June 19, 2019

2016 hunting rules, wolves top agenda

But the hottest topic at the meeting will be a proposal to take gray wolves off the state Endangered Species List, which  has drawn nearly 6,000 written comments.

Source: 2016 hunting rules, wolves top agenda

Share

The Push for a Population Reduction Civil War

ProtestViolenceIs there something in the air that might be causing a shift in how many “peaceful” American citizens view their constitutional rights? I know, and a few other people know, that there are continuous psychological warfare operations designed to influence the way people think and react to specific issues. The media plays the biggest role in this effort.

I believe that people who seriously cherish their liberty are the true liberals, not the Leftists who co opted the label for political gain. True liberals and most libertarians want and enjoy their rights and want to be left alone in doing so. They also do not attempt to force their ideals onto others.

The Left understands this and so, often turn to violence to push their agendas, knowing any push back will be only verbal.

Readers should understand I’m not supporting one side over the other necessarily, instead pointing out the differences and to say that these differences exist for reasons very few people understand. As the Left/Right paradigm is a contrived hoax, I’m sure leftist violence and libertarian passivity are also man-created for political purposes.

I’ve been watching the goings on in Oregon after the shooting and see some things that I find a bit troubling and also is causing me to ask myself a few questions.

We know that President Obama immediately politicized the shootings, pretending to be angry at a press conference and saying he was going to politicize the event for personal gain…sorry, I think he said to protect the American people. How noble. I guess that’s why he won the Noble Peace Prize.

We are in the throes of a presidential campaign – throes because it is a painful beginning to coming change. We heard candidate Ben Carson tell the world that if he were in a situation where someone put a gun to his head and asked him if he was a Christian, he wouldn’t give them an answer and instead would confront the shooter and fight back, all the while calling upon others present to join him in that attack.

Immediately much of the media jumped all over that comment accusing Carson of promoting violence while at the same time blaming the victims for being dead or wounded because they didn’t fight back. On the other side, even from law enforcement, we began to hear support for Carson’s point of confronting and imminent shooter.

What’s ironic here – if that’s actually the word I want to use – is the “left” pretended or ignorantly stood in opposition to Carson’s call for fighting back, i.e. violence, and yet the left is notorious for violence and killing to promote agendas. The “right,” historically passive in such matters, is supporting the action to stand up to mass shooters and fight back, i.e. violence.

But this debate is limited to gun issues…isn’t it? Do these same people react the same way when it comes to other issues?

First we must understand that anytime that there is a killing, with a gun, it’s a Second Amendment issue, nothing else, except of late there seems to be a movement of some kind to place the blame on mental illness. More than likely just another psychological warfare operation. Is there the same outward, emotional debate, when you or your neighbor are victims of Fourth Amendment violations? What about First Amendment, etc.?

This morning I was reading an Andrew McCarthy article published at Pajamas Media. In addressing the Oregon school shooting, he places the present time as a “post-constitutional republic.” He does a good job of explaining how people see things, but comes up a bit short as to why people see things the way they do. However, I don’t want to miss the point.

The author questions why there is debate over a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and yet states:

“Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.

Reading that I was reminded of the events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. I sat in front of my television in utter disbelief as I watched law enforcement march down a street, with armored vehicles, pointing weapons of all sizes into the faces of anybody inside a house daring to look outside. While this was going on, police went door to door, busting down doors if necessary, intruding into the homes of innocent people looking for someone they had labeled a terrorist bomber. But what totally disgusted me was later in the evening, after the police claimed to have captured one of the alleged bombers, as they drove out the street, hoards of onlookers stood and applauded the efforts to the police. Why? They trampled all over the Fourth Amendment. But, as the writer above says, “we would not abide a suggest that we reconsider whether the government may break into you home…” We would NOT reconsider that but only because we have been brainwashed to think under circumstances, even fake ones, it’s for our safety that government suspends the constitution.

I guess McCarthy was right when he said there isn’t “supposed to be much policy debate.” As he also points out later, Americans tend to lack conviction in their belief of constitutional rights. And that, my friends, is all about design. Something this magnanimous could not happen by chance.

Not to get lost from my point, the author doesn’t come right out and say it, but he is suggesting that those who do believe in the constitutional rights, should be willing to be more assertive and proud and stand up for those rights and not apologize for them. Is the author also suggesting that perhaps it might even become necessary to resort to violent push backs, only if necessary (wink, wink) against those wishing to destroy those rights? And if someone, the government, the media, a friend, a candidate tells you your rights are being taken away and you need to fight back, will you? Blindly?

