September 18, 2019

Beware of Professors

The following is a Letter sent to the Editor of the Spokane, Washington Spokesman Review.  It answers an article “Kick cows off refuge lands” by a Professor at Eastern Washington University that appeared in the paper. The article appears after the Letter..   Jim Beers

“Once proud” is a term overused in today’s dwindling newspaper publishing business.  A significant factor contributing to the demise of many “once proud” newspapers is their yielding to the temptation to pander to the imaginary boogeymen of uninformed readers with myths from reputedly informed writers.  Sad to say, you have entirely succumbed to this disgusting temptation by publishing, Professor Lindholdt’s “Kick cows off refuge lands” a composition worthy of some “Occupy Wall Street” handbill passed around during a demonstration.

The following refutations apply to the main assertions in your (i.e. Lindholdt’s) diatribe.

1.)  The Bundy’s and other occupiers of Malheur have very legitimate grievances with the USFWS, the BLM and the US Forest Service.  That they picked Malheur to give attention to their grievances is as logical as any other USDI or USDA facility.  The wildlife resources of Malheur Refuge are as healthy as ever.  One of those ranchers is dead and the other fathers and husbands face imprisonment.  Given the Professor’s animus toward ranchers, is it futile to ask him to “give it a rest?”

2.)  The Professor’s liking of the vegetarian diet is as relevant to the article’s title as is my preferences for snow goose cassoulet or walleye filets parmesaned.

3.)  Ranches are indeed corporations and as such they provide immense fuel for Local communities’ economies such as jobs, support businesses and revenue for Local governments to protect Local communities from both the federal government and uncaring interlopers like Professor Lindholdt.  Furthermore, when these refuges were founded like Little Pend Oreille in 1939; you can bet your bippy that the Local community was asked to welcome the refuge and their once benign efforts to benefit wildlife and by extension the Local citizenry.  Like the majority of refuges in the system, the Congressional Authorizing Legislation paid homage to Local communities and their governments and stressed (now slowly being eradicated like Jewish achievements under German National Socialism) that waterfowl and other Treaty species like songbirds were of primary consideration.

4.)  Speaking of the Professor’s fawning homage to two recent lady refuge managers that “ousted” the cows from Turnblull NWR (“ more than 3,000 acres of wetlands of the last quality breeding habitat available in eastern Washington

for waterfowl”), and Little Pend Oreille NWR’s; his enthusiasm is offset by the negative impacts the waterfowl production very likely suffered.  Regulated (by time, intensity and grazing species) grazing by livestock is an important tool in managing wetlands and associated nesting cover for desirable waterfowl species’ nesting success.  Like timber management (another modern boogeyman) as a regulated tool also provides benefits to desirable plant and animals species and their abundance is vilified, so too is livestock grazing besmirched as inherently harmful.  Both beliefs are false.

5.)  I see the Professor also accuses opponents of the ESA as involved in a “coalition” within the agriculture industry that sponsor “illegal measures” to punish “whistleblowers”.  I could write several books (I have written over a thousand such articles) about why the ESA should be “defeated”.  As a Utah State Wildlife graduate; a Utah Fish and Game former employee; a USFWS wetlands biologist in North Dakota; a US Game Management Agent in Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City and Washington, DC; a USFWS Animal Damage Control Program Coordinator in Washington, DC; Chief of the Branch of Refuge Operations in Washington, DC; wildlife biologist administering Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax funding to state wildlife departments from Washington, DC; member of both a State Department team and US Trade Representative Team battling unjust fur regulations in the European Union; and as a Congressional Fellow I oppose the ESA: that neither makes me a bad person or one in need of “re-education”.

