July 23, 2019

Minnesota Found E.G. in Moose in 1971 Knew Then Recruitment Non Sustainable

Image3290I must commend our good friend and ever vigilante researcher, Will Graves, for digging up a report containing data and other information from a report filed after the conclusion of a Minnesota moose hunt in 1971. It was reported that this moose hunt was the first allowed in 49 years in that state. The full report can be found at this link.

I suppose the first thing to note is the simple fact Echinococcus granulosus was found in the lungs of moose. As is a terrific way for biologists to collect data, mandatory check-ins by hunters provided opportunity for biologists to retrieve samples for testing. In addition to the taking of samples at the check stations, hunters were required to reveal the location of their moose kills in order that scientists could visit the site and retrieve more information from gut piles.

Over the past 6 or 8 years, there has been much discussion, at least in certain corners of the country, about the fact that wild canines, specifically being discussed are wolves, are the host species of the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus. Tiny eggs embedded in and deposited all over the landscape through wolf scat, presents a situation in which wild ungulates, such as deer, elk and moose, while grazing, ingest these eggs. As part of the cycle, hydatid cysts can form in organs throughout the body. Perhaps the most common being the lungs, but also found in the liver, heart and brain. This is what was found in Minnesota.

Humans can also ingest these eggs, the result of which could be fatal. Hydatid cysts in humans is difficult, at best to detect, and perhaps even more so to treat. The greatest threat of humans contracting this disease is probably through contact with the domestic dogs, particularly those that live indoor and outdoor. While outdoors, family dogs can eat infected carrion and/or get the eggs onto their fur and in and around the mouths. Family dogs can be part of the cycle and if not properly de-wormed, can pose a very serious threat to members of the family who live with the dog. Imagine what is happening to you or your child, in the home, when the dog licks your hand or your child’s face.

The point of all this is to state that when some of us, being led by Will Graves, researcher and author of Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages and co-author of The Real Wolf, along with George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary, Dr. Delane Kritsky, noted parasitologist at Idaho State University, et. al., took to cyberspace and beyond to get the message out about Echinococcus granulosus, we were all told it didn’t exist and any talk of threats to humans was exaggerated and nothing to be concern with.

And now we discover that biologists in Minnesota over 40 years ago had discovered the presence of E.g. in moose in Minnesota. However, there is much more to this report that Will Graves has unearthed for us.

The moose hunt in Minnesota in 1971 took place in two regions of the state. (Please see map in linked-to report.) The two zones were separated by perhaps 100 miles. One zone located in and identified in the report as the Northeast and one zone in the Northwest. It is here stated that Echinocossus granulosus was “common in the northeast” and not so much in the northwest.

Fascioloides magna was the parasite in the northwest, while Taenia spp. and Echinococcus granulosus were common in the northeast.

I also find it interesting that with today’s prevalence of denial of the presence or risk of threat from Echinococcus granulosus, that biologists in 1971 were, along with other parasites, looking for Echinococcus granulosus. If it was something not of interest, why were they looking for it? Do you suppose over 40 years ago, scientists suspected, with the presence of wolves, moose might be infected?

Field crews investigated as many kill sites as possible. Lungs were examined for the presence of Hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) and lungworms (Dictyocaulus app.).

The biologists at the time where making the same examinations and taking the same samples from moose harvested in both the Northwest and Northeast hunting zones. What they found when comparing data between the two zones is tell-tale.

The Northeast zone, “carried larger loads of Echinococcus granulosus.” As a matter of fact, a considerably larger load. In the Northeast zone it was found that 60% of the moose carried Echinococcus granulosus. In the Northwest zone, only 10%. There must be an explanation.

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.

43 years ago, wildlife biologists in Minnesota were willing to acknowledge that the higher the concentrations of wolves produced a higher incidence of Echinococcus granulosus in moose. It’s remarkable in a way, when we consider the deliberate roadblocks being constructed by some to prohibit any serious discussions and the educating of the public about this issue of Echinococcus granulosus and the potential threat it can have on humans.

But this isn’t all.

Most of us know that Minnesota is claiming that they don’t have understanding as to why the moose herd in that state is on a serious decline. Some want to blame it all on climate change, the collect-all excuse for everything these days, and a convenient means of covering up incompetence and political agendas. While the distractions and excuses continue to mount, it is my belief that officials in Minnesota pretty much have a distinct reasons and the proof of the beginnings of what has become, or soon will be, a predator pit and an unsustainable moose herd.

This report of 1971 clearly tells anybody interested in truth and facts that in the Northeast zone, where wolves were highly prevalent, the moose recruitment rate stood at such low levels, it would be only a matter of time before the moose would be gone.

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.

If memory serves me correctly, in 1971 the United States was at the beginning stages of the fake “global cooling” flim-flam, but there was no talk and presentation of excuses as to how a planet, that was going to crumble and crack into millions of pieces due to cold, was responsible for a moose calf recruitment rate in Northeast Minnesota that anyone knew to be unsustainable.

With the environmentalists, which include the ignorant predator protectors and animal rights totalitarians, who want to create what they are attempting to coin as a “new understanding and a paradigm shift” about wolves and other predators, no longer to them are facts, history, real science or common sense anything worth considering. And that is the bottom line truth of what we are dealing with.

Tried and proven wildlife management, even the very basics, tells us that if there is not a high enough survival rate among the new born of any creature, to replace all other mortality, the species will not survive, at least in any sense of healthfulness. Instead, hidden behind other agendas, people want to replace this with “new understandings” and “shifting paradigms.”

Searching for “new understandings and paradigms” Minnesota is looking everywhere for the answer that stares them in the face. Wolves spread disease and devastate games herds and all wildlife and yet the “new understanding” is trying to tell us about trophic cascades and how the wolf creates nirvana.

Oh my God! We’ve actually come to this?


Emergency Winter Deer Feeding: Effective or a Danger and Waste of Money?

deerwinteryardHere we go once again! It seems that whenever certain areas of the country get blasted with a severe winter, i.e. deep snows and frigid temperatures, states that have emergency deer feeding programs begin to debate whether feeding should begin. This, in turn, inevitably brings up the discussion as to whether feeding deer of any kind during the winter is a good thing, a bad and potentially dangerous event, or not even worth worrying about. Take whichever position you wish but I see no real “settled science” if there really is such a thing, save the biological realities that feeding deer the wrong food after a certain time of progressed starvation, may actually end up killing the deer. More on this in a bit.

