July 22, 2019

Another Wolf Attack That Must Not Have Really Happened

A 16-year-old boy, sitting in a campsite at Lake Winnibigoshish, talking with his girlfriend, was approached from behind by a 75-pound wolf. There was no sound that the camper heard. The girlfriend escaped to the car and others in the campsite slept through the kicking and screaming.

Other campers in that campground has seen this same wolf wandering about and there were reports from some that a creature was trying to bite through tent walls, even puncturing an air mattress.

As seems to always be the case, officials, who insist to live in a vacuum from the rest of the world stated:

Wolf attacks on humans are extremely rare, Provost said. He called the incident “a freak deal.”

“It’s the first one I’m aware of (in Minnesota),” he said. “I’m not aware of another where there was physical damage to the victim.”

This attack and the two others in Minnesota that got reported, will be forgotten and the wolf protectors will continue with their worn out lies that wolves don’t harm people. If they have to admit a wolf attacked a person, it is ALWAYS the person’s fault, even if there is no explanation.


Minnesota Elk Country to get Boost from RMEF Grants

MISSOULA, Mont.–Grants provided by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation will fund prescribed fire, aspen stand assistance, seeding and conservation projects to improve forage in Minnesota. RMEF grants total $34,650 and will enhance 3,901 acres of habitat in four counties: Beltrami, Kittson, Marshall and Ottertail. They will also pay for multiple hunting heritage outreach events across the state.

“It is vital for elk to have high quality forage not only for their day-to-day nutritional needs, but also located in areas that keep them away from private farmland,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We are also thrilled to help further Minnesota’s rich outdoor heritage by sponsoring a series of statewide activities that include hunting, fishing, shooting sports and other outdoor-related events for youth and adults alike.”

Since 1990, RMEF and its partners completed 125 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects with a combined value of more than $2.1 million.

“Kudos goes out to our volunteers and members in Minnesota. Their hard work raised the funds for these on-the-ground projects through banquet fundraising and membership drives,” added Allen.

Allen also thanked RMEF chapters and volunteers around the country for their passion and dedication.

RMEF grants will help fund the following 2013 projects, listed by county:

Kittson County—Establish quality forage plots on 150 acres of state and private land in the Karlstad area to draw elk away from agricultural crops and increase acceptance of elk. Bear, deer, moose, sharp-tailed grouse and sandhill cranes will also benefit.

Marshall County—Implement multiple prescribed burn, aspen girdling and removal operations to reclaim open landscapes, restore oak savanna habitat and re-create open grassland areas encroached by aspen and willow over the last 70-plus years on 3,675 acres of the Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge; and seed and fertilize 76 acres on the Grygla and Wapiti Wildlife Management Areas to establish and maintain forage plots to alleviate depredation while assisting elk and other wildlife (also affects Beltrami County).

Ottertail County—Sponsor a hands-on outdoor learning experience for 300 Fergus Falls 4th and 5th graders as part of the annual Minnesota Governor’s Deer Hunting Opening Youth Field Day. Activities include archery, hatchet throwing, a deer drag obstacle course, shooting and ATV demonstration.

Statewide—Sponsor the Women Hunting and Fishing in All Seasons organization by assisting with outreach literature, website work and other means to help inspire women to hunt and fish through education and empowerment; exhibit and conduct Shooting Access for Everyone, or SAFE, event for the entire family at the Minnesota 2013 Game Fair; sponsor scholarships for youth age 12-16 at the Minnesota Horse and Hunt Club’s Youth Hunting Camp which offers instruction in archery, shotguns, rifles, pistols, dog handling, tracking, and other activities; provide funding for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and the Minnesota Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus to promote hunting and angling traditions; co-sponsored two trade show displays for the Minnesota State High School Clay Target League which reaches more than 3,400 students from 114 high school teams representing 195 schools; sponsor the Becoming an Outdoors Woman and Family Programs which provide opportunities to learn hunting, fishing and outdoor skills; and sponsor the 54th Annual Minnesota Outdoor Youth Expo designed to get kids outdoors and learn hands-on skills such as shooting, archery, firearm safety, fishing, water safety and mock pheasant hunting.

Conservation projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities. RMEF volunteers and staff select hunting heritage projects to receive funding.

Partners for 2013 projects in Minnesota include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and various other organizations, civic groups, corporations and volunteers.


