A guest post by Jim Beers

*Editor’s Note* – The following article is a direct response to information provided in a news article from KRWG.org, “Settlements Reached to Protect Mexican Gray Wolves.” Out of professional courtesy, I will not post the article here. I can only provide a link to the original article. To better understand Jim Beers’ response, I suggest you read the article first as his response is directed at specific comments made in the “Settlement” article.

TRANSLATION –

1.) Arizona and New Mexico are but the most recent communities to stand alone before federal bureaucrats and radicals intent on forcing wolves into ever-widening rural areas for their nefarious purposes.

2.) Just as the federal government has been using the Mexican government to destroy the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution (Fast and Furious gun smuggling, federal pols bemoaning how Mexico’s incredible barbarity and lawlessness is due to “American guns”, using this as a pretext for secretly negotiating a UN TREATY to confiscate American guns, and even giving the President of Mexico a speech platform before our Congress to whine for and demand gun control in the US!): so too is the Mexican government (with all the killings, corruption and poverty rampant throughout the country) spending money and time “releasing endangered Mexican gray wolves a few dozen miles south of the border”? If that doesn’t stink of AMERICAN bureaucrats and radicals working with foreign powers to destroy American freedoms and rights as spelled out in our Constitution, I don’t know what does. Their role model must be the late Mr., now MS Chelsea, Manning and they deserve no less than he/she.

3.) Who will stand with Arizona and New Mexico? Colorado, one of the “Southern Rockies’ States” so coveted by federal wolf bureaucrats and radicals has gone off the deep end and sees wolves like they do a gun-free state where trees die only from fire, cattle are soon to be banned, and rural folks will only get what is due them. Utah, another Southern Rockies State was AWOL in the Montana/Idaho wolf war as an ally while trying to emulate Wyoming’s unique political backbone and save their own state’s hide. The only trouble was Utah has a record of fighting admirably for its own interests (their current efforts to gain ownership of federal lands in Utah is such an effort) and added to all the retirees from elsewhere flooding S Utah, like Nevada, politics are taking a Progressive turn as Progressives increasingly occupy the S areas to be “wolved” at first while they are increasingly gaining a political foothold in the Northern urban areas. Texas, a “borderland”, like Utah usually stands alone, and while they project a Conservative State’s Rights persona, the voters of spots like Austin, Houston and Dallas are no place to look for allies as Mexico releases wolves S of Big Bend where wolf food and local tolerance for wolves is similar to Muslim Brotherhood interest in “dialoguing” with Coptic Christians. The wolves will head N into Texas despite the public back-down recently by federal “wolvers” when Texans (especially the goat and sheep men) raised Hades. When the wolves cross the Rio Grande and are “discovered” on some goat carcass or some pile of sheep recently chased and asphyxiated; the feds and “state guys” will HAVE to protect them. Then while they reproduce and begin covering the state like fire ants the Brie and Chardonnay will flow in the radical’s offices on K Street and the ritzy parties on the N Shore of Chicago and the coffee shops in Seattle and Portland will abound with cheery and wide-awake customers. California stand with any other state on anything other than “more” government? Not a chance.

4.) The “Grand Canyon” is like Yellowstone: a large federal enclave where the federal Park Service (and the public and every federal politician) will, metaphorically, go to the ramparts to prevent ANY wolf management or control. Once wolves infest the Grand Canyon Park, the bureaucrats and radicals are confident that no matter what happens around the Park, they can maintain wolves in the Park much like they maintained buffalo for decades in Yellowstone Park despite brucellosis, broken fences and other harms outside the Park and a running conflict with neighboring states.

5.) Now for the most transparent “Translation” of all. The sentence “Research suggests such conflicts are better dealt with through changes in animal husbandry that reduce the likelihood that wolves and livestock will come into contact.” should be readily understood to anyone following this wolf issue in the most casual manner.

– “Research” is code for propaganda generated by radical wolf professionals, self-serving bureaucrats and tenured professors seeking bonuses and more graduate students. It’s worth, since it is bought and paid for and generated by persons interested ONLY in expanding wolf presence and federal power over rural America in the broadest sense and NOT in either Constitutional government or human society. Beyond stacking it with a Sears catalog and corn cobs in the little “house” out back, it is worthless.

– “Suggests” is a meaningless word in the context of government power plus no one will ever be held responsible for “suggesting” something. It is a perfect “weasel” word.

– “Conflicts” is a soft word (like wolf “bite” and shark “encounter”, etc.) to describe the effort to remove or silence ranchers, grazers, rural businesses, Local governments, rural parents and other rural residents that will be harmed – even after those doing Gaia’s work with wolves have done all they can to “resolve” the “conflicts.

– “Better Dealt with”: better than what? Better than productive and profitable animal husbandry (i.e. raising cattle, sheep, goats, alpacas, chickens, rabbits, etc., etc.)? Better than the sort of animal husbandry (small flocks and rare small herds and boxed up near homes) that is merely subsistence and not productive and profitable as in Asia and other spots where they MUST (of necessity) LIVE WITH WOLVES? Better than killing destructive wolves as opposed denying their harm and telling ranchers and others like hunters to “like it or lump it”?

– “Changes in animal husbandry” is, as they say in business meetings, the bottom line. “Changes” means steadily eliminating as in buying out and closing grazing allotments; as in promising “compensation” and then spending a few years questioning “what” killed the animals (we all know how rural folks lie and secretly believe old superstitions) until the federal and then state money runs out since the rancher/grazer had time to “adjust” but failed to do so; as in shrugging when 176 sheep are killed in one flock in one night or when calf losses make owners quit ranching and finding no buyer stupid enough to buy a place with high losses commits suicide leaving the property a “bargain” for federal realtors and their partners over at The Nature Conservancy.

– Finally, “Reduce the likelihood that wolves and livestock will come in contact” is an attempt at humor by humorless radicals and bureaucrats. The conflict between wolves and livestock will only go away when there is either NO WOLVES or NO LIVESTOCK. Which one do you think these radicals and bureaucrats are for?

Which one are you for?

Jim Beers
28 August 2013

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