May 19, 2019

Minnesota Deer Hunters Say DNR Has Wrong Information About Deer Populations

This sounds like the same broken record all over the country. If it ain’t happening where you are, just hang on. It will be soon enough.

“A group of Minnesota hunters say the deer population is in worse shape than the state is letting on.
Minnesota Bowhunters president Brooks Johnson talked about the changing landscape of the deer population as he walked through the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge in Big Lake.
“We’re not asking for a deer behind every tree,” Johnson said.
But Johnson says changes need to happen at the state level in order to restore the deer population in certain areas of the state back to goal levels.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

AZ and NM Want Their Wolves Included in Ribble Bill for Delisting

As I understand things, a bill that is planned to go before the U.S. House of Representatives that would effectively remove gray wolves in Wisconsin, Michigan, Wyoming and Minnesota from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is being crafted as I write. According to some sources, once that bill is ready it will be presented to the House.

There now appears to be a movement underway in Arizona and New Mexico where groups seeking control of wolves in the Southwest want their Congressional representatives to get in on the action and get Mexican wolves in those states included on this bill.

Below is a copy of a letter sent to Rep. Steve Pearce from the Catron County Commission seeking action.

RE: Addition of “Mexican Gray Wolf” to be included with the “Gray Wolf’s” removal from the Endangered Species List Congressman Pearce,

The Catron County Commission requests that you add the “Mexican Gray Wolf” (Canis Lupus Baileyi) into the legislation U.S. Representative Reed Ribble, R-Wis. is preparing to remove the “Gray Wolf” off the Endangered Species List in four States.

U.S. Representative Ribble is leading the effort and the co-sponsors include U.S. Representatives Collin Peterson, D-Minn., Dan Benishek, R-Mich., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.

There has already been severe collateral damage to the citizens of Catron County, County Government and the State of New Mexico in recovery of Mexican Gray Wolves on settled landscapes by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (See attachment A1 Dr. Geist)

Now, with the new 10j rule, Mexican Wolf Recovery will be expanded up to I-40 (eventually beyond) in New Mexico-Arizona and South to the Mexican border. This expansion will take in vast settled landscapes and will have major negative effects on the citizens, pets, businesses, livestock, and wildlife.

All the Mexican wolves that have been released into the Gila Wilderness have moved and gone into areas of human activity. The last wolf pack, the Coronado Pack was released last July, 2014 into the Gila Wilderness. The wolves left the Wilderness recently, entered private property attacking and injuring two dogs. The wolves were hazed back into the Gila Wilderness by the USFWS and the chance of them remaining is questionable.

Congressman Pearce, by taking the Mexican Wolf off the Endangered Species List it will save rural families from losing their homes, businesses and private property rights.

Attached are documents to show the negative effects and collateral damage to achieve Mexican Wolf Recovery on settled landscapes .

Respectfully Submitted,
Glyn Griffin,
Catron County Commission Chair

Attachment A1

Dr. Geist addresses the issue of wolf recovery on settled landscapes

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

Groups Want Sen. Franken to Help in Court Appeal on Wolf Ruling

Several organizations, including the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, have signed a letter urging Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., to encourage Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that returned gray wolves in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin to protected status under the Endangered Species Act.<<<Read More>>>

Share

More Money to Make Claiming Minnesota Moose Affected by Global Warming

In response to the dramatic decline of moose in northeastern Minnesota, over 100 moose were equipped with radio-collars that could alert biologists to the moose’s impending death, allowing biologists to account for the deaths of 35 calves and 19 adults.

– 16 calves (46%) were killed by wolves

– 13 calves (37%) calves died due to mother abandonment. Eleven were caused when the mothers abandoned the calve during the act of attaching the collars, 2 were abandoned later.

– 4 calves (11%) were eaten by bears

– One calf drowned and 1 calf died of unknown causes.

– Of the 19 adults, 10 (53%) were killed directly or indirectly by wolves.

Oddly given those results, biologist received a new $750,000 grant to study the effects of “global warming” on declining moose. I suspect it is politically more convenient to blame declining moose on global warming rather than to blame natural boom and busts, rebounding wolf populations, or researcher induced casualties.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Great Lakes Wolves Returned to Federal Protection

ORDERED that the defendants’ and defendant-intervenor’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that, because the rule Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes (the “Final Rule”), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011), is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., the Final Rule is VACATED and SET ASIDE; and it is further

ORDERED that the rule in effect prior to the Final Rule vacated by this Order, namely, the rule regarding Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota, 43 Fed. Reg. 9607 (Mar. 9, 1978), is REINSTATED to govern management of gray wolves in the nine states affected by the vacated Final Rule, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

<<<Copy of the Complete Ruling>>>

Share

The Shameful Saga of the Minnesota Moose

The following is an Abstract of a scientific research paper “Re-evaluating the northeastern Minnesota moose decline and the role of wolves”.