Moose Populations Shrinking – No Talk of Predators

The lame mantra continues! Moose populations in northern New England seem to be shrinking and at least one excuse for this appears to be the presence of those dastardly winter ticks or moose ticks more commonly called. But as usual, only half the story is being told and inaccurate information is being passed around about climate and the ticks.

I have provided information in the past about winter ticks, i.e. how they attach to moose, survival rates, what kind of weather conditions are good and bad for ticks, etc. And yet, the so-called professionals fail in telling a more accurate story and also a complete story.

Experts say ticks are thriving because of warmer winters, yet no data has been provided to support the claim that northern New England is experiencing warmer winters. In addition, it appears incorrectly stated that colder weather kills winter ticks. While few studies have been conducted about winter ticks and moose, one study conducted by William M. Samuel and Dwight A. Welch, “Winter Ticks on Moose and Other Ungulates: Factors Influencing Their Population Size”, says that in order to kill winter ticks during the winter there needs to be 6 consecutive days where the outdoor temperature does not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

In the latest AP story found in the Boston Globe, reporters state that ticks become less of a problem when there exists long, cold winters. Long and cold winters are a problem to a moose but has really little effect on the ticks, when you are talking about each adult moose carrying up to 150,000 ticks.

No, the goal here is to promote further the environmentalists’ con job of global warming as being the cause of moose population declines. In the article linked to, there is no mention of what the “other” factors are that “might” be influencing a shrinking moose herd. In particular, there is no mention of predators. It’s always about global warming.

The real detriment to this kind of shallow, ignorant thinking is that if there exists a problem, authorities will NEVER learn the real reasons for species decline.

What is good about all of this is the fact that somebody is now paying attention, as outdoorsmen have for a few years now been making statements about the condition of moose and their shrinking populations. Are ticks a problem in this? Of course, but if biologists are honestly concerned about what is really going on, it’s time they consider all factors to the equation and not just an inaccurate belief that warm winters are causing more ticks.

In Minnesota a similar problem exists with declining moose populations. Scientists have been trying to figure out what has caused the moose population to all but disappear over the past decade or so and in all this time have not considered depredation by wolves and other predators and only seem to be focusing on global warming.

Until we have some honest and thorough scientific investigation into these problems, don’t expect any changes to occur other than what is happening now – hunters are having their moose hunting opportunities cut back.


Some of Those “Rare” Bear Attacks and Encounters

No, bears do not necessarily attack humans because they are threatening offspring or caught them by surprise. This 82-year-old woman was in bed sleeping when a 400 lb. bear broke into her house and beat her up some. So, what prompted that? She must have been encroaching on the bears.

In Minnesota, a woman had been seeing 4 bears in her yard. When she wanted to let her dog out, she looked around for the bears. Not seeing them she let the dog out. The bears were under her deck. Ultimately the woman was attacked by the mother bear. Take note of the idiocy in the article explaining the high level, rational thinking of bears when a DNR “specialist” says, “bears are very cautious of people and bears do not want to get themselves in a situation where they might have to attack a person.” This is akin to a pack of wolves huddled up having a discussion and pointing out which of the herd of elk are sick, lame and old, explaining to each other to only kill those animals because it is their responsibility to do so.


More Wolf Mythology

By Jim Beers


1. From the Pinedale WY News re: Washington State Wolves:

“”Wolf populations are increasing faster than anyone had imagined,” the legislators said in their April 23 letter. They urged the commission to act quickly “to maintain social tolerance for gray wolves in northeast Washington in the timeliest manner for residents.””

Conclusion: Evidently those “Beta” (are there “gamma”, “delta”, “epsilon” and all the way to “omega” wolves?) wolves didn’t get the memo (that ONLY ALPHA wolves breed) and have been sneaking out behind the woodpile and doing naughty (as well as ‘undocumented’ things per our august wildlife professionals) things resulting in more wolf pups than the “Alphas” alone are making.

You couldn’t make up this stuff if you tried.

2. From this morning’s St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press:

Minnesota: Moose study confirms high calf mortality rate

“The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources captured 49 moose calves and fitted them with GPS transmitter collars. Within days of finishing their work, 22 of the newborns already had died.”

“Most were killed by bears and wolves.”

“We knew that we would lose a lot of calves quickly,” DNR lead moose researcher Glenn DelGiudice said. “But to see it happening in real time like this is all new for us.”