Consider again what Ben Carson said about the Oregon shooting. He said he wouldn’t just stand or sit there and let some person blow his brains out without fighting back. And then consider the aftermath while keeping in perspective my assertion above that historically liberty-loving people seldom resort to violence, at least not in what might be deemed illegal ways.

The actions in the aftermath are the fruit of the gun control PSYOP. There may actually be overlapping PSYOPs taking place. The gun control actions are about stealing rights and instilling fear in people that guns kill people. It’s always the gun that kills, never the person pulling the trigger. Attack the guns. People are programmed to attack the gun and take away the right.

In Boston the people have been programmed to believe that suspending the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, was necessary for their safety. They welcomed it. After all, this has been drummed into the heads for how long? The Patriot Act is necessary for our safety – the Government said so and we believe it.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out the reason the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to ensure that government would not become too powerful and resort to tyranny. And today, the people cry out for government. They cry out for government to take away the guns that were meant to protect them FROM government. None of this makes sense. The more we give government power the less liberty we have. Why don’t we understand that?

Is the current presidential campaign becoming another means of shifting the way the peaceful right goes about their business? Enter Donald Trump. Trump, the master salesman, television personality, and fake regular guy, says what pissed off people want to hear. Understand that people have become pissed off because the plan was crafted to make all those people angry. It is all mostly fake, sold to America through the media. Years and years of manipulation of the minds of people and the world is full of hatred, distrust and anger. People like Trump come along and feed on that. They empower the angry. Finally there is hope, some exclaim. And yet, with no lessons learned, voters have forgotten Trump is corporate America, Trump is Wall Street, Trump is banking.

Newly empowered, some are standing up for what they believe are their rights where they wouldn’t have before. With somebody who will say what angry people want to hear, even if he doesn’t believe any of it for himself, how far will they go? Are these people actually being programmed to rise up against each other.

If Ben Carson and others believe that the right thing to do when you believe you are going to be shot anyway is to fight back, does that mean that same approach should be taken to issues where your life might be at stake? What if you believe that the actions of someone or something, maybe the government, is going to ultimately threaten your life? Do you go down fighting?

Again I ask, are we being programmed further and further toward violence? What is the end game?

Consider a comment left at the above article. This type of comment is commonly found by leftists who hate rightist’s ideology. They always attack with violence or the threat of violence. It’s what they know. It’s what they have been taught. Not necessarily by the right.

“I’m not going to shoot at the Army or LEO’s if the liberals are able to order gun seizures.

No, if we get to a point where there are gun seizures, I’m plan to target liberal pundits, liberal politicians, their wives, their children, their campaign donors, etc. These are all nice soft targets that won’t shoot back. This is the logical action to take, since these are the people people who are really at fault for the encroachment upon my civil liberties.”

Before we act and react, especially to the lies we are fed continuously by the media, we should all take a moment to really think about from what source is all the hatred coming from. It isn’t what you think.

Share

Deer Fearless, Bears Afraid, Pesticides Banned, Lyme Disease Promoted

DeerAttackSignFurthering the substantiation that the world has gone mad, I read of a town in Oregon where people are trying to figure out, “how to deal with droves of fearless deer.” Officials say, “The deer have no fear of humans” and “Deer just live there.” The same officials say that when there are too many deer sharing the same space with humans, “there’s going to be conflict.”

Toss the coin and when a bear appears, or a wolf, or a mountain lion, or a bobcat, or a coyote, “they are more afraid of you than you should be of them.” We are also told how “rare” it is to be attacked by any of these predators and yet, now seemingly on a daily basis, we hear about attacks on humans by large predators. Also note that the presence of large predators in human-settled landscapes doesn’t prompt these same officials to declare that when that happens, “there going to be conflict.” Just with deer I guess.

But not to fear about the deer. Officials say, “yell or make loud noises,” and they won’t bother you. I think they forgot to “look big”…or does that just apply to bears?

The events in the small town in Oregon aren’t anything new. In many parts of the country, deer are prevalent in numbers too big to ignore. Some want to give deer birth control pills. Even one university attempted to “fix” some deer so they couldn’t get pregnant, too stupid to understand that the “fix” didn’t cure the deer from “coming into heat,” which attracted all the buck deer for miles around. Result? More deer than when they started because the female deer remained in heat 24/7, thanks to the “fix.”

And yes, history, once again proves that history not learned is history repeated. There are cures for such problems. The cure has been in place for many, many years. But because citizens are unknowingly so severely brainwashed, (this is called paradigm shifting, changing the way wildlife management is looked at and dealt with and the creation, out of thin air, of “new knowledge.”) they are willing to risk their own lives, and that of others, so that deer can multiply, get sick, spread disease and cause other human deaths.