This research Paper was just published and can be found in The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(7) 1143-1150.

It was conducted and published by none other than Dr. Mech, the retired US Fish and Wildlife Service Wolf authority (still associated with the federal Wildlife research Center in Jamestown, ND and a major player with the August U of Minnesota Raptor Center). His co-author, Mr. Fieberg, is a biologist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

The mind boggles at the “gravitas” here. Mr. Mech, a long-time and current resident of Minnesota is highly revered in Minnesota and known internationally for his lifelong efforts to “bring back” wolves in The Lower 48 States. Dr. Mech resides in Minnesota and is held in as high regard in Minnesota as the latest running back of the Vikings football team. When he authors a paper on Minnesota wolves and Minnesota moose in cooperation with a DNR biologist under the auspices of the University of Minnesota; there can be no greater authorities nor can there be any greater acceptance about the results than had ex-Vikings Coach Bud Grant commented on Vikings football or Hubert Humphrey, rest his soul, commented on the upcoming election.

To the newspaper editors and outdoor writers that have treated me like an idiot for asking them to publicize or at least acknowledge that wolf predation on Minnesota moose was both significant and very likely the #1 reason for the recent decline of moose from a highly sought and profitable Game Animal to a Non-Game Species curiosity; and to the silent DNR and U of Minnesota “scientists” that publicly pooh-poohed the role of wolves in the moose decline and thereby gave encouragement to the general public and said newspaper folks and writers to be amused at my writing and to accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about both verbally to others and in e-mails – Please go to the Abstract at the bottom of this e-mail and read the 2nd sentence (my bold/underlining) of the 4 sentence Abstract.
Others are invited to do the same.

This is not about me: it is about the dithering and politically correctness about fear of offending powerful Minnesota and national environmental extremists and animal rights radicals that will truck NO negative comments about wolves. While this disgraceful diversion about ticks and global warming killing moose was taking place and common sense folks like me and many of those forced to live day in and day out with intolerable wolf densities were marginalized; one more magnificent and highly-prized game animal and hunting tradition disappeared.

Now that what has really been undeniable for years can no longer be denied, I say (without a hint of sarcasm or irony) we will now probably be treated to years of “science” and “the need for more research and money” to find ways to:
1. Control wolf predation without killing wolves.
2. Identify offending wolves and live trap them to train them not to hurt moose.
3. Keep seeing hints of ticks and global warming as being the problem with massive needs for more money for more research that can never be resolved or concluded.
4. Admit finally that the DNR has exhausted all the money generated by hunting license sales and there is no longer any Excise Taxes from the sales of Arms and Ammunition since President Hillary and a Democrat Congress and State government banned lead and then guns.

The loss of moose was as simple to understand as why high free-range cat densities in a suburban enclave might be the cause of the increased paucity of songbirds at suburban birdfeeders. The solution to both the loss of songbirds and the loss of moose is to reduce and keep reduced the densities – and perhaps even the presence of said cats and wolves’ if we prize moose hunts and what they mean or if we and our families enjoy seeing birds at our birdfeeders. Any North Country resident could have told us this years ago but what do they know? They have no initials after their name nor do they have any government sponsors or urban Romance Biology experts at an auspicious University to confirm their views.

ABSTRACT:

We re-evaluated findings from Lenarz et al. (2009) that adult moose (Alces alces) survival in northeastern Minnesota was related to high January temperatures and that predation by wolves (Canis lupus) played a minor role. We found significant inverse relationships between annual wolf numbers in part of the moose range and various moose demographics from 2003 to 2013 that suggested a stronger role of wolves than heretofore believed. To re-evaluate the temperature findings, we conducted a simulation study, mimicking the approach taken by Lenarz et al. (2009), to explore the potential for concluding a significant relationship exists between temperature and survival, when no association exists. We found that the high R2s and low probabilities associated with the regression models in Lenarz et al. (2009) should be viewed cautiously in light of the large number of fitted models (m?=?45) and few observations (n?=?6 for each of 5 response variables).

Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Jim Beers
22 October 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

From When the New York Times Printed Truth

By Jim Beers

The following link to a New York Times article from 1907 should be considered by all those currently living in wolf country; those living in soon-to-be wolf country; and those supporting the forcible use of unjust central power to force wolves on their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Wolf History:

Wolves Killing Deer

The New York Times Published: May 26, 1907
http://tinyurl.com/ku9n5cn

When I try to explain to fellow Minnesotans the role of dense wolf populations on the disappearance of moose and deer, they smirk and sneer. They talk of global warming, ticks, unspecified diseases and the need for more research. Newspapers, Universities (especially the U of Minnesota and the U of Wisconsin that are true hotbeds of environmental/animal rights extremism), and State wildlife agencies that have become clones of these State Universities all avoid the mention of wolf predation and identify anyone questioning this as an uninformed crackpot.