“We used to see a ratio of about 100 cows to 40 or 45 calves each winter. But in recent years that’s been more like 20 or 30 calves, and that’s not sustainable,” Moen said.

“DelGiudice’s $424,000 study is part of a two-pronged effort to find out why the northeast Minnesota moose herd is plummeting.”

Conclusion: I have written six articles since moving to Minnesota five years ago about the effect the wolf population explosion was having on Minnesota moose. Newspapers refused to run Letter to the Editor about them. I sent copies of the articles to friends and acquaintances that hunted and fished in the State and almost universally they didn’t want to talk about it or told me that I didn’t know what I was talking about. For years The August and Honorable (May Gaia Be Praised) Minnesota DNR and their subcontractors at the newspapers and at “the” University have vehemently (and to me laughingly) denied that predation from any source was responsible for the steady disappearance of moose as wolves increased.

The reason for this decades-long subterfuge was and is that the DNR would have had to KILL [oooohhh!] the predators in order to maintain moose hunting and thereby offend their new greenie clients. This was and is as evident as the nose on your face. Like the old canard, “the beatings will continue until morale improves”; people are to be managed for wildlife: those that suggest that wildlife are to be managed for people are to be marginalized or purged from the system!

So the DNR recently closed all Moose hunting (forever??) in Minnesota for lack of moose. To say that a moose permit was THE MOST-PRIZED license a Minnesotan could get (the odds were equivalent to winning the Lottery) would be an understatement. Now this “poor” researcher (he only got $424,000 to “discover” what any Minnesotan with half a brain in a wolf country bar already knew) admits “this is all new for us.”

Any Minnesotan could have asked why the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd in Montana disappeared; why the Lolo elk herd in Idaho disappeared; and why Upper Rocky Mt. moose are now going the way of the Dodo bird and Passenger Pigeon: ALL AS WOLVES BECAME ESTABLISHED AND THEIR POPULATIONS EXPLODED IN THOSE ENVIRONS! My oh my, what a coincidence.

This skit belongs on Prairie Home Companion in a bar conversation with all those guys hitting themselves on the forehead with those new plastic beer mugs that just replaced the old heavy glass ones.

PS In all honesty, Minnesota is no different than most other states in worshiping every word that drips from the mouths of “the wildlife” boys and girls. I just got back in from Iowa and they are setting a new low in this regard as it seems more and more state fish and wildlife agencies race to the bottom as they snivel at the feet of federal bureaucrats and their promises of money and jobs.

God Help Us.

Jim Beers
1 June 2013

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


Wolves Cause Stress and Ignorance in Politicians

Is that a catchy enough headline? If read in one way, it would appear that I’m suggesting that wolves cause stress and ignorance in politicians. It could be read several different ways, but in reality, wolves cause stress in the wild prey animals they constantly harass and domestic critters such as cattle. Now I would like to think that wolves don’t cause politicians to be ignorant, although sometimes I have my doubts. The ignorance in politicians, like with all people, comes by choice.

Yesterday I wrote about the early stages of a study being conducted in Minnesota in attempts to determine what is killing off the state’s moose population. Preliminary indications from the study show that there’s a possibility (okay so I’m being cautious here) that gray wolves might be killing too many moose. GASP!

Alright! I’ll dispense with the theatrics. In my commentary I asked these questions, “Again, not that this assessment is wrong, but for God’s sake do any of these researchers have an understanding of stress factors on moose, the result of which comes from the mere presence of wolves? Have they no elementary knowledge that stressed out moose will not eat as they should in order to gain the needed fat supplies to get through the cold winters? Or that the body fat will come off quickly and/or never be put on due to constant harassment?”

In my email box this morning, my good friend, Will Graves, had sent me a link to an article about this topic and within that article is a link to a study completed about 3 years ago on the effects of stress put on elk and cattle caused by the presence of wolves.

Follow all these links and you’ll find helpful information on the subject of stress caused by wolves.

I’m sure someone will chime in that the study is about stress placed on elk and cattle not moose. I recognize that and while I’m not so ignorant as to not know that there is a decent chance there will be differences in how moose react to the presence of wolves, much in the same way as was pointed out in the study the differences between cattle and elk. The point is that there’s probably a better than reasonable chance that the same stresses are placed on moose. How they act and react will vary.

As I pointed out in my article yesterday, I have concern that the study that is underway in Minnesota will be incomplete and perhaps inconclusive if all possibilities that might be causing higher than normal moose mortality aren’t fully explored. If researchers aren’t looking at possible stress factors and the degree of hurt put on the moose, then are we to hope they might stumble upon it? The same can be said for disease, of which I also brought up in yesterday’s article.

