August 18, 2019

“Experts” Say Wolves in Great Lakes Not Endangered

*Editor’s Note* – From my perspective, Dr. David Mech was instrumental in the reintroduction of wolves and the nationwide protection of them. In interviews and statements he has made, he admitted to effectively lying about wolves in order to get wolves living in everyone’s back yard. Now that they are here and nothing short of declared war will rid the landscape of wolves, it’s easy for him to make statements about wolves, hunting and trapping, without jeopardizing his pet projects. Especially if it means more research money to pad his coffers. Amazing!

“In a conference call organized by the International Wolf Center in Ely, regional wolf experts including David Mech of the U.S. Geological Survey in Minnesota, who’s vice chair of the center, said hunting and trapping as it was regulated by the three states did not threaten the species’ survival.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Sandy Hook Families Sue Gun Manufacturer

Can it get any more absurd?

“Family members of some of the victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., have filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the rifle used by the gunman to kill 26 people.

“The lawsuit filed on behalf of 10 victims claims that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle never should have been sold to the public because it is a military weapon.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Anti-Hunting Group’s Actions Carry a High Cost for MEDIFW & Maine’s Economy

Press Release from Save Maine’s Bear Hunt:

Augusta, Maine- In a shocking move, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting has decided to appeal a recent decision to deny a temporary restraining order that sought to muzzle the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife from informing the public about the risks behind Question 1.

“Justice Wheeler’s decision could not have been more definitive, noting that statutory language explicitly directs the Department to advocate its positions regarding bear management,” said James Cote, Campaign Manager for the Save Maine’s Bear Hunt/NO on 1 Campaign. “This is nothing more than frivolous court filing to generate headlines. They didn’t get their way last Friday in court, so they’ve decided to drag our incredibly experienced professionals at MEDIFW through the mud. I think Maine people will see right through that type of Beltway political strategy.”

The irony is that while the Washington DC -financed Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting objects to the use of any taxpayer dollars connected with Question 1, the endless lawsuits and motions and requests for information have cost the department tens of thousands of dollars and countless labor hours.

“The information that the proponents have requested consists of tens of thousands of files that is taking the Department well over 500 hours to sort through,” explained Cote. “And all of this is nothing more than a fishing expedition in a fading hope they will find useful information to attack Maine’s bear experts.”

If the public is concerned about the money being spent on this campaign, all eyes should be on Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting. More than 98 percent of their money is coming from the Humane Society of the United States in Washington DC, the organization that is trying to buy this election based on emotion, not facts, to further their national anti-hunting agenda.

“The money being spent by HSUS to buy this election is unprecedented and insulting. They are spending millions to eliminate the most effective methods of controlling our bear population and threatening hundreds of jobs and small businesses— almost $53 million in economic impact,” said Cote. “We don’t think Maine voters will let a Washington DC special interest group buy this election. Vote No on Question 1.”

Share

Wyoming Considers Delisting Wolves the Way Idaho and Montana Got Theirs Done

Yes, the precedent was set when certain members of Congress attached a “rider” bill to a Congressional budget bill in 2011 that put wolves in Idaho and Montana off the Endangered Species Act List, also providing a clause that disallowed any legal challenges. Was it the right thing to do? Was it the best thing to do? You decide.

But because it appeared at the time that it was the only way anybody was going to get beyond unrelenting, oppressive lawsuits to get some kind of control over a rapidly growing wolf population, the action of attaching a rider to a budget bill resulted in “delisted” wolves and something that sort of resembles wolf control.

At the time of the rider bill fiasco, Idaho and Montana tossed Wyoming under the proverbial bus leaving them to fend for themselves to gain management over wolves. Wyoming was successful in time but only for awhile, until a Washington, D.C. judge ruled in a recent lawsuit that Wyoming’s wolf management plan was inadequate for further and sufficient protection of the gray wolf. Now Wyoming’s gray wolf population is back under federal protection and Wyoming government and citizens are frustrated because they did everything necessary to gain approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Now it appears that some legislators in Wyoming are considering taking the route Idaho and Montana did in 2011, and getting wolves delisted for good and to put a stop, once and for all, to the rash of continued, money-making lawsuits.

“I think we have to consider legislative action now. I don’t see any other recourse,” said U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis. “We have done everything the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asked of us and more.”

In revealing some of her frustration, Lummis said that it seems that no matter what Wyoming has done, it’s never enough.

“The fact is that no matter what we do and no matter how successful we are at recovering the wolf, certain groups remain unsatisfied and unwilling to accept victory,” Lummis said. “Now it is time to pursue a legislative solution.”