6.)  As a “whistleblower” myself, I was amused by the Professor’s concern about suppressing “whistleblowers” he supports.  When I testified twice before a packed US House of Representatives Committee about the theft of $45 to 60 Million in state wildlife funds by USFWS managers to trap Canadian wolves, release said wolves in Yellowstone, and open an office in California – all 3 of which Congress had refused to either authorize or fund) – I became a “whistleblower”. I was threatened with loss of my health care and my pension after 32 years with USFWS and 4 years as an officer in the US Navy and I spent ten months at home with full pay and then was offered and accepted a large cash settlement  (thank you Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer) on condition I would not speak or write about the circumstances of my “retirement” for 3 years (so much for “transparency”.)  By the way this was all perpetrated by the same folks administering these Refuges and that the good Professor lauds while ranchers are imprisoned and shot.  Ooohh, the ranchers copied down his license plate?  Poor baby.

In closing, cattle should not be banned from refuges.  Refuges were created and remain funded to care for wildlife and the people that use and enjoy them.  Camping is a “secondary” use of refuges as it is these days for National Forests and National Parks, both of which were founded to provide camping but today are increasingly becoming closed federal enclaves that ignore Local communities, Local governments and any activity not favored by political bosses back in Washington, DC.  I suggest the Professor look for Parks and Forests the next time and that if he continues to attend rancher meetings he exert the sort of discretion one might at a Black Lives Matter Meeting and not provoke the Local folks or belittle their concerns.

Oh and one more thing, I am often asked when I speak and when I write, “Mr. Beers, how did these bureaucrats ever get like they have become?”  My new answer from now on will be. “Because they all studied wildlife under English Professors like Mr. Lindholdt at Eastern Washington University that not only are ignorant and biased about wildlife but that also harbor a deep dislike for rural Americans and the rural America that made (and makes) America great.

Jim Beers

7 February 2016

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.  You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Lawsuit Challenging Wildlife Services’ Authority to Kill Oregon Wolves

The totalitarian group, Western Environmental Law Center, and their puppet regimes, have filed a lawsuit to end the killing of wolves in Oregon by the Federal Government’s Wildlife Services. This is but another money-making scheme promoted by totalitarians forcing the ideals onto others at great cost.

I refuse to provide any links to this story, as most of the links would take readers to the environmentalists’ propaganda page that contains idealistic, emotionally-based drivel that is heavily value-laden. In short, it is mostly all lies designed to mislead the public to justify their raping the taxpayers of their hard earned tax dollars.

Will this lying nonsense, riddled with perversion and psychopathy ever end? NOPE!

The legislature short session is in full swing and one of the topics will be a bill coming into the Ag and Natural Resources Committee that would legislatively back the ODF&W’s commission decision to delist the grey wolf according to Representative Greg Barreto: “This is just part of the process of the wolf plan that everyone agreed to ten years ago. They agreed to the numbers, they agreed to the process, they agreed to the plan as it was written.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Victoria Sharp’s Eyewitness Account of Finicum Killing

She was a passenger in the truck that was riddled with bullets.

Share

Oregon BLM: Document Data Dump Expose It’s all about the Minerals!

Share

Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians along with one-fifth of our uranium ore

As it turns out there’s a lot more to the story behind the Malheur Wildlife Refuge–a whole lot more–and this article is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

As you may or may not know, Intellihub reported on Jan. 4, that the Hammond’s ranch and other ranch-lands surrounding the refuge sit atop a vast swath of precious metals, minerals, and uranium that’s heavily desired by not only the federal government, but foreign entities as well.

However, at the time of the article’s publication the federal government’s full motive to seize the land was not yet known other than the fact that these elements do exist in the vicinity and are invaluable.

Now, after further investigation, more pieces of the puzzle have been put in place and you’re not going to believe what characters are involved.

Source: Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians along with one-fifth of our uranium ore |

Share

Oregon Standoff is Just a Symptom of a Much Larger Problem

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

National Center for Public Policy Research Calls for Three-Step Plan to Help Relieve the Rural West
 

WASHINGTON, DC – As the country continues to focus on the ongoing standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, the National Center for Public Policy Research reminds federal elected officials in Washington that the standoff follows decades of public dissatisfaction with federal land management policies, particularly in the West, yet Congress after Congress and presidents of both parties have largely ignored federal land issues.