If I and millions of other people can so easily find studies on these topics, I’m sure the researchers in Minnesota can as well. And when they do, let’s hope they dispense with the biases and hoped-for outcomes and get to the truth of the matter.

And now on to the ignorance of politicians. Also in my inbox this morning was a link to another story about how the Minnesota Senate Environment and Energy Committee passed, by a 7-6 vote, a proposal that would put a five-year moratorium on any further gray wolf hunts.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Eaton, said this about her reasons for crafting this act: “I grew up hunting,” Eaton said.” I have nothing against hunting. My concern is for the survival of the wolf. I believe that when you put these kind of resources into protecting a species that it doesn’t make sense to automatically start a recreational hunt once they are delisted.”

So let’s examine the ignorance. “I have nothing against hunting,” she stated. It is obvious to any clown that her statement is a falsehood. If she had “nothing” against hunting, she wouldn’t have “something” against it. She’s against hunting the wolf; an act that has proven itself for nearly a century to be responsible form of wildlife management.

Easton says her concern is for the survival of the wolf. Boldly stated, if that were true then she would have an understanding of the importance of the proper management of the animal. Aspects of that management include the wide and unnecessary destruction of other wildlife species, as well as domestic livestock and family pets, due to too many wolves. Does Eaton have any understanding that an overgrown population of wolves greatly increases the spread of more than 30 different diseases the wolf carries? These incidents of disease greatly increase as populations of wolves go up.

She seems to be lamenting about the possibilities of the waste that might come from the years and effort put into protecting the wolf and somehow associates that with them all being destroyed by offering a hunting season on the animal. Does Ms. Eaton have any knowledge of the history of the wolf in Minnesota? They have been protected for at least 40 years and the population of wolves is the highest the state has ever had.

Here’s a slew of other questions Eaton needs to answer, and perhaps she already has. How many wolves are enough? What is the average growth rate of wolves in Minnesota? What are the negative effects caused by wolves? Why did Minnesota agree to have a hunting season on wolves? Was it because hunters were hounding the state’s fish and game to go hunt wolves? Or was it because all scientific data and on the ground indications told officials it would be a good management decision? Why a five-year moratorium? Why not one or ten? Who is behind your effort to promote this bill? Why don’t you believe the information given to you as to why Minnesota needs a wolf hunt? How much longer do wolves in Minnesota need to be protected to satisfy Sen. Eaton and those who are actually behind the moratorium and what is the scientific basis of that determination?

Hopefully this bill will be dead on arrival when it hits the Minnesota Senate floor and managing the animal can be left up to fish and wildlife officials rather than ignorant politicians.


Are Wolves Causing Low Body Fat in Moose in Minnesota?

The Duluth News Tribune has a story from yesterday, March 18, 2013, that headlines that wolves are taking a toll on Minnesota moose; a headline that many of us have waited for for quite some time. But perhaps the headline is a bit premature. Further data collection and research might tell a better and more complete story……..or will it?

It’s always difficult to get an accurate assessment of events such as wildlife studies from newspaper accounts and I don’t think I need explain why. So, from this one newspaper account, I would like to point out just one part of it that presents a confusing and perhaps misleading bunch of statements. This may be intentional bias or not. I don’t really know, but it does little to solve a problem.

Here’s a snippet taken from the article:

Of the two animals that died from other causes, both appear to be victims of wolf attacks. One had been mostly eaten, and the other had injuries from a wolf attack but had not been eaten. From a post-mortem investigation at the scene, it appears wolves got the big cow’s calf and then left the area before the cow died, Butler said.

“She died from secondary issues after being wounded by wolves. … It was pretty cool how (the crews) went in there and figured out what happened,” Butler said.

While wolves were the ultimate cause of death for those moose, Butler said both of them, and even some of the moose that died from capture-related stress, had lower-than-usual body fat in what has been a fairly normal, if not mild, winter in moose country.

“When we are capturing them in January, that’s early enough in winter that they should still have some good body fat, and three of these didn’t. That’s not normal,” Butler said.

A reduction in nutrition, possibly from warm weather in the summer when moose are too hot to eat, or from habitat issues, is one theory why moose are having problems making it through winter.