According to the Star Tribune, Minnesota is about to begin putting into play their emergency deer feeding program in some northern areas of the state. There seems to be at least three driving forces behind this decision. 1.) The program requires states to feed when the Winter Severity Index reaches 100. 2.) The deer herd in the areas where feeding is suggested, has diminished in recent years to unacceptable low numbers. 3.) The snows are deep and the temperatures very cold.

From information provided at the Star Tribune, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wildlife section chief Paul Telander, says the DNR doesn’t like feeding deer and opposes the effort.

Last week, DNR wildlife section chief Paul Telander said his agency was opposed to deer feeding, noting its steep cost and questionable effectiveness in saving deer from the ravages of extreme cold and deep snow, both of which have plagued northern Minnesota this winter.

But let’s get this straight. The “steep cost” is and has been borne by the hunters in Minnesota. An added tax placed on the cost of a license is earmarked for emergency deer feeding…….well, until the government discovered they could designate that money for something else.

I may not have sufficient knowledge of the feedback from sportsmen in Minnesota about the added cost but I’ve heard no complaints. According to this article, it seems the sportsmen are eager to see their monetary investment put to work in hopes of saving a few deer.

The effectiveness of such a program is a big debate and has many aspects in which to consider. Unfortunately not all aspects may be considered before making decisions about emergency winter deer feeding.

I would like to focus on two aspects of the effectiveness of emergency winter deer feeding. First would be the need to implement the emergency feeding program early enough so as not to begin so late it is dangerous for the deer. Lateness can put the deer in further danger of starving but also makes it more difficult for the deer to be able to digest the foods being supplied through emergency feeding.

One other state that I have knowledge of that has an emergency deer and elk feeding program is Idaho. I asked George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman, for some information about Idaho’s winter supplemental winter deer feeding program which has been funded for several years but politics have played a negative role in effective implementation of the program.

It appears as though there may be some marked differences between Idaho’s and Minnesota’s emergency feeding programs. According to the article linked to, Minnesota is beginning the process of ordering deer feed.

Two weeks or more might be needed to purchase the required special feed and transport it to distribution points in the north, Telander said, adding, “We want to get it going as soon as possible.”

George Dovel states that:

From a legal standpoint: each of the regional supervisors in the seven IDFG regions are given sole responsibility to determine when to feed or not to feed. However, they are also required to meet certain criteria including having the feed ordered and stockpiled at its final location early enough so as not to be caught in the manufacturing or transportation delays that can occur when local winter storms hit. Because of an Outdoorsman article a year ago, these supervisors are very aware of the IDAPA Rules (which have full force of law).

There is a very good biological reason why emergency deer feeding should take place early – the earlier the better. Dovel explains:

The obvious key to successful feeding is starting before the deer, in ever increasing numbers, move down onto private property for two reasons. First and foremost, as they run out of digestible natural feed and are forced to eat more “lignin” (cell walls [woody stems]) and less digestible nutrients, within hours the micro-organisms (bacteria) in their rumen begin to die. This creates the problem that the deer (or other ruminants) can no longer digest the “hot” feeds (either natural or artificial) and will scour, abort their fetuses, and/or die with a belly full of good forage. The only way (other than feeding timely) to prevent this, short of adding increasing amounts of good forage over a couple of weeks, is to provide wildlife energy blocks which preserve the protozoa, etc. needed to digest a variety of forage – from “hot” grain and alfalfa to woody stems.[Note: Elk are a migratory animal and must be dealt with differently than white-tailed deer. However, the description of the digestive process remains the same.]

Some states prohibit the feeding of deer, even efforts made by private citizens. Last year, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) attempted to get passed a law prohibiting the feeding of deer. There was quite an outcry from the citizenry and the proposal was canned; I think mostly because the MDIFW couldn’t really come up with any real sound reasons to stop people from feeding deer.

One issue was pubic safety, in particular the issue of deer crossing highways to reach feeding areas. We hope those issues have been addressed sufficiently.

Another was the problem of people deciding to feed late in the season. An ongoing education program, as well as the development of better foods available, has limited that threat to the deer.

In addition to the potential biological problems expressed as reasons not to supplemental feed deer in winter, is whether it is really doing any good. Perhaps George Dovel best describes this in this fashion:

Although white-tailed deer can sometimes survive where mule deer would perish, early IDFG Bienniel Reports show photos of whitetails being provided food by local citizens sawing off evergreen boughs (branches) when the deer could not reach them due to snow conditions. It is important to remember that saving nucleus small bunches of deer that are healthy enough to reproduce – not saving every deer in the forest – is the most important key to replacing abnormally heavy winter losses. As always, the key is starting soon enough to save small bunches of breeding stock rather than a costly massive feeding program begun too late.

It costs far more money to try to feed 1,000 deer too late with most of them starving – than to feed 100 deer properly soon enough to produce healthy offspring.

It sounds as if Minnesota is experiencing similar problems with a shrinking deer herd as the State of Maine is. What needs to be understood is that when a region has a dwindling deer herd and plenty of large predators, i.e. in these cases wolves/wolf hybrids, coyotes, bears, bobcats, lynx, one or two severe winters can destroy deer herds to levels that are non sustainable. In years with severe winters, Dovel points out that for purposes of being able to sustain and more quickly rebuilt a deer herd, supplemental feeding in those targeted areas are helpful.

When it is stated that:

Deer feeding also can cause deer to congregate, and could contribute to both the spread of disease and an increased likelihood the animals will be killed by wolves.

It shows the lack of knowledge and understanding of deer behavior and the purpose of supplemental, emergency winter deer feeding programs; at least those programs that are designed correctly. When deer winter in deer yards or deer wintering areas, they are already congregated. Some deer travel 50 miles or more to reach deer wintering areas. I don’t think deer from outside targeted deer wintering areas will come and join already yarded-up deer. Deer do not have the fat reserves and energy to make such a trip. And, if the deer were that close and in that high a number, perhaps it wouldn’t be necessary to be feeding the deer.