Going hand in hand with the sickness that pervades this nation, Environmentalism, we also see where in Maine, the state with the third highest incidence of Lyme Disease, wants to ban pesticides and fertilizers. More than likely that will happen. We are so stupid we can’t see that sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks. This is true in so many aspects of American life. I recall one time visiting a home for dinner. I looked across the table for some table salt and couldn’t spot any, so I asked. It was explained to me that because salt causes high blood pressure, they didn’t consume salt anymore, instead relying on an imitation or salt substitute.

I shook it on my food and began to eat. Almost instantly, my mouth felt like someone had poured gasoline in it. Once the attack simmered down, I picked up the container of salt substitute and began reading the ingredients. It was like reading a long list of toxic chemicals. Seriously, take your chances with the salt.

And let’s not forget all the wonderful things that have happened (for animals) once the Environmentalists banned DDT. Yep, we were lied to and told how we saved the animals and stopped put humans at risk from exposure to DDT (a rare event), but never to count the millions of dead people due to mosquito and other insect-borne diseases. In our brilliance, we think we save a tiny number of birds and killed millions of people. Brilliant! But, wasn’t that the plan? Club of Rome – Eugenics?

Our society is so emotionally consumed, all by design by the way, and madly in love with animals (many of the same hate human beings), they are willing to put other people’s lives at risk in order to protect the animals. The same holds true with “saving the planet” and it’s getting worse, spiraling out of control.

There should be a simple, common sense approach in which a person(s) can sensibly make a determination as to when decisions are necessary for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We don’t have that choice any longer. Government decides that for us and useful idiots do their bidding for them.

I’ve got news for you. Government wants to kill you and you want to support government? Does that make sense?

Stand by for a shock! In Oregon, kill the damned deer. Salvage the meat and feed the hungry. End of problem. It’s really quite simple.

Share

Wolves kill sheep on private land near Weston

Wolves from the Umatilla River pack recently attacked four sheep on private land near Weston, three of which later died from their injuries.The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife confirmed the predations based on bite marks consistent with wolves, and history of events on Weston Mountain.Thoug

Source: Wolves kill sheep on private land near Weston – Local News – East Oregonian

Share

Wolf Plans Be Damned

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (OFWC) seems to have taken a page from the liar’s book of wolf management deception used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS promised taxpayers that when wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment reached a total of 300 wolves, the animal would be removed from Federal protection. Years later and many hundreds more wolves than promised, the USFWS BEGAN the process to “delist” the wolf. And then the environmentalists went to work filing lawsuits to pad their bank accounts.

It seems Oregon promised taxpayers that when wolves numbered four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years, wolves there would be removed from protection. That goal was reached in 2012 when six breeding pairs were confirmed, 2013 when 4 breeding pairs were confirmed and in 2014 when 8 breeding pairs existed.

It is now 2015 and the OFWC is considering whether to delist at all, or do it only in prescribed areas of the state.

And these clowns wonder why so many people are hating on wolves and idiotic wildlife management that protects animals over humans and their property.

Share

Rep. Newhouse Introduces Legislation to Remove Gray Wolf from Endangered Species Act List

April 23, 2015 Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) introduced H.R. 1985, the Pacific Northwest Gray Wolf Management Act of 2015 to remove the gray wolf from the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and return management authority for the species back to the individual Pacific Northwest states. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) joined Rep. Newhouse to introduce this legislation as original co-sponsors:

“This is a commonsense bill that would allow states to provide a more flexible management program and move forward with the implementation of the gray wolf delisting efforts, which are long overdue,” said Rep. Newhouse. “States are fully qualified to manage gray wolf populations responsibly and are better equipped to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock, and wildlife populations. Delisting the gray wolf under ESA would allow state wildlife officials to manage wolf populations more effectively.”

For the text of the legislation, click here.

BACKGROUND:

On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) released a proposed rule that would have removed the gray wolf from the “List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” This determination was made after FWS “evaluated the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act of 1973” and found the “best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act,” according to the proposed rule.

The statutory purpose of Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered “endangered” or “threatened.” The gray wolf is currently found in nearly fifty countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of “least concern” globally for risk of extinction by the Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN). Ample populations in the United States and Canada have already led to the delisting of the gray wolf from ESA in the Northern Rocky Mountain and Western Great Lakes region.

Share

Oregon Bill Proposal to Delist Wolves

“An effort to remove gray wolves from the state endangered species list is moving forward on multiple fronts.

State biologists said Tuesday that wolf numbers are high enough to justify removing them the state list, while Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to prohibit the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife commission from listing wolves as threatened or endangered.