Whether you agree or disagree that attaching a bill to a larger congressional bill, or creating stand-alone legislation, is the right way to go, one has to consider the corner that environmental and animal rights groups have put the rest of citizenry in. Historically, the majority of outdoor sportsmen, landowners, ranchers, etc. are not the protesting sort of people, looking to take every person who looks at them funny, to court and/or insisting the rest of the world live like they do. Environmentalists and their ilk are. Maybe the environmentalists should reconsider where to draw their dictatorial lines in the sand.

A lawyer for Earthjustice doesn’t like the idea of congressional action to stop the lawsuits.

“There are always situations where people in specific areas want to get exceptions from the act for their own localized interests,” Preso said. “But that doesn’t serve the interest of the nation as a whole, which is blessed with an incredible wildlife heritage that still exists today largely as a result of the Endangered Species Act.”

Perhaps Preso should have considered that before running to the activist judges for help making money. Serious argument could be made as to any actions his organization has done has proven to “serve the interest of the nation as a whole.”

Preso also states that we enjoy “incredible wildlife” because of the Endangered Species Act. I, and I know there are thousands more, who would rightfully say that we enjoy this wildlife despite the ESA, but more importantly in spite of fascists organizations like his.

Share

Radical Groups Intend to Sue Idaho to Protect Canada Lynx

LynxintrapThe usual suspects, those lust-after wolf perverts at the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater, plan to do what they do best and sue the State of Idaho believing they are protecting the Canada lynx. These three groups will get what they want and probably more. My advice to Idaho is to just sit down and work out a plan that will essentially stop just about all trapping in lynx habitat. Going to court is a winless battle and a waste of money.

Gasp! I’m sure I will hear from the trappers and the haters of the environmentalist greedy pigs who lust more for money than saving any kind of wildlife, wanting to know why I am saying this. Just look at what happened in Maine. And where is Maine now in their trapping issues and how it pertains to protecting the Canada lynx? It is just surprising that Idaho has gotten away without making changes in their trapping regulations that are believed to help protect the lynx.

First, readers should understand that the Canada lynx, like the gray wolf, like the polar bear and God only knows how many other species romance, back-seat biologists cry out to protect, are not in any danger of being threatened, endangered, or extirpated. But in this day and age of new-science scientist and romance biologists, barking like underfed canines themselves, demanding “new understandings” and a “shift in paradigms” is there any wonder science and reality have absolutely nothing anymore to do with wildlife management. It’s about sick and often perverted dreams of “coexisting” with nasty animals. Best Available Science has become best romantic model.

So, then, what is it about? Mostly it’s about ignorance and what we see is the result of years of planned brainwashing. Is there any other explanation for human behavior that is……well, not human?

The real travesty in all of this is that either there is no real intent to protect the Canada lynx or the ignorance, the result of an inability to think beyond the next lawsuit, cannot fathom that while these environmentalist groups (and by God please let’s stop calling them “conservationists.” They just are not that at all.) wrongly believe that ecosystems would “balance” themselves if man would butt out, they themselves butt in like man does to change what is naturally happening. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

The cry is for wolves to be forced back into places they once lived a hundred and more years ago, with no consideration of the changes to the landscape in 100 years, while disregarding history. The perverse belief that wolves are magical and will create this fabricated “trophic cascade” of Nirvanic spender simply by existing will make everything a miracle or two, like the Candy Man can.

With the absence of critical thinking, it appears none of these shallow thinkers comprehends what competes with the Canada lynx and places it in greater danger of being run out of or killed off in Idaho. Because of the inbred hatred of the existence of the human species, they believe it is only humans that cause wildlife problems. Irrational thoughts of balanced wildlife proportions prevents them from existing in reality and therefore no thought is given to the fact that the wolves they long to protect and protect and protect some more, until everyone has 1 or 12 living in their back yard, kills far more Canada lynx than does a handful of trappers and yet the focus becomes the outrage that three lynx were incidentally captured in traps in the past two years. Two lynx were released unharmed and a third was shot by a trapper thinking the animal was a bobcat.

The “new understanding” and the “paradigm shifts” perpetuated by new-science scientism is this: Man is evil. Get rid of man and ecosystems will flourish and be in balance. However, the radicals can interfere in the management of all wildlife providing it is done their way.