As far as predators go, that point becomes moot. As I said, the deer are already in their wintering areas and the wolves know exactly where they are. One can argue that a healthier, better fed deer would stand a better chance of escaping the jaws of death from wolves.

Supplemental winter feeding of deer is not for every state nor is it for an entire state. But under the right conditions, just like targeted predator control programs, targeted emergency supplemental deer feeding programs could be effective enough to save a deer herd.

The cost is being borne by the sportsmen and so long as they are coughing up the dough, they are saying they believe it is worth the effort.

There is one other aspect of winter feeding of deer by citizens (not the emergency winter deer feeding programs run by fish and game departments) that deserves mentioning. Provided the people are setting up a safe feeding site, begin the feeding program early and keep it going until spring green-up, let them do it. It gets, not only the people feeding, but those coming to view these magnificent creatures, a real sense of ownership and pride. They then feel they are a part of the deer management program and that will go a very long way in garnering support for other wildlife management programs. What more could a wildlife manger ask for?


Minnesota’s Deer Harvest Down 12%

*Editor’s Note* – The following are comments/questions compiled by Jim Beers, retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist, in response to an article found in the Star Tribune. Mr. Beers took certain excerpts from the article (numbered below) and responds to them.

By James Beers

(I.)Excluding the late season, hunters killed about 144,000 deer during the main season, down 6 percent from 153,000 in 2012. Overall, Minnesota’s firearms, muzzleloader and archery hunters have registered 164,500 deer as of last Wednesday. Before the season, the DNR had expected hunter success would be similar to 2012, when they killed about 185,000 deer.

Question – How many deer did Minnesota hunters kill in 2012? Was it 153,000 or 185,000? If it is 185,000 and if the most recent count of deer taken is 164,500, the kill is down 12% and not 6%. Since the “general public” doesn’t catch this stuff, the radicals are happy hunting is “on the way out” and the hunters shrug that maybe it really was only bad weather responsible for the decrease. Like moose hunters, deer hunters are headed to the museum thinking it is a field trip and not their final resting place.

(II.)Steve Merchant, the DNR’s wildlife population and regulations manager, said a lower deer population is likely the main reason hunters haven’t fared so well, though the weather was a factor, too.

The season opener was windy, while it was rainy and windy the next weekend. Bad weather can limit deer movement, as well as discourage hunters from spending as much time in their stands. And the deer population was already down because of the harsh winter of 2012-13, which led the agency to reduce the number of does hunters could kill in northern Minnesota.

Question – The DNR “expert” tells us only “a lower deer population is likely the main reason hunters haven’t fared so well”. Not a peep about predation. How does he “know” it wasn’t increasing predation since the DNR “had expected hunter success would be similar to 2012, when they killed about 185,000 deer”? If it was only the tired and worn excuses (minus global warming and ticks) spewed out by the DNR as moose disappeared, ask yourself why the DNR expected “hunter success similar to 2012” even after reducing “the number of does hunters could kill in northern Minnesota.”? This smoke and mirrors gives White House “transparency” a run for its money.

(III,)Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, concurred that the lower deer population is the main factor in the lower harvest. He said success also had a lot to do with the particular area of the state. There have been fewer signs of deer in areas where harvest limits had been set high to bring local populations down, he said. And he said he believes the wolf population is also a factor in northeastern Minnesota.

NOTE: This is an example of a hunter organization (there are many, many more such examples every year) running interference for DNR buddies. Notice that the DNR never mentions wolf predation but this “executive director” does so hunters relax, they have been heard. The DNR stays solid with the radicals and the “director” is buddies with both his deer hunters and his DNR pals. But what does it mean to say he believes “the wolf population is also a factor in northeastern Minnesota.”? What must be done? Who will do it? What does this mean for deer?

(IV.)Johnson said he’s hearing from hunters that they want the state to produce more deer. He said the DNR is likely to respond to that by reducing the antlerless harvest.

NOTE: Wow, his hunters want “more deer” and “the DNR is likely to respond to that by reducing the antlerless harvest”. Why didn’t they try that with moose? I think I will write a thank you letter to Governor Dayton for such responsive government. Future deer success can be expected to mirror recent moose success if wolves are not figured into the equation and dealt with forthrightly – if we are to really have “more deer”.

(V.)This is Minnesota’s second wolf season since the animals came off the endangered list. The DNR lowered the overall target to 220 wolves this time for the two-part season. Hunters killed 88 in the early season. Last year’s overall target was 400, and the final count of wolves killed was 413.

NOTE: Minnesota’s most recent wolf count is 2, 211 (I just love those odd numbers as if the all-but-impossible-to-count wolves were sandhill cranes roosting as a flock on a Platte River sandbar when an aerial photograph is taken and some apprentice biologist sat down with a pin and counted every last one of them in the photo right down to the 211th one!)

For a long list of political reasons, MN, WI, MI, MT, ID, OR, WA et al undercount wolves. This has been true ever since they got into the sack with federal bureaucrats as allies in the wolf wars.

Truth be told, Minnesota has at least 3,000 or more wolves. Last year, Minnesota killed 413 or 13% of their wolves. This year they will kill only 220 or 7 % of their wolves. You can kill 20- 25% of your furbearers, small game or big game every year (as many states do) and you merely stimulate the population by guaranteeing more survive the winter and more reproduction takes place because of less competition and more available food. If you wanted to have “more” deer or moose and you admitted the obvious impact of wolves on deer and moose; you would kill 50-75% of your wolves for 4-6 years and then maintain a harvest of 35-45% of your wolves annually ever after – or you would exterminate the wolves as was done throughout history in Europe and North America.

That is the real reason deer hunting success is down but nobody is going to look into it, much less try to do anything about it. Why don’t we try a government hunter-recruitment program in addition to “reducing the antlerless harvest”? Maybe the reason there isn’t any moose hunting anymore is that the government didn’t recruit moose hunters. I think I’ll put that suggestion in my thank-you letter to the Governor. It is as sensible as the rest of this stuff.

Jim Beers
11 December 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


What To Do About Isle Royale Wolves

An article at Pioneer Press, TwinCities.com, has blubbering about what is to be done about wolves, if anything, on Isle Royale. Here’s the link.

