…have led to decreased survival and reproduction, smaller packs, social disruption and a reversal from population growth to decline.”

This, of course, is concluded because the hand-picked “researchers” – birds of a feather flock together – all agree that there should be many wild carnivores in everyone’s back yard, with some to spare. Never mentioned in the article is anything to do with what each region, i.e. state regulators, wildlife managers, agricultural officials, private land owners, etc. desires for populations of wolves. Because these “researchers” want more wolves and have participated in “creating new science” about wolves and large carnivores, while ignoring all other facts and historic data about them, they call it “Science” and wield their generic terminology as though it was their bill of rights for themselves and their large carnivores. They pick the “science” and then demand management of all wildlife to fit into the new paradigm of large carnivore protection, i.e. scarcity of game hunting animals.

Take as an example the historic data that can be gleaned from stacks of books and journals from explorers and trappers. Any truthful researcher worth anything, knows that wolves in the Northern Rockies during the period when it was first opened, were quite scarce. “Quite scarce” is a comparative term, loaded to the hilt with personal, perspective value, that should be used when measured against what the large carnivore “researchers” and animal protectionists propagandize to the world about protecting large carnivores. THEIR “science” can be clearly determined by reading this one article alone, provided you understand that the measuring stick for predator populations was devised in their own factory.

This collective group is attempting to convince readers that all carnivore – wolf included – management schemes should be designed for population GROWTH. Decline, to them is a nasty word.

Simply because, for whatever the reasons, their “science” is conveniently telling them the populations of wolves in some areas are dropping, this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing? Whether it’s good, bad or doesn’t matter, is based upon someone’s or a group of someone’s idealistic notion of their conjured up science. It is weighed heavily in personal value and romance biology. This is not hard, scientific truth. It’s all about idealism, which has no place at all in the real scientific process.

So, it becomes quite easy to toss around the term science as though it is the holy grail. Science is a general term that is most always misused. “Science suggests,” and “Science tells us,” as well as “Best Available Science,” are all used conveniently for one purpose and one purpose only – manipulation of public opinion. Upon examination of the truthful, scientific process, science is what the truthful, scientific process tells us it is, and nothing more. Who would dare question, “An international group of carnivore biologists,” when they say hunting of large carnivores doesn’t line up with science? But we should all question this statement once we understand their suggestive science is a tool of political and public opinion manipulation.

One of the “researchers” had this to say: “The North American model of wildlife management works very well for species like ducks or elk, but becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters. The management agencies involved have a difficult task, but current data suggest that more attention to the consequences of hunting large carnivores is warranted.”

To understand this completely, a reader has to know that this is opinion based on the idea that man is supposed to “co-exist” with large carnivores, while large carnivore populations are grown everywhere, even if the diet of the large carnivores happens to be human flesh or livestock. These “researchers” have taken it upon themselves to be the knights of the round table pertaining to everything carnivore, and it seems to now have spread over to attempting to exert their self-ordained authority on the rest of the world and how they manage wildlife. In their minds, and with their “science,” a reduction of any amount, for any large carnivore species, is bad, regardless. To hell with the presence of man.

The North American model of wildlife management works because of one simple and yet very powerful element that exists and has always been recognized within the model – MAN. Yup, shocking isn’t it. Man is the dominant species, the real apex predator. You can’t change that without the destruction and/or the elimination of human populations. When man realized uncontrolled hunting, trapping and fishing, with a growing population of people, was not sustainable, the Model was developed, not so that large carnivores could be protected, that would dominate the landscape, putting people at risk and contributing to scarcity among many other negative things. No, it was crafted FOR MAN as a means of perpetuating wildlife, including game species, as a resource for man…PERIOD. Get over it.

Because New Science scientists want to change the way wildlife management is discussed and carried out to suit their personal and political agendas, they first had to make up their “science” that suggests, hunting and utilizing a natural resource is unnecessary and runs contrary to “modern science.” With that firmly in their grasp, then they can go about writing articles like this one, attempting to convince people that hunting causes the eradication of species, when in fact, it does just the opposite. While perhaps not a perfect model, it certainly has sustained hunting, trapping and fishing for millions of people, for many decades, while at the same time, has grown and provided wildlife species to numbers never before seen in this country. Wildlife Watching was never a business until recently. Don’t be fooled into thinking watchable wildlife comes from predator protection.

The word “science” may be tossed around as a way to deceive people but historic fact is difficult to refute. The article in reference states that the North American Model, “becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters.” The only ones who find complexity in this long-proven model of wildlife management are those that want to protect all large carnivores, even at the expense of man predators. To hunters, there’s nothing complex about it at all. Man is a predator that cannot and should not be removed from the scientific process of wildlife management. Man doesn’t want other predators robbing them of a valuable resource. It’s insanity to think otherwise. That’s why we walk upright and animals don’t.

Share

Regurgitated Lies and Gobbledygook

Guest post by James Beers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Beers
8 July 2014

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

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

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

Share

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

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

Share

Forcing Humans to “Coexist” With Large Carnivores

*Editor’s Note* – Some changes to this are being considered.

“Since its creation in 1995 the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE)1 has worked towards the achievement of a vision “To maintain and restore, in coexistence with people, viable populations of large carnivores as an integral part of ecosystems and landscapes across Europe”. Now we are firmly in the 21st century and the context of large carnivore conservation in Europe has developed considerably due to many expansions and some contractions in carnivore distributions and massive changes in social, economic and political situations across the continent. We therefore see a clear need to make the details of this vision more explicit. This builds on the series of policy support statements that have been made over the last 10 years, and the principles for population level management2 that were developed in 2008, as well as other policies developed by other IUCN specialist groups such as the IUCN Policy on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources.”<<<Read More>>>

Share