There is no escape. Maine went to court over Canada lynx and the trappers lost; so did the lynx. The trappers always lose. But Maine had a way out. The Courts gave them a way out. Maine operates under a consent agreement, which is probably what Idaho will end up under. The judge in the Maine case said the terms of the consent agreement would remain in affect until such time that the state obtains an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). That was over 5 years ago and Maine has failed miserably in not pushing the USFWS for a permit. Such a permit would stop these kinds of lawsuits but bear in mind that the USFWS, an agency riddled with new-science scientists and balance of nature perverts, is going to place such ridiculous restrictions on trapping in order to get a permit, that the restrictions essentially end trapping.

As a good friend recently stated, it’s impossible to fight against a rigged system. The entire wildlife management industry is simply one small part of a corrupt and rigged system, enabled by “True Believers” and useful idiots with zero knowledge or understanding that they fight for all those things that are against them. Does that make any sense?

If it was suggested that we protect all predators and all animals at all costs and begin killing off the only problem these sick people think exists – humans, that they would do it? Do they not see this is precisely what they are asking for? Do they not realize that they are humans too? Do these same people believe the lie of protecting a desert tortoise is so valuable it is worth the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one man and his family? The potential exists here for something more costly.

It’s a rigged system and the system is so large, few can see it.

Share

Suing to Protect “Wilderness” Wolves is Hypocrital Nonsense

FrankChurch*Update* – January 13, 2014, 3:45 p.m. Scroll to bottom of page.

Recently the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG), along with the U.S. Forest Service, provided for a person to go into the Frank Church River of no Return Wilderness for the purpose of eliminating 2 of the 6 packs of wolves living there. The major reason given is that too many wolves are destroying too many elk.

Environmentalists are having a fit and have launched a lawsuit to stop the action claiming that because the Frank Church is designated “wilderness” it is, “supposed to be a wild place governed by natural conditions…” Is that a justifiable statement and one that has been adhered to?

In 1980, the U.S. Congress designated 2.367-million acres in Central Idaho as Wilderness and later in 1984 named this the Frank Church River of no Return Wilderness. According to the National Park Service, part of the definitions provided in the “Wilderness Act” of “wilderness” is, “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Surely it would be difficult to argue that upon designation of any “wilderness” areas in any U.S. held territories, it is impossible to find any areas of land where man has not been, at least to some extent. Therefore, upon creation of a label, to be placed on a piece of land as “wilderness”, how can it be truly wilderness, even by definition of “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain?” It obviously can’t be and so a starting point must be established.

For the Frank Church, that starting point was in 1980. The Wilderness Act further defines wilderness as, “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions . . . ”

Natural condition? What is a “natural condition” and by whose standards and perspective does a “natural condition” exist? The Wilderness Act further defines “natural condition” as, “generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” Two arguments could be made from this one statement: 1.) Perhaps the Frank Church didn’t qualify for wilderness designation because according to some, man left his imprint by killing off the wolves many decades ago. I would consider that substantial when you consider the destruction wolves cause, and 2.) If Congress see to it that the Frank Church did qualify as a wilderness, then, was man’s imprint responsible for killing off the wolves in that area? Again, that’s substantial. If not, then didn’t man mess up and further expand his imprint by introducing wolves? When does this all end? Or does it and can it be due to the wording of yet another vague act that leads us to believe that all are designed for lawyers and somebody’s profit margins.

If we abide by the premise that at the point the Frank Church was designated a “wilderness”, nothing should change from the best possible scenario of it being in a “natural condition” at that moment in time. From that time man should not “trammel” the wilderness and that man should be nothing more than a visitor.

It appears that from the perspective of some environmentalists, they want the wolves, wilderness and “trammeling”, I suppose thinking that so long as they can create the wilderness as they believe it once was, or should be, right or wrong they are abiding by the contents of the “Wilderness Act.” However, when anyone else, that is those who are not “all in” with protecting wolves at any and all costs, attempts to manage or manipulate the “natural condition” of the Frank Church, they deserve to be stopped by filing a lawsuit.

I’m not sure that the Wilderness Act states that an area of land will be designated a wilderness as soon as it is returned to its “natural condition”; and when was the very first “natural condition?” And what was that condition? In addition, does the Wilderness Act also state that every effort, or even any effort, should be made to restore a “wilderness” to someone’s perceived notion of what it was like back when…….when…..well, I don’t know when. I guess someone with the money and power gets to decide and thus the lawsuit.

For the sake of rational discourse, let’s say that on the day that the Frank Church became “wilderness”, the state that this wilderness was in was officially recognized at “natural condition.” From this point forward, no more “trammeling”, only visitation rights by man in a limited fashion, no more development, and there is to be a management process that keeps the wilderness in a “natural condition.”