I’ll make a brief comment and then lastly will be followed by Jim Beer’s perspective on what the article actually is saying.

From this bit of information found in the article:

A debate is raging in the scientific community, the public and among Park Service officials on whether humans should intervene to rescue an isolated wolf population that some experts say appears doomed due to genetic inbreeding that’s causing physical deformities that are affecting wolves’ life expectancy.

Others say climate change might have a major impact on the island’s wolves, and the Park Service has formed panels of experts to look at genetics and a warming climate to evaluate their effects on wolf numbers.

Park Service officials have said they have three basic options: doing nothing; waiting for the wolves to die off and then reintroduce new wolves; or introducing new wolves soon while some wolves still are present.

I think other options are not listed and I think the options should be based on what the brain trust decides to finger as the reason wolves have disappeared on Isle Royal and not on the mainland and moose have increased on Isle Royale but decreased on the mainland. For example, climate change. If the special interest “scientists” on the panel that will decide the cause, opt for climate change, not only will they have some explaining to do for their decision but there is little reason to do anything about wolves until they have solved, as gods, the climate change issue. Let me explain further.

If it is decided climate change is the reason, or at least a substantial contributing factor, by their own fake standards, then the same people need to explain why, then, the moose population on Isle Royale has exploded to 1,000, as the wolf population has disappeared, while at the same time climate change has been fingered as the cause of the reduction of moose in Minnesota (Isle Royale is part of Michigan but the island is closer to the Arrowhead of Minnesota than any part of Michigan mainland including the Upper Penninsula.)

Using the same logic and faux science as those thinking climate change is the major factor in a dwindling moose population, and now wolves, why rush into wasting taxpayer money to introduce more wolves if an unresolved, man-caused, climate change issue has not been resolved?

I am of the opinion that the reason that we have not seen more wolves “crossing on the ice” (like they did in 1949 – wink, wink) to repopulate the island is because too many people are watching too closely.

My opinion: Don’t waste my dime on fake science that contributes nothing to the realities of wildlife management outside of a rare closed, incomplete ecosystem.

Jim Beers Perspective:


1. “A debate is raging in the scientific community, the public and among Park Service officials on whether humans should intervene to rescue an isolated wolf population”

The “public” and the “Park Service” are what they are but consider that “the scientific community” is supposedly pure and composed of incontrovertible facts and experts that justify every manner of government intervention. If a “debate” “rages” there: on what basis does it revolve? The answer here as elsewhere in government plant and animal machinations is that “science” and “scientists” are ideologues and advocates every bit as much as the urban animal “rescue” lady or the lawyer working for The Defenders of Wildlife. They are as worthy of the deference shown them in court or their argument-settling role as some Conscientious Objector wearing his Dad’s Service uniform and medals is worthy of consideration in setting Defense Policy in the Pentagon.

2. “Others say climate change might have a major impact on the island’s wolves”.

Minnesota DNR bureaucrats and “scientists” have told docile Minnesotans that “climate change” was the leading factor on the steady demise of the moose population in the State. Twice each year in prominent newspaper articles the State bureaucrats and scientists asked for more money to investigate how “climate change” explained why moose were disappearing. Every such article characterizes those who say, “If moose are disappearing as wolves have been and continue to increase, what about predation of wolves on moose?” as red-necked, jack pine savages that probably flunked out of grade school and lead an alcoholic existence in some trailer back in the North Woods somewhere. So how can “climate change” decrease wolves on Isle Royal while wolves increase on the mainland? How can “climate change” be responsible for the decline of moose throughout Minnesota while their numbers are exploding on Isle Royal? Is there a scientist in the house?

3. “Allow public discussion on wolf management on the island, a designated federal wilderness area.”

This is a “two-fer”. First, I wish to humbly thank the Park Service for their kind offer to “allow public discussion”. For such august bureaucrats to deign to “allow” the rest of us to publicly discuss such matters is so benevolent that I for one can merely express my eternal gratitude. Think about that folks, think about how low the American citizen vis-a-vis his government has sunk. Second, I thought NOTHING could be “managed” in a “federal wilderness area”? Does this mean that downed timber or fire-hazard brush can be removed or burned safely? Can firewood be cut with a chain saw or water scooped from a stream to fight a fire or uses like logging, grazing, vehicle travel, be considered on the (formerly?) precious “Wilderness Areas” at the sufferance of federal bureaucrats? Inquiring minds would like to know.

4. “Isle Royale has a long-standing history of broad ecosystem management,”.

This is gobbledygook. They aren’t even supposed to “manage” wilderness. Ecosystem is a maligned term that has been perversely mangled over the past 45+ years into a meaningless word alone and a word that can mean everything in the ear of the listener or the eyes of the reader. That these insular bureaucrats claim, and the media validate, that their personal work to pander to powerful radical organizations for their own benefit is “broad” ecosystem management is simply ludicrous.

5. “It’s believed that moose first swam to the island in the early 1900s and for decades thrived with no predators. Wolves are relatively new to the 45-mile-long, 143,000-acre island complex, having crossed Lake Superior ice to get there in 1949.”

And wolves that have been somewhere only for 61 years are what: “endangered”, “vital”, “native”, “keystone sp.”, what? Why aren’t they (bureaucrats and scientists and their financier-enablers) treating these moose and wolves that are such recent arrivals (radicals call them “Invaders”) to Isle Royal like they treat pheasants, Hungarian Partridge, Brown Trout, Great lakes Salmon, and all the other dreaded “non-natives” and “introduced” species they want to eradicate, that is to say with contempt? The vast majority of these desirable “non-natives” (radicals call them “Invasives”) have been in place and benefitting human society far longer than these moose and wolves on this Island.

6. “Wolves are no longer performing their function as predator on the island,” “There just aren’t enough to have any real impact on moose.”

So, let me get this straight: wolves on Isle Royal “perform a function as predator” on moose on which they are expected to have a “real impact”. Simultaneously, in the rest of Minnesota (yes Isle Royal was once widely considered to be part of Minnesota until federal controls and hegemony became so powerful that everyone believes the federal estate to simply be separate and distinct from States and Local Communities despite their window-dressing “allowing” of “public discussion”) moose decline as wolves increase and we are instructed to not listen to those fools that say there is a connection between the two. This stuff belongs on Prairie Home Companion.