The federal government should take specific actions to reduce citizen dissatisfaction with federal policies, the National Center says. Among them:

• Congress should enact a prohibition on additional federal land acquisitions. The federal government already controls a substantial percentage of western land and too many disputes with local landowners and communities have at least in part been caused by federal agencies seeking to expand federal land ownership and control. At this point additional land acquisitions are unnecessary and a moratorium on additional acquisitions would eliminate this source of dispute.

• Congress should develop and impose a specific plan for the sale to the private sector or transfer to the states of a significant portion of federal lands. The federal government has a multi-billion dollar — perhaps 20 billion or more — backlog in maintenance for federal lands it controls now. Shedding some of these properties would permit the federal government to do a better job managing its most valued properties while increasing local control over local land.

• President Obama should acknowledge that federal agencies bear some responsibility for citizen frustration with federal land management practices and should commute the additional sentences of Dwight and Steven Hammond. Such an action would not only bring justice to the Hammonds, but also signal that the executive branch is aware that it needs to improve the way it manages federal lands and interacts with citizens on land issues.

“The injustice that has befallen the Hammond family in Oregon is symptomatic of the larger problem of massive federal ownership of land throughout the rural West,” said Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Farmers and ranchers in the West are subjected to the whims of federal bureaucrats, who lord over the region like an occupying power. But the relentless harassment of hard-working families is only part of the story. All Americans suffer when the country is denied access to the valuable natural resources locked up on or beneath millions of acres of federal land. The best stewards of the land are the people who own it, people whose livelihoods are dependent on responsible stewardship of their property. It is time to end the rural West’s colonial status by getting the feds off the land, and selling that land to willing buyers.”

The National Center also says Congress should immediately convene extensive hearings to hear from dissatisfied citizens as well as employees of federal land management agencies. The hearings, which should last weeks if not months, should have the goal of educating Members of Congress about lands issues too few of them know anything about, as well as members of the public.

“One reason these disputes escalate is that people feel powerless,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Most of these issues arise in low-population areas in which a small number of citizens feel outgunned by the powerful federal government. Few people in cities and suburbs; indeed, hardly anyone east of the Mississippi, is even aware of these disputes. Yet these agencies are acting in our name and these landowners are our fellow citizens. Extensive Congressional hearings would be a first step in bringing us all together to fix these problems, but hearings are only a necessary first step.”

“We call upon President Obama to commute the sentences of Dwight and Steven Hammond, not to give in to protestors but to do the right thing,” said David Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “The Hammonds lit fires to be good stewards of the land. In return, they were prosecuted under a federal statute designed to punish domestic terrorists.”

“The basis of the crimes are that the Hammonds didn’t adequately coordinate with the BLM,” added David Ridenour. “But how can one coordinate with an agency that’s shown nothing but hostility toward you? The BLM is solely to blame for the communication breakdown. The president recently said on another issue that he knows ‘we can’t stop every… act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil.’ He has it in his power to stop this act of evil… by using that pen he’s talked so much about.”

National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith added the following statement:

Media attention on the plight of the Hammond family in Burns, Oregon — sent to prison as “terrorists” for starting small fires on their ranchland to prevent wildfires and to control invasive plants on grazing land — has focused more on the activities of some who have come to their “support” than on the root cause of the broad unhappiness with the federal government.

Ranchers, farmers, foresters and miners settled and homesteaded the West, often before government reached that far, or statehood, or counties were created. These landowners are today surrounded by a sea of federal lands. Across the West over half of all the land and resources are owned by the government. 53% in Oregon and 75% in Harney County. The federal government owns 85% of the state of Nevada and 64% of both Utah and Idaho, effectively making rural landowners little more than serfs, and precluding utilization of natural resources, reducing the tax base and impoverishing local and county governments. This is not the case in the Midwest and the East where most of the land is owned privately.

Evermore-onerous government regulations make it difficult for the landowners to use their lands and often next-to-impossible to cross the government lands on historic rights-of-way for access to water and grazing lands.

Yet even with this hegemonic control of the rural West, the federal government continues to acquire more land. Many see this as similar to the plight of the English when the king owned the forests, the lands and the wildlife. It also builds on the widespread Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s, during which state governments and legislatures demanded a return of their land and resources and equality with states in the East. That opposition to government ownership was tempered by the Reagan Administration’s easing of the regulatory regime.