If we accept that premise, then wasn’t the Wilderness Act violated when it was decided in January of 1994 when 4 wolves were released at Corn Creek on the edge of the Frank Church and again in January of 1996 when 20 wolves were dumped at Dagger Falls, also at the edge of the Frank Church? Clearly the intent of releasing the wolves here was in hopes that they would move into the Frank Church and set up housekeeping. And did those who released the wolves know they couldn’t dump the wolves directly into the Frank Church? Or did they do it anyway? Some believe they did.

Even if we are willing to accept the notion that releasing wolves into the Frank Church was a management process that somehow kept the Frank Church in a “natural condition”, then how can it be denied that man is necessary for the proper management of wildlife? How can it then be said the IDFG has no right to manage the rest of the wildlife in that wilderness? It makes no sense.

If man became necessary in a “wilderness” area, by the wishes of those involved with wolf introduction, to introduce wolves, then how can one honestly argue that man is not necessary in a “wilderness” area to manage other species such as elk? Isn’t the survival of the elk part of the “natural condition?” If it’s not, then neither was introducing wolves. Perhaps “natural condition” is never stable.

The “natural condition” of the Frank Church was determined on the day the U.S. Congress designated the 2.367-million acres “wilderness.” That “natural condition,” by definition of the Wilderness Act, was violated on the day wolves were introduced into the Frank Church area. Are we now supposed to redefine Frank Church’s “natural condition” on the whims of environmentalists whose main objective is to make as much money as they can suing the government?

If one wants to make the argument that now that wolves are in the Frank Church, this begins a new “natural condition” starting point, then the same argument can be made that killing some wolves in order to protect the “natural condition” starting point prior to wolf introduction, is just as necessary and viable.

And this is much the hypocrisy we see on an everyday basis with environmentalist and animal rights groups; they want their cake and eat it too. When they don’t get their way they sue.

I have my doubts as to the real motives of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG). While some are congratulating the effort to hire a trapper to go into the Frank Church and kill wolves to save elk, I’m more of the skeptic who still finds it difficult to believe that a zebra can change his stripes. Has anyone considered the possibility that IDFG’s actions play into the hands of the environmentalists? That these groups want or need a reason to sue, to make more money to bring more lawsuits to protect their wolves, and on and on it goes? Certainly this is not a new idea!

As with the Endangered Species Act, it is so poorly defined allowing lawyers to twist and manipulate, now are we to expect these same environmentalist crooks to manipulated the Wilderness Act for profit?

What double standard, hypocrisy nonsense!

*Update* –

From the Seattle PI – http://www.seattlepi.com/news/…

“The conservation groups contend the large-scale removal of wolves contravenes federal 1964 Wilderness Act because it threatens to change the character of the large wilderness area.”

To bolster my article above, if those suing Idaho and the Forest Service claim that “large-scale removal of wolves” from the Frank Church, threatens to “change the character of the large wilderness area,” what in the hell did these morons think introducing wolves INTO the Frank Church was going to do, if not “change the character” of the wilderness that then existed?

Share

More on Wind Turbines Killing Birds

Only a few days ago I shared a link to an article about Duke Energy pleading guilty to killing protected birds and other species with their wind turbines.

The Wall Street Journal (behind a pay wall) carries an article hinting to the demise of the Wind Industry because now a precedent has been set and money paid by a wind energy company to environmentalists for killing birds. Isn’t this what it’s all about? Putting money in the pockets of environmentalists? Isn’t this why the Obama Administration used our tax dollars to subsidize fraudulent wind energy, knowing full well it was a destruction of the environment, in order to put money into the pockets of crooks that helped get him elected? Like there is something new going on here!

The pile of sticks who worship and promote wind energy say that only a few birds are being killed and that it’s climate change that’s killing more animals. Climate change, in this context, has been proven over and over to be a myth and there exists no substantiated, real science that proves this so-called man-caused climate change is killing any animals at all. Even in places where fake scientists, seeking outcome-based results from fake studies, the “experts” have no answer to any wildlife issues, well, that is any they are willing to discuss.

The short of it is, they, the environmental extortionists, lie about climate change and killing animals, for profit, why should we believe them when they say windmills don’t kill many birds. (Wink, wink. Pad those coffers.)

Duke Energy’s wind turbines killed 14 golden eagles. I think that’s more than just a few. And, according to The Wall Street Journal, there currently exists 18 active investigations into allegations that wind turbines are killing wildlife. Surely, some, if not all, of those 18 investigations will lead to lawsuits…..any big money.