7. “The situation is so unusual that it’s affecting other species on the island”.

Oh my word! Attention, “species” are being “affected” somewhere. You mean like elk and moose disappearing when wolves are forced into rural enclaves that do not want them? Aren’t “ecosystems” supposed to be like “climate” in that any (well not quite any) change is an emergency that only more government, more spending, more laws and more regulations can control before we all die? Actually, if bureaucrats and radicals want wolves or grizzlies somewhere they haven’t been for a century that is OK: if the same suspects want to eradicate wild species or domestic animals from somewhere that is OK: only if you or I want a landscape and rural environment safe and productive in which to live comfortably and safely raise our families and this is at odds with an all-powerful government acting as a shill for radical organizations –that is NOT OK! My God, “species” go up and down from moment to moment and saying that it is government’s job to intervene with no more cause than that things will be different is an abuse of government power for an unachievable purpose that could drain the world’s debt and GDP’s combined.

8. “It will be up to the National Park Service to decide”.

Unless you are one of the few that think of the Park Service or Fish and Wildlife Service or Forest Service (curious that word “Service” as in who or what do they “SERVE?”) as in your pocket, such common words these days should send a chill up your spine and heartburn down your throat.

9. “With wolf numbers so low, moose numbers on the island have exploded, more than doubling in recent years to more than 1,000. That’s the opposite trend from moose in Minnesota, where numbers have plummeted in recent years to the lowest levels in decades. While moose in Minnesota face bears, humans and deer-related diseases as predators, moose on Isle Royale have only wolves as threats”.

Finally, the piece de resistance! Like the President and his minions explaining what he “really” meant when he said we could keep our doctors and our insurance policies; these bureaucrats, scientists, and their media enablers are faced with a dilemma. How to explain how wolves decimate moose on Isle Royal and not on mainland Minnesota and why when the wolves are about to disappear moose populations are exploding on Isle Royal? If we knocked down dramatically the wolves on mainland Minnesota would moose recover? (The answer is YES.) Yet the Park Service will milk the federal Treasury for more money and people for this mysterious “situation” just like the Minnesota DNR bureaucrats and the University “scientists” have and are milking the State Treasury for more and more money and people to conduct “research on this mystery. Like the explanation of the President’s repeated use of the word “period”; these government con artists add “bears, humans and deer-related diseases” to the growing and irrelevant reasons for the mainland moose declines.

Oh well, it sell papers and garners urban votes to keep in power State pols maintaining unemployment with handouts and building stadiums (Romans called it “Bread and Circuses) and Federal pols signing UN Treaties to sell our sovereignty while taking away our property and our Rights. You couldn’t make this up if you tried to.

Jim Beers
7 November 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


Difficult to Have “Wall of Shame” When There Is No Shame

Perhaps a bit like making laws to stop criminals, who, by definition do not regard laws, states like Minnesota and Maine have traveling shows where they exhibit taxidermy wildlife confiscated from poachers in what they hope will deter others from poaching. I have no data to show whether it does or doesn’t work but should we expect that poachers will actually feel shame?

Well, we might think there is no shame but in our bit of comfort zone ideology, do we think criminals/poachers would steal/poach the poachers “Wall of Shame?”

It seems that in Minnesota thieves cut locks on gates and got into the trailers of the “Wall of Shame” and stole 17 shoulder-mounted deer heads.

Such class!

Here’s a photo of Maine’s version of a “Wall of Shame.”



642# Black Bear Minnesota Record?

Field and Stream reports that Shawn O’Connor tagged a 642-pound black bear that might be a new state record for Minnesota.

Here’s a picture of the Maine state record black bear and the guy who shot it.



More Bad News for Rural America

Guest post by Jim Beers

With all of the winds currently buffeting rural America from government wolves and state governments becoming federal contractors for federal intrusions to federal land and water controls; a new wrinkle has been added. When federal politicians talk about “redistributing wealth”, who knew one of the “redistribution” vehicles for rural wealth would be federal health legislation? Not me.

Minnesota is a state that apparently seldom questions government growth of any sort, so it is not surprising that we formed one of the first state health care exchanges called MNsure as the federal Obamacare legislation rolls forward. A recent newspaper article explains the expected differences in cost for Minnesotans divided into 9 “regions”.

Under the MNsure rules and charges, the Twin Cities to St. Cloud corridor (our most urban and most populous region) will be charged a monthly premium of $634 for a family of four. All other (rural Minnesota) regions will be charged $668, $704, $742, $816, $854, and $1,200 respectively. These very significant differences are mysteriously credited to nonsense like “people might be sicker in some regions”, “doctors in some regions might opt for treatments that are more or less expensive” and “differences in the prices that different health care providers get paid for performing the same service”.

Dismissing all the associated smoke and mirrors; rural Minnesotans, and most likely all rural Americans as Obamacare becomes the only game in town, are embarking on a massive transfer of wealth to urban precincts in their state. This is yet another result of this Red/Blue – Rural/Urban voting shift in our country. Federal schemes from wolves to healthcare are at base thinly veiled political pandering for votes in concentrated urban precincts. Giving them more and more government services and the granting of their imaginary environmental dreams in rural precincts (despite the harms to farmers, ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, and rural economies) are what keep federal politicians and their parties in power.

Recognizing what is happening and why it is happening is the first step. The second step is seeing what must be done. The third step is doing it despite the names they call you and the accusations they hurl at you. Freedom is never cheap and rights must always be protected. Rural Americans have been in the crosshairs long enough. Transferring wealth for health is right up there with destroying a village to save it.

Jim Beers
20 Sep. 2013


The Wolf Had Brain Damage

wolfattackThat’s the official story of the wolf that attacked a teen at a Minnesota camp ground last month.

Tests results show that a wolf that bit a 16-year-old boy’s head at a northern Minnesota campground had severe deformities as well as brain damage, which likely explains the reason for the “unprecedented” freak attack, wildlife specialists said Thursday.

