July 16, 2019

Seeking Felony Charges for Poaching?

*Editor’s Note* – Missing from the below quote and the entire article linked to, is that another result of a “felony” rap for poaching, is the right to have a gun. Now, don’t go flying off the handle before you hear me out.

Throw the book at poachers. Each state needs to decide the penalties for poaching. If Minnesota wants longer jail terms and heftier fines, then go nuts. Leave it in the state’s hands and discretion. Few people want lesser punishment for poaching.

But consider if you will, the times in which we live. As unfortunate as it might be, my first reaction when I read that the governor’s proposal was to up the charges for “certain” offenses that, “unlawfully take animals above a restitution value…” was one of distrust of government, gray areas, interpretations and lawyers.

A simple read through this article, it’s pretty easy to read it and say, “Damn right! Throw the book at these poachers!” And rightly that should be the case.

For me, I have no confidence in any government, especially a government led by a crook and an idiot (that’s Obama today. Who will it be tomorrow?) who wants to disarm the people and will use any tactic to do it. I could smell a rat here. The rat could and probably would, monkey with these laws in order to turn poaching into another means of gun control/disarmament.

Color me untrustworthy, but with the most corrupt government in existence today, and little faith it is going to get better any time soon, Minnesotans need to be careful what they ask for.

The governor’s request is to take gross violations of game and fish harvest laws from gross misdemeanor offenses to felony offenses. That changes the following: Potential jail time goes from up to a year to a year or more. Fines go from $2,000 to $3,000. Game and fish licenses could be revoked for up to 10 years.

Source: Amp up fines to stop flagrant poaching

Share

Senate Panel Backs Bill to End ESA Protection of Wolves in 4 States, and Prohibit Court Interference

A Senate committee has approved a Republican amendment to strip federal protection from gray wolves in three Great Lakes states and Wyoming. The measure also prohibits courts from intervening in those states on behalf of the embattled predator.

Source: Senate panel backs bill to drop wolf protections in 4 states, including Michigan

FingerinDyke

Share

Devil Dog 

*Editor’s Note* – The article states that, “If you see any coyotes, haze them—yell, clap or bang pots and pans together, creating loud noises to scare the coyotes away.” That tactic may work once or twice but coyotes aren’t as dumb as people. They soon figure out that such hazing techniques have no real consequences. A bullet would be a form of permanent hazing – sure to teach them not to do that again.

An urban coyote in Minnesota is jumping fences and attacking pets. Five dogs are dead already.

Source: Devil Dog | SportingClassicsDaily

Share

Wolves may be off endangered species list – again

A U.S. House appropriations bill quietly directs the Secretary of the Interior to take Minnesota’s gray wolves off the endangered species list. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Mn., is calling the effort “tremendous overreach.”

Source: Wolves may be off endangered species list – again | Capitol View | Minnesota Public Radio News

Share

Minnesota: Why a Deer Management Audit Will Prove Nothing

DoeDeerYesterday I posted a link to a news article from Minnesota where it appears enough hunters pestered the state’s legislature long enough to prompt them to cave in to an audit on how the fish and game department there makes decisions pertaining to deer management.

In the article that I linked to, a few things were stated that should be red flags for those who exerted enough effort to get the legislature to act. I wonder if others can see these flags.

It is my belief, based only on the information that can be taken from this news article, that any audit, as it appears will happen, is designed for failure before it starts. Here’s why.

First, is that this call for an audit of how the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), is now being prompted by “government-as-usual.” Government is usual and does little for the people or their concerns. Aside from the fact that members of this government know nothing about deer management, how can they conduct an honest assessment to determine if there actually exist problems within the MDNR’s management plans? Which brings me to the other issues.

The article states the following:

Specifically, the audit will likely examine the following questions:

— How does DNR estimate and monitor Minnesota’s deer population, and how do these methods compare with other estimation and monitoring approaches?

— How does DNR establish the state’s deer population goals, and how does this compare with methods used by other states?

— To what extent do DNR’s deer population goals reflect an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests?(emphasis added)

If we look at the issue of “how do these methods compare with other states,” the assumption is being made here that “other states” do it right. Do they? Isn’t this an example of blind faith in a system designed for outcome-based wildlife management goals from others with little or no interest, and sometimes outright opposition to, managing deer for surplus harvest, i.e the interests of hunters?

One has to have their head buried in the sand to not see the evolution of what once was fish and game management to what is collectively, through central control, labeled department of natural resources – removing any and all reference to “game.”

All fish and wildlife/natural resource departments today are heavily infiltrated with biologists, administrators and wildlife managers trained to think beyond the normal paradigm of the North American Model of Wildlife Management. It has been openly stated that their goal is to change the way America approaches fish and wildlife management. Therefore, today, most all fish and wildlife departments have devised deer management plans that do not necessary manage for hunters surplus harvest but to manage deer according to the whims of social demands.