After all, there’s money to be harvested and this corruption has gone on forever it seems. What’s next?

firstwindhatesmaine

Share

“Green” Energy Turns Black, Company Pleads Guilty in Windmill Eagle Deaths

WASHINGTON – The government for the first time has enforced environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities, winning a $1 million settlement Friday from a power company that pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms.
click image to enlarge

A golden eagle is seen flying over a wind turbine on Duke Energy’s Top of the World wind farm in Converse County, Wyo., in April. The Obama administration is taking action against wind farms for killing eagles.

The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds. The case against Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Sue-And-Settle Nets Environmentalist Groups Billions

Readers of my work are mostly familiar with the abuses of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Just one of the tactics of abuse of this has been properly established is when environmental groups petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list so many species under protection of the Endangered Species Act, that it is impossible for the USFWS to address all of these requests. Under the rules of EAJA, if the USFWS does not address each request in a timely manner, government coughs up all the legal expenses to the environmental groups. It’s a giant cash cow.

Now we have “Sue-and-Settle”. According to Jillian Kay Melchior at National Review Online, environmentalist groups are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only to have the EPA “settle” the case, therefore bypassing Congressional scrutiny and of course keeping actions out of sight of the public, while blaming the courts.

These environmental groups put together demands for regulations, hundreds of them, and sue the EPA, as allowed by law, to set up such regulations. Once the lawsuits are filed, here’s what National Review Online says happens:

The EPA then settles, negotiating the terms with the environmental groups without including those pesky states or industries sure to be affected by the new regulations. The court approves the consent agreement without analysis, as if it were a simple agreement between private parties. And once a settlement is reached, the court orders the EPA to issue rules according to the terms of its agreement.

Because the EPA is in agreement with the regulations being sued for, instead of fighting against them, they settle. This can only be construed as collusion between governmental and non governmental agencies in pursuit of common agendas.

If this brand of totalitarian suppression isn’t sickening enough, it gets worse. Not only do the new rules get enacted, per order of the court that worked the settlement, but you and I, the taxpayer, pick up the tab.

The costs of implementing these new rules are also paid for with tax money, the amount of which runs deeply into the billions. Should Congress question any of this, the comeback, evidently, is that the courts are forcing the EPA to do this.

Share

RMEF Receives Intervenor Status in Wyoming Wolf Lawsuit, Seeks Same in Another

MISSOULA, Mont.–A U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. granted the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s request to intervene in a lawsuit by animal rights groups seeking to return federal protection to Wyoming’s wolf population. That means the judge will consider RMEF’s arguments in the case. RMEF also filed to intervene in a similar lawsuit regarding Wyoming wolves based in a Cheyenne, Wyo., U.S District Court.

“This matter is no different than the current case in the Great Lakes or past legal cases in the northern Rocky Mountains,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Individual states need to be given the opportunity to manage the wildlife species within their borders. These Wyoming lawsuits seek to frustrate the science-based management plan already laid out and approved by the federal government.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed Wyoming wolves from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in August 2012 with a minimum population estimate at that time of 328 wolves, including 48 packs and 27 breeding pairs. That total included 224 wolves, 36 packs and 19 breeding pairs outside Yellowstone National Park.

A subsequent hunting season led to the harvesting of 42 wolves in the trophy-hunting zone bordering Yellowstone with 26 taken as unprotected predators elsewhere in the state. Wyoming Game and Fish since proposed reducing wolf hunt quotas by half for the 2013 fall season. Wildlife managers must maintain at least 100 wolves, including 10 breeding pair, outside of the Wind River Reservation and Yellowstone.

Addressing the situation, a spokesman for Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, Renny MacKay, stated, “Wolves in Wyoming are clearly recovered. Our management plan is based on the best available science, committing to the sustainability of the wolf population and genetic connectivity in the Northern Rockies. More importantly, our wolf management since delisting has proven the state’s ability and commitment to responsibly manage wolves.”

RMEF has a rich heritage of 26 years of work in Wyoming that includes 514 projects that enhanced or protected more than one million acres. RMEF also made contributions of more than $3.7 million to protect and enhance habitat, manage wildlife, and support conservation and hunting heritage outreach programs in Wyoming.

“RMEF invested nearly $7 million in wildlife research efforts around the country to better understand elk habitat use, population dynamics, predation, habitat management and other such issues. We need to strongly consider and abide by these findings and not frustrate science-based management by allowing these lawsuits to go through. They could affect Wyoming’s elk, deer, moose, wild sheep and other big game species from here on out,” added Allen.

RMEF joins a combination of government and sportsmen organizations including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Wyoming, Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association as defendants. RMEF recently received intervenor status in the Great Lakes region wolf lawsuit.

Share