Nonetheless, consider how everyone accepts the “fact” that year-around wolf predation on Isle Royale, an island far offshore in Lake Superior, steadily accounts for the disappearance of moose. This romantic notion of “Mother Nature” at work makes the very efficient but gory killing of calves, pregnant cows and adult moose by wolves into a “natural” and entertaining children’s story. The same scenario when proposed by hunters, trappers, ranchers, elderly rural residents and others regarding wolf effects on deer and moose in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan is merely proof of “old”, uninformed and anti-social political incorrectness.

There is no denying the following simple truths about wolves in settled landscapes like the Lower 48 States:
– Wolves kill moose and deer, reducing them to levels that will not sustain hunting.
– Wolves spread over 30 deadly and destructive diseases to humans, wildlife, livestock and dogs.
– Wolves are dangerous and deadly threats to children, the elderly, dog walkers, hikers, and a wide array of rural residents and recreationists.

The thing to remember about wolf predation; whether on an adult moose caught in a snowy woodland by a group of wolves, a pregnant cow moose giving birth caught by one or more wolves, a doe deer and fawn run down by a couple of wolves – IT IS ADDITIVE to whatever else is happening to moose and deer. Even if you accept global warming (I do not) or think maybe ticks or some errant and unknown disease has just popped up (each of which I find unlikely as significant until I see evidence I can trust) – wolf predation is steadily more and more efficient as wolves learn (just like that dog in your backyard) AND IT IS ADDITIVE!

Consider again that 1907 NYT article. In addition to what we deny as it is all around us today, weather phenomena like the winter snow depths, snow characteristics, and snow duration can and will create an environment wherein suddenly wolf predation both for food and for the joy and fun of killing (even dog packs will kill a large number of deer in snow or sheep by cliffs for “fun” and “excitement”) will dramatically reduce the number of deer and moose regardless of the “experts” protestations to the contrary.

When wolves are not kept at very low densities or eradicated from regions inhabited by people like the Lower 48 States or Europe, what happened in 1907 will happen again and again. This article is about but ONE of many reasons wolves were eradicated in The Lower 48 States and Europe by our wise and determined ancestors.

Two years before this article, in 1905, George Santyana, a 19th century philosopher and author said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Some say Santyana was paraphrasing the 18th century Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher Edmund Burke who observed, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” Posterity is truly what we no longer concern ourselves about as abortion, birth control, births out-of-wedlock and non-child-oriented marriages proliferate in these very same American and European societies looking to secular morality and self-gratification in matters like “restoring the native ecosystem” and returning large predators to settled landscapes no matter the human costs.

In either case, both men were telling us to heed the lessons of history. In the case of wolves, environmental extremists and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats have not only denied history: they have perpetrated a great crime against Americans and Europeans in a way that relieves them of responsibility for their actions and the terrible fruits of their crime.

One last quote from Edmund Burks seems in order:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Jim Beers
15 Sep. 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

Is IDFG Placating Idaho Sportsmen?

It’s disgusting that I even need to ask such a question, but how are sportsmen supposed to feel and react when they’ve been lied to, abused verbally, demonized, ignored, laughed at, had tax money stolen from them and basically treated like a piece of worm-infested porcupine scat?

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is sending out “kits” to moose hunters and asking them to:

1. Take a blood sample,
2. Saw off a slab of moose liver, and
3. Pluck some hair.
BTW – In looking at this letter (posted below), I don’t see anywhere in that letter any instructions on safety precautions needed for when hunters do IDFG’s dirty work. Perhaps it is contained in the kit itself somewhere. If there are readers privy to this information, could you please let me and readers know? It is very important.)

Each hunter then must make a mandatory stop at an IDFG office where each hunter will complete a “MANDATORY” check of the moose. This in addition to the request sent out recently to Idaho sportsmen asking that they report wolf and grizzly bear activity. Really? Why not report polar bear movements or those of penguins? Why now? Why are fish and game officials all of a sudden interested, or seemingly so, in what sportsmen think, see or do?

According to what is written on a letter sent to moose hunters by IDFG, the reason for this action is to: “improve moose management through a better understanding of disease in wildlife populations.

Isn’t it just a little bit too late? Where were these concerned wildlife managers when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were lying to the American people telling them that wolves would have no significant impact on game herds or the spread of disease? (Please find this in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the (re)introduction of wolves to the Northern Rockies.)

The wolf recovery team decided that it would not even bother to offer any kind of investigation into diseases that are carried and spread by wolves because any existing information was: “limited,” “poorly documented” and “can never be scientifically confirmed or denied.” These claims came at a time when there existed no fewer than 300 scientific studies worldwide just about the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus.