With four breeding pairs in eastern Oregon for three consecutive years and 77 known wolves statewide, ODFW biologists said there is little probability of wolves declining or going extinct.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Mining Wars Cometh!

“For the past several years, the miners from the Galice Mining District, about 3o minutes west of Grants Pass, Oregon, have been arguing over who has the rights to the minerals in the ground around Galice Creek. The Galice mining district is compiled of a number of claims, owners and miners and has been in continuous operation since the early 1870’s, which makes it one of the longest running operations in the US. This specific operation predates the BLM bureaucracy by many decades in fact.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

The Barbarity of Protecting Killer Wolves Over Human Interests

Below is an article by James Beers in reference to a letter written by a rancher and published in a local Oregon newspaper.

Déjà vu, All Over Again

It is a great sadness to receive e-mails and copies of small town newspaper articles like the following, almost every day. The feelings of helplessness and anger when Big City newspapers either ignore these incidents or even worse, deny and ridicule those being harmed must be what it was like after WWII to reflect back on all the lies and disinformation from news accounts and politicians about the German wonderland Hitler was forming and how misunderstood Stalin and his henchmen were as they were forming a “worker’s paradise” that the American press published during the 1930’s.

Who speaks for and defends the ranchers, farmers, businessmen and families of rural America as they are pillaged like this by politicians and bureaucrats working in league with coalitions of wealthy interest groups that prance about and dress like secular missionaries imposing their hateful ideology of lies and nature worship?

The article below is from the Wallowa County Chieftain newspaper in Enterprise, Oregon (in the NE corner of Oregon). They won’t read it in Portland or Eugene where the state politicians and their bureaucrats are “breakfasting” as I write. You won’t see it in the San Francisco paper or the Chicago paper or even the vaunted Washington, DC paper read by our impotent Congressmen, our self-serving federal bureaucrats, and all the despot-wannabees that would make Mao proud.

* I could send it to my Minnesota big city paper but they would simply snicker as they dismissed it wondering why anyone was so stupid as to send them something like this.

* I could send it to my “Department of Natural Resources” but they would just tell everyone to ignore it because Oregonians just don’t know how to “live with wolves” like we do here in Minnesota. Our Governor Dayton might see this as a chance to “work with” fellow progressive for votes here at home; he might send out a Minnesota DNR delegation that could “advise” the Oregon “Wildlife” agency and in the meantime they could swap information about federal job opportunities and after-retirement opportunities with the “Unlimiteds’, “Forevers”, and “Defenders”.

* I could send it to the University of Minnesota and if they said anything about the problem at all it would be on the order of it probably being the result of insufficient leash laws for dogs and that the calving problems are some sort of new infectious malady for which Oregonians should fork over millions to the University to “conduct research” and “develop recommendations”.

* I could mention it to acquaintances but after listening they would shrug and say it is interesting but what can they do as they look at me with that look of, “what a funny guy”.

* I could send it to the US Fish and Wildlife Service but they would send me form letter #46 that begins. “Thank you for your recent letter…” and ends after a bafflement of BS, “Thank you for writing”.

* I could send it to my Congressman (a good guy) but some young staffer would smile as he came up with a polite letter telling me that while Congressman Kline understands the gravity of the situation, it is not a matter that occurs in his District but he will forward my letter to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that enforces the Endangered Species Act, oh and thank you for writing.

*I could send a copy to my two US Senators (Franken and Klobuchar) who are elected by; supported (financially, publicity-wise, and vote-wise) by; and beholden to a coalition of urban, progressive environmentalists that want the government to put more wolves and grizzly bears, buy more and more land, and declare more and more “wildernesses” “Out There”. My letter to them would evoke no more than, “I didn’t know there were any people like this left in Minnesota?”

I can only send this article to you and tell you it is only one of many that I receive. The only solution is to abolish any and all authority for the federal government to impose the will of these radicals on one rural community after another. Simply put, the Endangered Species Act must be abolished and its detritus throughout Rural America removed. Then begin rolling back federal land ownership and federal land non-management and non-use from Wilderness Declarations and Roadless Areas to restoration of wildlife, forest and range management for people.

You will be pleasantly surprised at how quickly and naturally Local government authority, Local government revenue, and Local control of local matters will increase and how, neither as quickly nor as naturally but inevitably, your state wildlife agencies once again manage the natural resources of your state for the benefit of your state and all those that live in it.

Two things must be done first, but that is something I hope to speak about next month if arrangements come through. I hope to circulate that talk and share it with you after I give it.