I want to know how the masters of all things wolves, know that this wolf had brain damage. Is this much like pretending to know that animals feel pain? Even Peter Singer, the guru of all things animal liberation, admits you can’t assess whether an animal feels pain unless there exists verbal communication between us humans and the animal – kind of like when you go to the doctor and they ask you on a scale of 1 to 10 where on the chart your pain is.

Obviously there are certain assumptions (biases would be more accurate, but I’m trying to be nice) being made here; all of course to protect the wolf. Always protect the damned wolf.

Why is it so obvious? Let me list out the comments made in this one article about the event and the conclusions they are attempting to force down the throats of non thinking people.

1. “….which likely explains the reason for the “unprecedented” freak attack.”
2. “…rare encounter…”
3. “…first documented wild wolf attack on a human….”
4. “…things you wouldn’t expect a wild wolf to do.”
5. “…was never aggressive…”
6. “Whether it actually knew what it was biting into is probably unlikely.”
7. “…it happened to bite into somebody’s head.”
8. “…it’s likely the wolf experienced a traumatic injury as a pup…”
9. “…likely hampered its ability to effectively capture wild prey.”
10. “..stomach contained only fish spines and scales.”
11. “…likely predisposed it to be less wary of people and human activities…”
12. “That “strongly explains” why the animal was behaving the way it was…”
13. “It’s surprising that a wolf in this condition survived to this point…”
14. “Attacking a human is “definitely abnormal and unusual.”
15. “…rarely is there any aggression toward people.”
16. “This kind of thing is unprecedented.”

(I took liberties to embolden the absurd use of adjectives and adverbs)

Even IF, and nothing here is conclusive, the wolf acted like most retarded politicians in this country, the 16 comments and key phrases is about as ignorant and biased as they get. The sad part is, the majority of people who read this garbage believe it to be true.



When Outdoor Writers Contribute to Humanizing Wild Animals

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources released a presser yesterday announcing the death of what they want to claim as the world’s oldest black bear. The press release is a disgusting and perverted display of when people attempt to relate to other people, humanistic traits in wild animals. I will not glorify the perversion by posting any of it here but will provide a link for readers.

So far, Outdoor Life has opted to glorify the event and included comments repeated from the press release about how the bear passed away quietly and peacefully. What is a bit odd is that the first reading I had from the Outdoor Life site describing in part the bear’s death, read, “….the bear died a quiet death from natural causes.” This morning visiting the site again, I noticed that same sentence appears to have been edited and now reads, “…indications are that it died from natural causes.” Perhaps the editors at Outdoor Life thought attaching human expressions of “quiet death” was a bit over the top especially when nobody was there holding the bear’s paws watching it pass and administering last rites.

And also this morning, the Outdoor Wire decided to reprint the entire disgusting press release from the Minnesota DNR, qualifying their copy and pasting by saying, “Editor’s Note: Occasionally a story comes in to the newsroom that’s too-good not to share. For example, this story from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.”

I think outdoor writers and media outlets can do all of us a favor and stop perpetuating these fantasies of brainwashed animal worshipers. When we insist on attaching human characteristics to bears and the like, how objected can a scientist be?

This bear lived a long time and provided lots of scientific data for scientists(?). Time to move on and get more data so we humans know how best to manage bears for bears not for human interactions.


Nevermore: Wolves in the Lower 48

Guest post by Jim Beers

“What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.’” From The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe

Definition: nev·er·more (n v r-môr , -m r ). adv. Never again.

A wolf just attacked a kid in Minnesota in a sleeping bag in a US Forest Service campground. The wolf grabbed the sleeping kid by the head and left him with cuts and a gash after it was driven off by the kids’ kicks and the response of others in the campground.

One month ago I was fishing with a friend only a few hundred yards off that campground by the mouth of the Mississippi River as it flows into Lake Winnibigoshish. Being an incurable duck hunter I had noted the large wild rice beds nearby and the boat ramp in the campground. After chatting with our fishing guide, Mr. Roy Girtz (Royal Guide Service in Grand Rapids- this is a non-paid and well-deserved plug for Mt. Girtz), about duck hunting in the massive wild rice bed called Sugar Bay; I had tentatively planned to camp in that campground and hunt ducks in the nearby wild rice in October.

When I read the initial report of this wolf attack in a local news item last night, the title referred not to a wolf attack but to a wolf “bite”. Additionally, the initial article mentioned a wound that “required multiple staples to close, but was not life-threatening.” The words “rare” and “extremely rare” are peppered throughout the initial report.

Both the initial local report and the front page article in this morning’s St. Paul Pioneer Press (which uses the description of wolf “attack”) were mainly explanations by the Chief DNR Law Enforcement guy about how this incident was a “freak deal” and “incredibly abnormal behavior”. He goes on that according to the DNR, “it’s the first one I’m aware of where there was actual physical damage to the victim.” First one? What other ones and how many have been “handled” quietly? HHMMM?

The St. Paul Outdoor writer, who assumedly hopes to follow his predecessor into a DNR job, sings a duet with the DNR Enforcement guy. For instance:

– “If confirmed, it would be the first documented wolf attack of such severity in Minnesota and likely in the continental US.”

– “There are two documented cases of fatal wolf attacks in North America, one in Alaska and one in Canada according to the DNR and a review of scientific literature.”

– “Until a few years ago the number of documented wolf killings of people in the history of North America was zero according to the most authoritative research on the topic, ‘A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada’ by Mark McNay of the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game.”

– The DNR offers the following tips for an encounter with an “aggressive wolf”, – Don’t run. Do not turn your back. Retreat slowly. Stand your ground. Use air horns or other noisemakers. Use bear spray or firearms IF NECESSARY. Climb a tree.