It’s not so much that this information may be perceived as incorrect as it is that it is incomplete. In addition it’s a continuation of the perpetuated bias found in most all media accounts of why moose are disappearing in Minnesota. For years people have questioned this phenomenon and for years have refused to place any of the blame on the presence of wolves. The blame has always been on global warming. And what is near a tragic event is that perhaps their answer is staring the scientists right in the face as might be indicated from this account.

Two moose are said to have been killed as the result of wolves but the researchers seem to be marveling at the discovery that the moose have lower than expected body fat. Once again, the blame is put on the possibility that it is warmer summer time temperatures, along with reduced habitat, that is causing it. Again, not that this assessment is wrong, but for God’s sake do any of these researchers have an understanding of stress factors on moose, the result of which comes from the mere presence of wolves? Have they no elementary knowledge that stressed out moose will not eat as they should in order to gain the needed fat supplies to get through the cold winters? Or that the body fat will come off quickly and/or never be put on due to constant harassment?

It doesn’t end here either. Also included in the snippet above is the account of the cow moose’s calf that was eaten while the cow, having been attacked also by the wolves, was left to die. What is just as infuriating to me is that not only do I see the seemingly blind ignorance of not attributing low body fat to stress from wolves, it also appears that the researchers can’t understand why there is such a low calf recruitment of the moose.

Some people don’t understand that it isn’t necessarily the adult moose that need to be killed off to destroy a population. All you need do is reduce the calf recruitment, that is circumstances that do not allow for calf moose to live beyond their first year, to a level where sustainability becomes problematic. When calf recruitment nears zero, one can expect to find precipitous drops in total moose populations.

In the account shown above, are we not seeing the preferred diet of the wolves? Is not the young calves, obviously easier for the wolves to kill than a full grown moose, the cuisine of choice? And if this is true, why then is it some seemingly obtuse puzzlement to understand why moose calf recruitment is in trouble?

It is hopeful, yet I remain skeptical, that a completion of this study will get to the bottom of the problem. The skepticism comes when one reads accounts such as this that makes people like me see that researchers are seeking a pre-hoped-for outcome.

And speaking of incomplete studies and information, will we also from this study, get any work done on all the diseases that moose suffer from; one of them being hydatid cysts found in the lungs that can have not only health issues, but lessens a moose’s ability to escape predation. If they want to know what’s killing the moose, all factors must be considered. Otherwise, these people will just stick to the claims of global warming and loss of habitat; which may be their goal anyway.


Minnesota Moose Dreamin’

By Jim Beers (republished on this website with permission from the author)


The following article (Minnesota moose.. hunt suspended)[Link provided above to referred to article] from the front page of today’s St. Paul Paper is worth reading to either make your blood boil or, if you’ve been following the demise of big game hunting in the US, give you a good excuse to shake your head with a wry smile.

There is a reward of a 50-cent coupon to the Wacky Minnesota Gift Store if you can find the word – WOLF – in the article. There is a 25-cent coupon to JoAnns Fabric Store if you can find the words – Echinococcus granulosis or tapeworms spread by wolves (the generic word “parasite” doesn’t count) – in the article.

So, to all you former Montana and Idaho elk hunters now playing violent video games on your kid’s smart phones while they are at school; take note that the Minnesota elk hunt this year (for two isolated and small herds in isolated woods in NW Minnesota where they should be vulnerable to hunting) was a bust. An expected harvest of 23 elk could do no better than 9; calling Sherlock Holmes and Watson. These same DNR/Outdoor Writer Worthies are also mystified about what is going on with the elk as well as the moose.

To all you Yellowstone Park Visitors, this Minnesota moose/elk disappearance practically overnight is credited to unspecified diseases and habitat changes due to global warming just like the missing Yellowstone moose and elk. I refrain from the other reason given by the nicely-uniformed National Park Service “experts” that the moose and elk are mysteriously “staying in the backcountry” since Minnesota “backcountry” is both inhabited and hunted thoroughly so such lies are hard to make. Of course wolves are blameless to all these government wolf-manipulators for their no longer hidden agendas from killing hunting to making gun ownership more problematic.

Why no less an authority than the “head biologist for the fish and wildlife department of the Grand Portage band of Lake Superior Chippewa” is quoted as saying, “Parasites, disease and habitat are all potential factors” (i.e. in the demise of moose). I refrain at this point from using another quote from the article that would be out-of-place and unfair –“That’s insane”.