This is revealed to us in the third part of what the article states as something that will be specifically looked at with this audit: “…deer population goals reflect an appropriate balance between stakeholder interests.”

Deer management is a scientific endeavor and should not be, nor should it have ever become, a means of performing a balancing act between social entity’s demands with varying personal ideologies and what science should be dictating.

However, even the science has changed. It is what is now referred to as post-normal and by some as romance biology. Disguised as science, the demands of socialists, through central command, have taken over fish and game management. While hunters still fund the process, socialists get their demands met and the hunters, all to often, do not.

What Minnesota is looking at, is a government bureaucracy, that knows nothing about deer management, seeking comparisons of other government bureaucracies that are all cut from the same cloth. In addition, it appears as though any conclusions that might come out of such an audit will be mostly influenced by the demands of social groups and little to do with science or American heritage and tradition.

In short, it appears to me that the government is placating the hunters because they already know the result of any audit will be only what they desire it to be. Hunters in Minnesota should not get their hopes up very high. While we should all congratulate the hunters for their efforts to at least rattle the cages of law makers, most of whom believe themselves to be a cut above everybody else, it is too bad that included in this demand for an audit wasn’t the desire to seek answers for what is good for the hunting heritage of Minnesota and not how Minnesota looks in comparison to other states.

Share

Legislative auditor will examine Minnesota’s deer population management | Star Tribune

Minnesota’s deer population management program will be audited this year by the state’s Legislative Auditor — a move pushed by some deer hunters critical of the Department of Natural Resources deer management

Source: Legislative auditor will examine Minnesota’s deer population management | Star Tribune

Share

Moose Ticks Have Always Been Here…Or Have They?

WinterTicksFew will disagree that the moose tick, aka, winter tick (dermacentor albipictus) can be a problem and that an over-abundance kills moose. The claim I have heard for many years is that the moose tick has always been around. Has it? Is making the statement using “around” an honest depiction of more important site specificity? What also concerns me about such statements is that it gives people cause to throw up their hands as if to say that there is nothing that can be done about it now. That may be true, but if there is any hope of trying to discover whether there is some kind of effective cure, isn’t it important to have a complete understanding of this tick?

It is basic knowledge that when any specie of animal exists in abundance or is forced into living in close quarters, disease becomes prevalent. The only way a disease can become prevalent in any species, as I just described, is that somehow that disease, parasite, virus, worm, etc. had to have been introduced, or that it already existed.

Being that we are living in a post-normal or post-scientific world, the dishonest answer to everything is climate change, i.e. global warming. While moose populations in Maine have, until the last couple of years, been increasing in large quantities, this reality flies in the face of global warming arguments that because of a warming climate in Maine moose should be migrating out of the area. Doesn’t seem to be the case. This discussion isn’t necessarily about global warming. I bring it up because it is NOT an explanation that helps to discover facts about moose and winter ticks. These ticks live in the Yukon and the same ticks live in Texas.

From a science institution’s perspective, there can never be studies enough on anything. To go along with that, we humans have had our little brains manipulated in such a way that our response to far too many issues has become to demand a study or a working group to talk about it. Studies mean money and money means more incomplete studies in order that there be more demand for more studies. Very unfortunate.

Working groups are useless and a complete waste of time. Over the years I have seen them be created, propaganda presented, and absolutely nothing getting accomplished.

Having said all this, then shouldn’t we question every time someone wants more studies and form more working groups? After all, it is OUR money. We should demand results…real results.

People in Maine want to know if ticks are really killing the moose. This is the same in New Hampshire and Minnesota. New Hampshire and Minnesota insist the problem is global warming. Global warming, in their wee bit of brains, is what is the cause of what they believe to be an increase in dermacentor albipictus.

We are also, perhaps incorrectly, told that these winter ticks don’t survive in cold climates and yet moose love cold climates and seem to be the one species most effected by the tick. If the winter tick doesn’t like cold climates, then why are these same tick regularly found in The Yukon? And in Texas?

One thing we all must understand, moose suck at grooming themselves. It is helpful knowledge to understand that because moose don’t groom themselves, like lots of other wild and domestic animals, they carry around more ticks. We should be able to reasonably conclude that moose are more greatly effected by the ticks than other ungulates, because they are poor groomers.

Another fact that is seldom discussed is which other animals play host to dermacentor albipictus? Here’s a few to add to your list: elk, caribou, deer, feral swine, wolves, coyotes, cattle and horses. In order to understand how to deal with the moose tick we need to understand other hosts and how the tick is spread. Bear in mind that elk and caribou migrate, sometimes over many, many miles. We know over the years feral swine are spreading all over the United States.