Three days ago I wrote a piece (Wolf Tales, Turning Reality into Myth) about two reported wolf feeding/habituation hotspots about 70-80 miles East of this wolf attack on Lake Winnie. It is worth noting that the newspaper pictures of the “cute” young wolves begging for food was composed around a Lady DNR Manager explaining about how these “cute (her word) young wolves needed these summer areas to wait for the return of mysteriously absent “parents”. This Ladies’ emotional explanation displaying DNR environmental/animal rights concern for these newly discovered wolf pup-care frolic and begging areas for wolves was a hit, I am sure, with urban progressives and a warning to local folks to adjust to living with wolves or move elsewhere. Girls can get away with that sort of thing like when you are upset with a company and you call for help in a fit of frustration and a young lady tells you how she will help even though she is no help. You calm down with the lady and are restrained where if it is a man, especially one that can make you feel he can ignore you with impunity, you are neither calmed down nor receptive to his inability to help. Suffice it to say that when a kid is bitten and locals are ready to take up torches and pitch forks, as with this kid getting nailed in a campground, the spokesMAN is not only a male, he is the Regional Manager for DNR Enforcement.

I have always been amazed at how Outdoor Writers whose wildlife knowledge is like the Platte River (“a mile wide and an inch deep”) can make politically correct factoids out of wildlife biology and human interfaces and still maintain any credibility. Like UN Ambassadors and Secretaries of State to whom the truth matters not; only pleasing their powerful employers and those they hope will benefit them in the future is taken into account. From Benghazi to wolf realities, call it human nature, lying or ignorance; the key is to keep what they tell you in perspective if it goes beyond the best bait for perch or where our UN Ambassador was recently during a UN Emergency Session on Syrian chemical weapons. Note how a firearm (the ONLY SURE defense) is at the bottom of the list with a caveat and bear spray (that didn’t work for the Idaho guy bicycling on the Alaskan Highway recently) is recommended. Thank you, Charlie Brown.

I have written until I am blue in the face about the history of wolves. From the time of Plutarch centuries before Christ, bounties and wolf killing have been the norm. The time and effort expended to rid settled areas of wolves in Europe are monumental and hard to comprehend in societies that struggled to feed their members and untreatable plagues killed millions. Specially bred dogs, poisons, traps, bounties, deadfalls, drives, denning pups, shooting, pits, spiked dog collars, snares, horseback chases, handguns, possees, etc.; nothing was too hard or too innovative or too expensive for those that were “living with wolves” to kill and minimize or eliminate wolves for the past two and a half thousand years that we know of. Now you can express the extreme hubris of our age and dismiss all those societies, farmers, townsmen, herders, woodcutters, parents, nobles, and travelers as a pack of ignorant superstitious folks but do you realize how stupid that is? To say that kids fables were not meant to warn them of very real wolf dangers or that woodcuts or old literature about wolves are simply propaganda by witches is funny to say the least. I have a book (Wolves of North America. 194) by Stanley Young the Head of US Predator and Rodent Control in Washington, DC) beside me as I write this that documents many wolf deaths in Colonial America; in America during the westward expansion in Forts and smallpox infested Indian Villages, on lonely plains; and in the developing American communities of the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s. No one; not children, trappers, hunters, scouts, soldiers, cowboys, farmers, Indians, pioneers, travelers, no one; was immune.

The fact that the current “experts”, bureaucrats and writers can dismiss history as fiction simply because it is “undocumented” is astonishing. We are using this eraser for millennia when there were no newspapers, no need to verify what happened in your village, no records, no “Scientists” (even Audubon reported a wolf death and attack in Kentucky), and immigrants and native people neither knew nor could determine, much less “document”, the fate of the many that disappeared for reasons as diverse as murder, kidnapping and fatal injury to predators like wolves, bears and cougars in expanses where remains were simply fast food for abundant animals and insects.

None of that matters. Urban radicals love wolves and will vote for politicians that will destroy livestock operations, hunting, rural economies, rural tranquility, and gun possession: wolves help accomplish all these things. Federal bureaucracies have built unbelievably powerful and expensive kingdoms based on the laws passed by pandering politicians to get the votes of the urban progressives and radicals. The fact that such laws have proven to be the most efficient means of destroying our Constitutional government with the possible exception of armed conquest by a foreign tyrant goes unmentioned and is vehemently denied. State governments have thus far sold out to their Constitutional Authorities and Responsibilities to the federal juggernaut and the DNR’s/F&G’s/FWP’s/etc. have become “people-of-the-evening” as they individually curry federal favor and even future federal emoluments, much like the Outdoor Writers, at the expense of those they ostensibly serve.

Hence the feces noted above that has become standard fair for decades now about how wolves are “shy” and “kill only the old and sick” and “encourage berries for bears by killing elk” and “have NO EFFECT ON MOOSE “(are you listening Minnesota?), etc. ; while remaining silent about diseases and infections spread by wolves, wolf impacts on dogs, wolf impacts on livestock operations, wolf/human incidents as much as they can, denying big game losses caused by wolves, the real danger to kids and the elderly where wolves exist, and the overall diminishment of rural American economies, life and Tranquility (a Constitutional word) as a result of re-introduced wolves.

But alas, none of that matters. So think about this. ALL wildlife studies and wildlife biology (i.e. “science” are reports of what they say HAS HAPPENED and what IS HAPPENING. It is like driving a car by only looking in the rearview mirror. Let’s assume, hard as it is, that wolves never killed anyone (the girl in Alaska and the guy in Saskatchewan, for the sake of argument, probably “turned their back” or “ran” or failed to “climb a tree”) and all the wolf destruction reports from early America, present day Russia/Siberia/Georgia/Khazakstan/India and all the stuff from Europe down through the Ages about wolves killing humans is all simply fiction.

So, “the government and “scientists” tell us that wolves “were here first”, “wolves belong here as Native Species” and wolves “complete” and “improve” the environment. Suppose further that “studies” and “experts” validate all this and that any danger to humans, like the talk about wolves carrying diseases and wolves killing livestock and reducing game animals and thus hunting is all silly superstition being spread by (?) old guys like me or people that were home-schooled or raised by rural Conservatives (as opposed the urban Christie/McCain Conservatives).

Now suppose that me and others like me (yes there are some) bred thousands of large (75-125 lb. dogs), took their puppies away from the adults right away, housed them separately and fed them road-kill and wild critters both young and old until the pups were about 6 months old. Then we took them separately and released them in woods and on plains and in towns and suburbs and on farms and ranches and on public and private property.