Since I moved to Minnesota 5 years ago I have spoken and written about how Minnesota wolves are at their highest populations and densities in the past century for the past 20 years since the federal government ripped state (and therefore state resident) wolf management from a compliant state wildlife agency over 40 years ago. I have made pen pals of the outdoor writers to their great amusement and created a reputation with the paper as an hilarious old crank. The high wolf populations being maintained by livestock, dog, deer, moose and elk meat in Minnesota is having the SAME effect that it has in Montana, Idaho, Ontario, Alberta, Alaska, British Columbia, Siberia, Kazakhstan, etc. etc.

The primary Minnesota wolf habitat is and was EXACTLY where the moose and elk lived (note the past tense). The graph of wolf population increase over the past 20 years coincides with the moose/elk population estimate/hunting success rates for the same period. Duh!

Every news article about the missing moose only mentions wolves by way of vilifying those that even suspect wolf depredation as a factor (much less THE factor) as troglodytes that should be locked in the attic with the old uncle that slobbers and passes gas around genteel folks. This writer has been so designated.

So, the rest of the world take note: Alaska abandon your wolf control to maintain moose; Siberia abandon your wolf control to save reindeer; Kazakhstan and Russia abandon your wolf control to save livestock and the old ladies and kids that tend them – All of you look to Minnesota bureaucrats where such losses (except for the old ladies and kids that are too hard to deny) these losses are due to GLOBAL WARMING AND UNDEFINED DISEASES. Stop all that wolf control, until Minnesota determines the REAL REASONS and (along with uniformed US National Park Service Storytellers) reveals the deep dark secrets you have been too dumb to figure out. Keep up your anti-wolf-hunt lawsuits Michiganders and shut down your power plants – Global Warming and Diseases are the enemy, certainly not wolves! Wisconsinites stay cold and in the dark all winter to reduce your carbon footprint to save moose, elk and deer meat for higher wolf population densities to replace hunters and armed citizens while moving rural folks into cities!

Note how an esteemed Minnesota “wildlife research manager for the DNR” “thinks” Ontario is “seeing the same thing”. Thinks? Doesn’t he have a phone? Doesn’t he “think” those are the same woods (albeit measured in kilometers), wolves and moose in the contiguous wolf/moose habitat from central Minnesota to Hudson Bay? Two weeks ago my wife and I had lunch with a great retired Canadian law enforcement officer and his wife. His Ontario hunting camp (a dozen plus guys) was not good at all last year for either moose or deer. His (and his neighbor a retired Ontario wildlife guy) reason? There were wolf tracks and wolves everywhere but they are now killing wolves and coyotes year-around with complete expectation if they kill enough of them and keep killing them the moose and deer hunting will recover hopefully in a few years.

Finally, back in the 1990’s I testified before the US Congress about how US Fish and Wildlife Service hacks stole $45 to 60 Million dollars from the Hunting and Fishing Excise Taxes intended only for State agencies to manage State Fish and Wildlife Resources. This was after Congress had denied USFWS funding for this hair-brained scheme. But undeterred by lawful authority and on a mission for “Gaia” they stole millions from hunters and game management so that federal bureaucrats could capture Canadian wolves, import them illegally and release them without any state concurrence in Yellowstone Park to eliminate ranching, elk, moose and hunting/rural safety in the Upper Rockies states. I was shocked, angered and disgusted at the time as a hunter who still believed that at least the State agencies were still on the hunters’ side but how naive I was for a guy in his fifties. If this Minnesota “Moosegate” debacle is how they are using the excise taxes, USFWS might as well steal it all and if there is any left over after paying themselves bonuses, give it to Garrison Keillor to do a skit on The Prairie Home Companion explaining where all the Minnesota moose and elk and deer and pheasants have gone. At least it will boost the sale of those biscuits in the oil-stained bags and maybe create another non-government job or two to slow the slide in the Minnesota economy.

Jim Beers
7 February 2013

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


Palm Trees, Sugar Cane and the Maine Parakeets Diminish Minnesota Moose Herd

On January 4, 2013, Pioneer Press of Minnesota carried an article by Dave Orrick about an upcoming study to take place in that state “to figure out what is killing its iconic moose of the north woods.” The article states:

Researchers suspect calves are dying at a higher rate than usual, but the most troubling trend is adult moose in their prime of life dropping dead. Moose have all but vanished from the northwestern part of the state where they once roamed.