But as the government has accelerated its efforts to acquire more land and to force people off their lands, mounting opposition and calls for change have flourished.

It is well past time to place a moratorium on any additional land acquisition by the federal government, to undertake an inventory of government landownership at all levels, and to begin taking steps toward a devolution of federal ownership and to return the lands and resources to responsible and caring ownership and stewardship. This would not threaten genuine environmental amenities and values. America has a long and noble tradition of successful private ownership of wildlife refuges, parks, and forests. If, for instance, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were owned by a conservation organization, such as an Audubon Society, it would not be able to bully and harass its farming and ranching neighbors who willingly share their lands with all the wildlife, but would have to deal with them in a legal and peaceful manner — while still protecting the wildlife.

The vision of America was to create a free society with the government protecting the people’s inalienable rights of life, liberty and property. It is time to make that dream come true.

“Congress has inadequately monitored the actions of federal land-management agencies for decades, ” concluded Amy Ridenour, “and successive presidential administrations have either encouraged abuses or looked the other way. It’s time for our country to stop pretending we don’t have a problem.”

Share

RMEF Praises Oregon Wolf Delisting

*Editor’s Note* – The state of Oregon opting to remove the gray wolf from state protection under the state’s endangered species program, is a first step that essentially only allows for more flexibility in protecting livestock. This is not a bad thing. What is bad is that the continued direction the state is headed, will not mitigate wolf and livestock interaction problems. Oregon wolf managers clearly state that the wolf will be “managed” in an Endangered Species Act-like manner. Wolves cannot be “managed.” They can only be controlled. Until states develop strict guidelines that include the rights of men over the fake rights of wolves, little will change.

Chances are also very good that Environmentalists will sue and win, padding their bank accounts while propping up scarcity, along with hands-off resource protectionism.

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation lauds the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for using scientific practices and procedures to remove wolves from state Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection.

“This is the right move. Oregon wolves are recovered,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “ODFW is successfully following its wolf management plan which provides protection both from and for wolves down the road.”

In essence, the status change means very little regarding current Oregon wolf management but it does open the door to the possibility of a wolf hunt in the future.

Biologists maintain there is a minimum population of 81 wolves in Oregon with the majority located in the northeast corner of the state.

According to the ODFW Wolf Plan, any take of wolves is tightly regulated with non-lethal preventive measures regarding wolf-livestock conflict being the first choice of action by wildlife managers. There is no general hunting season of wolves allowed in any phase of the current plan which is due to be updated in the near future. Wolves in the western two-thirds of Oregon will continue to be managed with ESA-like protections until they reach the conservation objective of four breeding pairs for three consecutive years. Ranchers in northeast Oregon can shoot a wolf caught in the act of wounding, biting, killing or chasing livestock.

“The wolf plan has been working well and you are all responsible for that,” said Michael Finley, ODFW Commission chair, at the conclusion of a recent public hearing. “We will remember the merits of the wolf plan and the next one will be as good or better. You can all help that happen.”

In light of the delisting, several environmental organizations are already threatening legal action.

“There are groups that do very little on-the-ground wildlife conservation work. They view the wolf as a fundraising tool and file lawsuit after lawsuit to gum up the process of proper, balanced wildlife management. The hysteria over this delisting is based on nothing more than ideology and fundraising. They need to allow state wildlife managers to do their job in looking out for what’s best for all species of wildlife,” added Allen.

Share

Oregon 1843 “Wolf Meetings”

Hat tip to Idaho for Wildlife

SOURCE

On May 2, 1843, Willamette Valley settlers met at Champoeg to vote on the formation of a provisional government. The minutes recorded by George Le Breton recount both the close vote in favor of the provisional government (52-50) and the subsequent appointments of settlers to fill the positions created at the meeting.