Jim Beers

19 March 2015

Wolf attack a cow man’s nightmare

Wolves attacked and stampeded 250 head of very pregnant cows (calving start date March 1) on the Birkmaier private land on Crow Creek pass Feb. 12, 2015. The cows were wintering on the open bunch grass range receiving one-half feed of alfalfa hay. This 1,700-acre piece of land is about 10 miles northeast of Joseph. These cows were to be moved to the Birkmaier home ranch at the mouth of Crow Creek the last of February (the ranch is about 20 miles north).

With no warning from agency people, who normally warn producers of wolves in the area, the wolves attacked in the night. The herd split into three groups. One group of about 70 cows went east, running in total panic, obliterating several barb wire fences. These cows ran about two miles to the Zumwalt road, then south and west about five miles down the OK Gulch road to the Wallowa Valley, then north to the Birkmaier ranch land, about three miles, then reversed and ran about three miles south where they were stopped. These cattle were wet from the condensation of cold air on their overheated bodies. Their tongues were out gasping for air.

Another bunch went north through several fences to the Krebs ranch, about four miles, then back and were going in a large circle still running when they were stopped. A third bunch stayed in the pasture but were in a high state of panic. The cattle could not be fed for two days. They ran away from hay and the pickup trying to feed them. None were killed, no broken legs or stifled joints; some cuts from barbed wire, not serious. We thought we were lucky. The rest of the story, we feared, would be told at calving time and maybe before. By the way, the attacking wolves, from the Umatilla Pack, were at Dug Bar on the Snake River the next day (32 air miles away and over a mile climbing and descending).

Now about fladry and why it wasn’t used. Fladry was not an option under these conditions on a large area with cattle grazing out in the winter time. Fladry is an electric wire with strips of colored plastic attached. Wolf cheerleaders, both local and everywhere, claim this cure-all is the answer to end all wolf depredations. Our experience: It may have a place on small acreages; we find it hard to keep it electrified. Wet snow will take it to the ground, wind blows tumbleweeds and mustard plants into it and if you use existing fences to put it on, wind blows it into the wires of existing fence and shorts it out. To use it on larger acreages requires a separate fence and many electric fence controllers and it’s just impractical.

In the early days of the wolf debate, fladry was offered as a tool by the agencies and enviro groups to suck stock producers in to thinking they could use this to protect their animals. If it was practical it probably wouldn’t be stacked up in the courthouse. Talking to other ranches in other states confirms our belief that most ranchers know it doesn’t work, and so does the wolf.

As I write this on the 11th day of March, 50 cows have calved. Our worst fears are coming true: one aborted a few days after the attack; three backwards hind feet first; one upside down and backwards (the hind leg of this calf penetrated both the virginal and rectal walls); one more upside down and backwards; one tail first (breech); two with legs turned back; one with head turned back. Several vaginal prolapses probably caused by improperly positioned calves. Is this indirect loss or what?

My son Tom and his wife Kelly have had to deal with this horrible task night and day, 31 miles from vet clinics and assistance. What kind of people support turning the terrorist of the animal kingdom loose on these defenseless animals and inflicting this kind of pain and loss? When I think of my family out in the barn trying their best to save these poor animals — it takes hours with good luck to straighten and get them out — I get damn mad. Who do I blame? After devoting about 10 years of my life to fighting this invasion of wolves from neighboring states through the political system, attending numerous ODFW hearings and workshops all over the state and participating in the largest “no wolf” hearing in the state of Oregon at Enterprise, and losing it all when we were slam-dunked by the ODFW commission in Troutdale (who, by the way, didn’t have guts enough to attend the Enterprise hearing) yea, I’m bitter.

We lost eight calves this summer, we were compensated for one. If we aren’t compensated for indirect loss from wolves, our ranch and all others are in serious jeopardy.

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

History: Killing Wolves in Oregon Was Not All About Uniting Settlers

Below is a teaser and link to an article about the history of wolves in Oregon. Whether you buy into the interpretation of using wolves to “unite the settlers” is your business. The take away from all of this, unfortunately is not mentioned and, of course, never will be – humans and large predators will never coexist in some existential Utopia. The radical wolf and large predator worshipers fear not to state that humans should die in order that wolves may live. It’s difficult to deal with such insanity.

Humans have the right to live in peace, to be fruitful and multiply. That was God’s order. Our responsibility is to find a tolerable point in which man and animals can share space, but never at the expense of humans…NEVER!

“The purpose of the meetings [Wolf Meetings], Gray would later write, was to “get an object before the people upon which all could unite” (killing wolves) and use that unity to sow the seeds of civil government.”<<<Read More>>>

Share