And today the World Health Organization includes on the “Fact Page” that: “More than 1 million people are affected with echinococcosis at any one time.”

When an individual, at least one who has the capacity to think independently, considers how government officials lied to them, and then how they have been treated before, during and after this crime of wolf (re)introduction was forced down their throats, why would they be eager to help these isolated by choice from the global scientific community elites with their fake task of “improve[ing] moose management through a better understanding of disease in wildlife populations”? It sure stinks of mollification to me.

For years these clowns were offered technical and scientific evident to help them “better understand wildlife diseases” and they plugged their ears, closed their eyes and shouted out loud, like a small child.

For crying out loud, back in 1971 wildlife biologists in Minnesota didn’t “discover” that Echinococcus granulosus tapeworms existed. They were out LOOKING FOR IT in moose.

That 1971 study result showed some of us, but evidently nobody at IDFG or USFWS, two distinct things:
1. “The incidence of E. granulosus and Taenia spp. in the northeast is evidence of a higher timber wolf (Canis lupus) population in this part of the state.”
2. “Data from the aerial census and classification counts indicate a net productivity of 30-35% in the northwest and 9-15% in the northeast. This indicates a difference is occurring in the survival rate of calves in their first six months of life between the two areas. Area differences in nutrition, predation and parasitism may be responsible for these observed differences in net productivity.”

Patrick Karns, in 1971, had a “better understanding” of wildlife diseases. It’s 2014, time for some TRUTH for a change!

This and the 600-plus studies in existence in 2001, when the World Health Organization published their latest scientific data on Echinococcus granulosis and Echinococcus multilocularis, evidently isn’t good enough for Idaho wildlife officials, or any others in this here United States of America. But NOW they want to ask Idaho moose hunters for help in better understanding wildlife diseases.

I’m not a resident of Idaho, nor do I buy a hunting license there, but if I did, my inclination would be to tell IDFG to STICK IT! You didn’t listen then and you won’t listen now. You are just trying to pacify the hunters and cover your own asses. No thanks!
IdahoMooseLetter

A tip of the hat to reader “Chandie” for sending me a copy of the letter.

Share

Minnesota Authorities Warn of Wolf Attacks

Seeing this reminds me of what is written in the 1994 Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) that wolves in the Lower 48 states would not pose any significant threat to human health and safety. Of course I am sure that the authors of the FEIS didn’t think a few human lives was any big deal to lose when it comes to the protection and recovery of a species; one they claim they are required by the law of the Endangered Species Act to follow.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel said the same things about diseases, parasites, worms and infections carried and spread by wolves. We also know that it can take 10-15 years, or more, before Hydatid cysts can show up in humans, if detected at all, so how long before we will be hearing about more Americans inflicted with Hydatidosis?

Certainly the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has learned very little since 1994 as their recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement, in order that the Feds can change the rules of the game in mid-stream, shows their willingness to acknowledge that diseases such as cystic echinococcosis exists but are unwilling to even recognize that as wolves continue to be overprotected and forced into human-settled landscapes, the odds that humans will not be infected shrink. If they did acknowledge this fact, due to human safety they would not be seeking to spread more wolf filth on the land.

GRAND MARAIS, Minn. — Northeastern Minnesota authorities are warning residents about wolves attacking dogs and approaching people in Cook County.<<<Read More>>>

Share

New Hampshire Tracks Moose

Warning! This video contains BS, unproven theories and oddly enough a bit of hope that New Hampshire moose biologists are approaching their jobs with the right attitude. I know. Sorry. I lost my mind for a minute.

New Hampshire is complaining about as much as a 40% drop in moose numbers “in some places” as it says in this PBS video, but doesn’t tell us the truth of what that means. As difficult as it was for the makers of this film to have to hear the New Hampshire biologist say their primary focus right now on moose mortality is the tick, it inevitably had to come back to global warming, even to the point of one man seeding signatures for a petition to urge the President to do something about carbon dioxide.

It appears obvious those in this video no little about the winter moose tick. While researchers can determine that ticks led to the death of moose, I believe they are just going on the assumption from what they have been fed for information that global warming is causing an increase in ticks. Warmer temperatures and snow, it says in this video plays into the hands of the ticks. But does it?

However, N.H. bios, it is said in the video, are going to allow science to determine what’s going on. Really? I hope so because it would be a first.

In the meantime, Maine is also collaring moose and tracking them in hopes of learning more about their moose, however, biologists there say the moose herd is doing well. In Minnesota, researchers are still saying they don’t know why moose are disappearing there and from last reports I have had they still refuse to consider a very large wolf population as a seriously contributing factor.

Oh, well. So long as these agencies keep getting money to research and never find solutions that would end the need for research, what else are we expecting for an outcome?

Share