As the number of Euro American settlers living in the Willamette Valley increased over the course of the 1830s, so, too, did the recognition that some type of government would have to be formed. Attempts to establish a provisional government before 1843 were thwarted by intense factionalism among the settlers. The largest of these divisions was that which existed between the Methodist Mission, led by Jason Lee, and the Catholic Church, headed by Father Francis Blanchet. The religious underpinnings ensured that the settlers would be divided along cultural lines as well, with most Americans supporting the Methodist faction and the majority of the region’s French-Canadian population supporting that of the Catholics. Compounding the divide was the powerful regional presence of the Hudson’s Bay Company and John McLoughlin, who favored the Catholic position and opposed any increased power for the Methodists. The existence of these factions—each of which had its own internal divisions—created an environment in which compromise and agreement would prove elusive.

Despite the absence of a formal government, the early settlers of the Willamette Valley did appoint members of the community as legal decision makers when the need arose. In 1835 a criminal court was formed to hear the case of Thomas Hubbard, who was accused of a murder committed on Sauvie Island and in 1841 a probate judge was selected to handle the estate of Ewing Young, an ex-mountain man and cattle rancher who died without a will. This particular judge continued to hear probate cases until the provisional government was established in 1843.

Of the many meetings that were held to discuss the political status of the region, two in particular are considered especially important in influencing the establishment of a provisional government. The first of these meetings was held at the Oregon Institute, a school for white children in Oregon City, on February 2, 1843 and the second was held at the home of Joseph Gervais on March 6, 1843. These “wolf meetings” were ostensibly held to discuss how to solve the problem posed by increasing attacks on local livestock by wolves, bears, and cougars. At issue was the establishment of a bounty system in which all residents would contribute to a general fund that would pay bounties for dead predators. An executive committee was formed to both collect and distribute what was essentially the first local tax. It was through the establishment of this committee that the seeds for an organized government were sown. Less than two months later, the majority of the region’s settlers approved the formation of Oregon’s provisional government.

Further Reading:
Lowenberg, Robert J. Equality on the Oregon Frontier: Jason Lee and the Methodist Mission, 1834-1843. Seattle, Wash., 1976.

Dobbs, Caroline C. Men of Champoeg: a Record of the Lives of the Pioneers who Founded the Oregon Government. Portland, Ore., 1932.

Written by Dane Bevan, © Oregon Historical Society, 2004.

Share

Wolf attack on livestock in Southern Oregon confirmed

The wolf OR25 attacked three cattle in Klamath County last weekend, killing one and wounding two others, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has confirmed.The incident marks the first example of wolf depredation in Southern Oregon and the most western case of depredation since the animals were reintroduced to Idaho in 1996 and began spreading across the West.

Source: Wolf attack on livestock in Southern Oregon confirmed

Share

State police suspend investigation into ‘suspicious’ Wallowa County deaths of 2 wolves

*Editor’s Note* – This modus operendi closely resembles what I have seen in North Carolina with red wolves. When evidence doesn’t fit the crime sought after, strange things happen. Perhaps we can get a sense of something not quite being right when we take a look at what appears in the linked-to article below.

Readers are first told that,”because of the advanced decay of the animals’ remains” officials were unable to determine what killed the wolves. And yet, the state police says that, “likely there were witnesses to the CRIME.” What’s the crime? Couldn’t the police have more accurately said that likely there may have been people in the area who could give us some better information as to what they might have seen regarding the two dead wolves? These are dead, wild animals – an event that is common in the wild.

The report says “evidence points toward humans being in the area” when the wolves died. So! This was public land. Are humans not permitted in the area?

If an illegal killing of wolves by humans took place, then gather the evidence and make the charge against them. But crap like this only serves to make people suspicious of the actions of government officials eager to create the evidence to wrongly accuse someone who was in the area at the time.

And they wonder why people are distrustful of government.

A veterinarian who conducted necropsies on the carcasses of two wolves found dead in late August in Wallowa County was unable to determine how they died, state police officials said Wednesday.

Lt. Bill Fugate, a state police spokesman, said the carcasses were found on public land north of Enterprise. It’s likely there were witnesses to the crime, he said. (emboldening added)

Source: State police suspend investigation into ‘suspicious’ Wallowa County deaths of 2 wolves | OregonLive.com

Share