But, consider this fact. According to Gabriele Liebisch, Arndt Liebisch, Stephan Paufler in a study, a horse was transported by plane to Germany from Montana:

Already on arrival at the airport of Amsterdam about 30 fully engorged ticks dropped off the horse, and during the following 4 days in the stable in Germany more than 200 engorged ticks were collected. The tick species was identified as Dermacentor albipictus, which is also called ‘winter tick’.

This study refers to this tick as “New World Tick” because it is a different species than what might be found in Germany. Germany has moose but not necessarily the same problem with the tick and the moose…yet.

Other things found in studies already completed that should be considered, involve the feral swine. In a study published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, and published on BioOne, feral hogs found in New Hampshire were tested. Remember New Hampshire blames their problem with ticks on global warming.

The expansion of feral swine (Sus scrofa) populations into new geographic regions is of concern not only due to increased range but also because they carry diseases and parasites that pose a threat to humans, livestock, and wildlife into new areas. Recently, emerging feral swine populations have been reported in the northeastern US and due to their adaptive nature will likely continue to spread. During 2009–2012, 49 feral swine were removed from three counties in New Hampshire.

Infestations of winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) were also documented on two of the feral swine which had only been reported previously on feral swine in Texas. Feral swine may not only serve as an important host for an economically important commercial swine pathogen like PRV, but they could also increase host diversity for parasites such as the winter tick, a species that can regionally impact moose (Alces alces) survival.

There’s more. I had already mentioned that these winter ticks were found in the Yukon. Published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, a study on the origins of dermacentor albipictus, showed that perhaps the tick might have hitched a ride to the Yukon.

Winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) on elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) have recently increased in numbers in the Yukon, Canada, potentially posing risks to other indigenous host species in the region.

Based on our results, winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could have originated either by translocation from central Alberta or by northward range expansion of more geographically proximate populations in northern Alberta and British Columbia. Although there was some genetic structuring of winter ticks on different hosts in the same region, we found little evidence of host specificity in winter ticks from five ungulate host species, suggesting that the winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could potentially become established on other locally available host species such as moose (Alces alces).

While on the subject of referencing existing studies, consider that some scientists find that climate and weather have less effect on the growth and reduction of ticks than others believe.

With this knowledge in hand, can we ask for a more definitive response to the origins of the moose tick than it’s always been around? Maybe it hasn’t always been around. Maybe it was brought into your state or region from someplace else or migrated there.

In reading all of this information, wildlife biologists, along with parasitologists, should be asking whether or not it is a good and responsible practice to allow for the over protection of wild species and seek perhaps a better control over human translocation of wild and domestic animals.

Just maybe what is also being realized here are some of the effects of practicing an ignorant, romantic notion of “balance of nature” where nature magically creates a healthy ecosystem where nothing is wrong. With continued and prolonged efforts to protect wild animal species at high levels, are we not promoting the spread of disease, including winter ticks? Nature allows for regulation via disease, starvation and cannibalism. The result is scarcity which is irresponsible stewardship of wildlife and benefits no human. It is the worst of all choices.

Instead of just throwing some grant money at another study to try to find out if ticks are killing moose, why not practice some good, old-fashioned, hard work and research of the information that is available. I don’t want to have somebody else tell me ticks are killing moose. I know they are. What I’m interested in is finding out if there’s a scientific (real scientific) answer for why there appears to be more ticks and how to stop them before more devastation occurs. It seems to me that nobody has a handle on this necessary information. The only cry is about global warming. Get over it!

If there’s more ticks because there’s too many moose, the solution is simple – we need to kill more moose. If the cause is due to translocation of ticks from outside the region, then let’s stop it. Finding the truth is what’s important. Global warming theory is NOT truth. Spending money to see whether or not ticks are killing moose is akin to spending money to discover if snow is cold.

Share

Feds Start Killing Wolves Killing Livestock

“A federal program to remove problem wolves from Minnesota farms has resumed operation after the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the state came up with the necessary funds.

Federal trappers began responding to depredation complaints this week. They can trap and kill wolves they believe have killed or attacked livestock.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

To Kill Minnesota Wolves Killing Livestock

More damned insanity! We spend gobs of money on efforts to protect an animal that doesn’t need protecting, and then we spend gobs of money to kill an animal that’s killing livestock. This makes about as much sense as everything that the damned government creates. Maybe the solution would be to make government extinct!

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., announced a cooperative effort Wednesday between the U.S. and Minnesota ag departments to fund an effort to help livestock producers in northern Minnesota who have been losing sheep and cattle to wolves.

The predator-control program has often run out of money over the years. Under the effort, the federal government carries out the trappings and provides technical expertise through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Grand Rapids.

The trappings will take place in problem areas where farmers or ranchers have been losing their livestock.<<<Read More>>>

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