Once again, the “ostrich” approach to a problem is being undertaken. Burying one’s head in the sand over obvious facts in order to promote other theories is commonplace in today’s new-science science of outcome-based education.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources released a report in 2011 lamenting the rapid decline of moose in that state, showing essentially a calf survival rate of 0% and not one mention in that report of what effect predators might have been having.

In 2010 the same Department of Natural Resources issued a report blaming the rapid loss of moose on global warming, also with no mention of predator effects.

So, now with head still buried in the sand, $1.6 million will be spent to radio collar moose and see if the poor ostriches in Minnesota can figure out what’s killing their moose.

Jim Beers, a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, commented on the article linked to above saying,

It is interesting that this study is initiated after the first public harvest (12-15% according to lowball state population estimates and more likely 8-10%) of wolves in addition to the increasing annual number of government-killed depredating wolves over the past 40 years.

Robert Fanning, one time candidate seeking the republican nomination to run for Montana governor commented:

Bobby Fithian, Executive Director of Alaska Professional Hunters assn and Board member of a very prominent citizen USFWS management committee tells me that after 50 years of compiled studies Alaska F&G concluded that 85% of all ungulate mortality is due to predation.

Will Graves, author of Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages, also commented that:

Declining moose pop in Minn is prob due to Echinococcus g. causing large cysts in the lungs of the moose. The moose have reduced lung power and can’t run far or fight long. Also, Neospora caninum might also be playing a part in the decline.

Wolves, very present on the landscape in portions of Minnesota, which happen to coincide with the same habitat as the moose, are a known primary host of Echinococcus granulosus, that when ingested by moose can cause cysts in the lungs and other organs.

The reading of the Pioneer Press article and subsequent comments from friends and colleagues, prompted Jim Beers to craft a response letter for the newspaper. Here is a copy of that response.


It is worth noting that the MN DNR is launching an extensive satellite-tagging project to confirm their longstanding belief that Global Warming and definitely not wolves is responsible for the accelerating decline in moose. The facts that the moose and wolves cohabit the same habitat and that after 40 years of wolf protection and concomitant increase in both wolf numbers and their annual increases and moose that have declined at an accelerating rate simultaneously as the wolves increased at an accelerating rate are dismissed as irrelevant. Everywhere else in the Northern Hemisphere, this phenomenon is and has been recognized for what it is for centuries by scientist and layman alike.

Launching this expensive project right on the heels of the first public wolf harvest in 40 years and in the midst of the increasing government-killing of depredating wolves is a remarkable coincidence: almost as remarkable as federal wolf protection and wolf spreading programs that coincided with Roe v Wade 40-odd years ago.

Just as Roe was reputedly at first only for abortions “up to 3 months” and today is anytime, for any reason, at US government expense here and abroad, and now in federally-mandated insurance: federal wolf protection and mandates for a myriad of elusive benefits has spread nationwide and the many dangers and harms are buried in politically correct falderal from government enablers and animal rights radicals. “Rights” for a deadly and destructive predator were created as the Right to Life for humans in the womb was eliminated to please the radical’s secular religious tenets and bureaucrat’s rewards.

When I told a Maine friend that this proposed MN DNR Moose Mortality Study would, hopefully, confirm that the loss of moose was attributable to Minnesota’s loss of poplar and tamarack trees and the invasion of palm trees and sugar cane plantations; he informed me that he was aware of “peer-reviewed” findings from Maine that indicated that the parakeets in the palm trees were out-competing the moose for the remaining food, thereby assuring the ultimate demise of moose.

Garrison Keillor, are you taking notes?

Jim Beers

5 January 2013


How Do You “Purposely Kill” Two Wolves With a Vehicle?

Here’s the news story that is so poorly written that it is information-starved leaving readers with no clue as to what really happened.

It appears two men in Minnesota were charged with violating the Endangered Species Act (no specifics given) and making false statements to a federal officer (no details given). But that’s not the bizarre part. The news story states:

According to the U. S. attorney’s office, evidence was presented over a four-day trial that Hoff lied to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service officials when asked whether he spoke on the telephone with Jensen about transporting the carcasses of two wolves that Jensen purposely killed with his vehicle on Feb. 17, 2010.(emboldening added)

How does a person purposely kill or even not purposely kill one, say nothing about two, wolves with a vehicle? Did he trap them and then run over them while they were still in the trap, drag them out to the highway and claim “roadkill”?