I submit that many would begin making it on their own. They would form packs. They would kill deer and elk and moose and try for bear cubs just as they would soon learn annual habits of finding moose calves and pregnant elk cows and beaver houses and school bus stops and ranch yards and town garbage at night. Since they and their offspring get no “shots” or veterinary attention when they carry hundreds of ticks or contract Rabies, Distemper, Parvo, Mad Cow, Anthrax, Brucellosis, or Tapeworms, Roundworms, Encephalitis, Chronic Wasting Disease, Bubonic Plague (from their fleas), Mange, Neospora caninum (an abortifacient), Foot-and-Mouth, etc. the public would quickly be in fear for their children and themselves and their dogs and their livestock and the animals they hunt in the fall.

I further submit that as these “wild” dogs increased and killed most of the game – making the last few harder to get as they tried to live “in town” or near buildings and as farmers/ranchers reduced their herd sizes and put armed guards and dogs everywhere and finally put the smaller herds and flocks under lock and key in buildings – wild dog food might be hard to get. What do you think happens then? Will the dogs disappear like some historians say Indian dogs did periodically during famines or bad weather? Will you believe ASPCA/government/”scientific” reports that dogs will simply infect themselves if sick and will simply die if food is hard to get or have always gone elsewhere far away (?) to find food?

OR, would you understand that they will explore and move into suburbs and cities like coyotes are doing? Would you understand that they are killing your dog in your back yard and that it is dangerous to “walk” your dog since the wild dogs attack and eat your dogs? Or that attacks on kids and the elderly are increasing as the hungry dogs see them as food? Or that these dogs you cannot shoot or trap or poison in suburbs and cities are “bold” and “habituated” and increasingly threatening you and your family and the outdoor public life and events that you can no longer pursue and/or enjoy?

How long would you tolerate your public officials and bureaucrats telling you that those dogs are good for some other animal and that “the ecosystem” must be made “whole” and “natural”, no matter what it costs you or your nation? Would you tolerate government that protected me and my friends that put the dogs everywhere? Would you tolerate courts telling you, after your son is injured or your daughter killed by those dogs, that my friends and I aren’t responsible? That your child failed to behave properly and you are suspected of anti-government urges (like that Missouri Rodeo Clown?) since you are not enthusiastic about learning all we tell you about how and why you “must learn to live with these dogs”?

Everything we knew about wolves is in thousands of years of old literature and art, and in recent “science” and, especially in the US and Europe, censored/propagandized media and news reports, given whatever you think of all of it, is meaningless. Never before, have wolves been brought into, protected and encouraged to expand in settled and technologically organized landscapes and communities as found in the Lower 48 States today. Containing:

– Abundant and managed big game herds unused to ravaging wolf packs and large herds and flocks of livestock untended on summer pastures unlike any other country in history.

– Disease-free dogs in homes and open rural yards, trained to protect, hunt (often at great distance from the hunter), trail, and give companionship.

– Children walking to and from and waiting at isolated rural school bus stops.

– Old rural folks with routine walks to often far off mailboxes and isolated homes in the midst of barns, sheds and outbuildings of interest to and cover for wolves.

– Porches and decks with greasy residues and barbecues combined with garbage bins and regular outdoor pickups that often kids fill and move bins to and from. –

– Rural settlements with everyone inside at night and wolves freely roaming in search of anything to eat or kill.

So far we have seen:

– Big game is disappearing and livestock operators are either going out of business of reducing herds or still trying the “Fladry”, electric fence’ guard dogs, “compensation” nonsense meant only to delay their complaints until wolf control is no longer feasible or affordable.

– Hunting is dwindling because of lack of game.

– Rural life adjustments from no longer camping or leaving the dog unattended to not allowing kids to go hiking or bike riding after school and constructing school bus stop cages for kids that no longer walk to or from the bus stop, etc.

– “Attacks” are beginning to become more difficult to cover-up and big game license money (along with the billions that all the ancillary business’ that hunting brought to rural America) is disappearing along with it.

– Diseases, tapeworms and infections are increasing desp9ite veterinarians too busy to answer questions.

– The real results of hiring all the anti-natural resource management and use radicals in the federal and state wildlife agencies is becoming evident from lies about safety and distortions about animal counts and disease threats to humans, dogs, livestock and wildlife.

– A Minnesota boy (where this NEVER happens,) is grabbed by a wolf on his head and narrowly escapes death as he sleeps in a government campground.

No one is to blame. No one is lying. If you believe that, you are a fool. The world and the “Science” you are being fed is no more. The Lower 48 States no more can tolerate widespread wolves in dense populations than Nairobi can tolerate leopards in their ravines or Moscow can tolerate wolves in their surroundings. The ONLY solution in Nairobi or Moscow or the Lower 48 is to kill wolves in significant percentages annually and to kill ANY wolf seen in communities or Counties that will not and cannot tolerate them. We are too slowly learning this timeless truth, the wolf pups being fed on a highway N of Duluth and a boy grabbed in the jaws of wolf while he slept are merely some of the first public indications leaking out of what is coming as the expanding wolf populations clear the landscape of available food and an increasingly meek human society surrenders guns and traps and the rights we took for granted as necessary to live productive and safe rural lives for ourselves, our families and our communities to coddle a dangerous animal in our midst. Trust me it is only going to get steadily worse. It is a new and far more dangerous world we face and whatever your beliefs about that past of either delightful or deadly/destructive wolves: it is a world that is Nevermore as far as wolves in the Lower 48 States today

Finally, do me two favors:

1. File this away under Global Warming/Wolf Deniers or Nutjobs or wherever you would file what you think is fantasy. I predict you one day soon and not far off will have seen more wolf carnage and destruction reports (increasing incidents and increasing severity not amenable to cover-up are inevitable) and there will be a hue and cry to get rid of them or reduce them dramatically or else. When that happens and you are having a flicker of doubt or remorse about how you supported wolf imposition on others or you are wondering which side you are on now: pull this out and reread it. I hope it might help you make up your mind.

2. Go to www.cryingwolfmovie.com, and watch a free showing of a superb movie video “CRYING WOLF”. You will learn about some young Montanans working to restore rural America and Constitutional government and also about their new video, “AXED The end of Green”. If it is half as good as Crying Wolf, I can guarantee you won’t be disappointed.

Jim Beers
27 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