November 24, 2017

Speaking of Sharks, Grizzly Bears, Wolves, Cougars & Such

*Editor’s Note* – I am reminded of Leviticus 26: vss 14 and 22 –

“But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; …..I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.”

An article by James Beers

Question:  What do sharks, grizzly bears, wolves, cougars and similar large mammalian predators have in common?

Answer:

1.) They attack, injure and kill humans.

2.) Their presence in locations of human presence varying in density from the lightly inhabited to densely inhabited by humans is rightly controversial.

3.) They compete with humans for renewable natural resources like various marine species from seals to bass, and game animals from moose and elk to antelope utilized for human consumption and recreation like fishing and hunting.

4.) They depress human activities from bathing and biking to hiking and simple day in and day out actions of families and other residents where such animals are allowed to occur.

5.) They depress economic activities from tourism and animal husbandry to pet ownership and all the subsidiary economic activities they spawn thereby shrinking both employment opportunities and local tax revenues that are the lifeblood of both local governance and a political voice for rural residents.

6.) They destroy private property from dogs to cattle.

7.) They are “loved” by mostly urban people and little more than constant problems for rural people and others forced by governments to live with them.

8.) They are political vote fodder for central government politicians forever spending scarce dollars and implementing the laws they are forever passing to “protect” and “save” these “charismatic mega-species”.

9.) They are central-government bureaucrat’s ticket’s to more power and authority (resulting from the manipulation of regulation-writing for all the laws mentioned under # 8); more personnel and bigger budgets leading to increased career opportunities leading to larger retirements and public adulation; and they are an introduction to after-retirement opportunities with the Non-Government environmental Organizations (see # 10 below).

10.) They are the primary tools of the self-aggrandizing “environmental”, animal “rights”, and faux “conservation” lobby groups collecting millions from the general public that they use to “influence” the politicians, woo the bureaucrats, and give the urban population a false sense of doing something “good” while being “involved”.

11.) Too often the government schemes to “save” or “restore” such species are thinly-veiled hidden agendas for other campaigns from population control to gun control and further erosion of local governments and the political voice of rural people and their issues.

Now, lest you think I do not “like” or “want” such animals; I assure you I am committed to their preservation and conservation.  I say this with full recognition of the following:

1.)  These animals DO NOT belong wherever they want to be or where they simply existed 20 or 200 years ago. They belong where their negative impacts are tolerable primarily to those communities that government’s target to coexist with them.

2.)  The formal acceptance by local populations should be a prerequisite of any government protection, introductions or increases of these animals for reasons of both justice and morality.

3.)  While the “public” et al (see the foregoing #’s 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11) knowledge of words like “decreasing”, “endangered”, etc. are rudimentary at best; their rejection of terms  like “too many”, “destructive”, “dangerous”, or “necessary lethal control” are also clouded by bureaucrats, teachers, politicians, and the influence peddlers mentioned under the foregoing # 10.

4.)  The proper and just challenge to preserving and conserving these animals lies not with destroying human society or humans as is happening in Africa and India as I write.

5.)  Lethal controls are necessary and right in areas of human density and activity.  For instance, sharks should be excluded as far as is possible from beaches with moderate to heavy use.  Until the lobby groups or private enterprises come up with a workable and dependable way to exclude dangerous sharks from such beaches in Australia, the US or South Africa or on similar beaches worldwide, that means lethal control.

6.)  As someone living in a country with a $20 TRILLION debt, I do not believe that government funding should be spent by the millions on things that would certainly appear to be no more effective than fladry or electric fences for livestock being ravaged by wolves, or bells being worn by hikers or workers in grizzly bear country.

7.)  Government funds directed toward sharks (like government funds directed toward other mammalian large predators mentioned herein) should be directed toward enactment and enforcement of laws that allow local control in certain areas and protection in other (not all) areas.  Leave it to the Universities and NGO’s to “investigate” “sonar buoys” shark “face recognition”, “electronic and magnetic shark deterrent devices”, and “cameras attached to sharks”.  The government role is to first protect its citizens.

Three years ago I wrote several articles comparing the “conservation” of mammalian and marine predators like sharks, wolves and killer whales.   The two articles below [link (WSJ is a PayWall and link] indicate to me how far astray we have come in just the short time since I wrote those articles.  I submit that we could take this shark article and this grizzly bear article and just use them in the future for the next wolf or cougar attack that kills or maims a human in the US.  For that matter, the next Nile crocodile that kills an African woman doing her wash or an African kid playing by the river; we can use these article by just erasing “shark” or “grizzly bear” and scribbling in “lion” or “tiger” or whatever misunderstood critter evokes our mercy by causing us to equate such animals with hapless humans offered up by the government druids for their notion of what the “ecosystem” should be.

Here are a few comments on what appears in these recent news items.  These items are highlighted in the articles and are not meant to be snide or to condemn either our Australian or Canadian cousins that like us emerged from the British Colonial system.  Truth be told, American concepts of wildlife management, human justice, and rural economic concern are as far or farther astray than either of these articles tell us about Australia or Canada.

1,) “The effort is being closely watched around the world—especially tourism-focused places like Réunion, a French territory whose economy was devastated after sharks killed seven people in recent years.”

Comment: While this is about sharks, the same thing is happening in the Lower 48 US States with forced introduction of grizzly bears (the latest in central Washington state) making de facto wilderness areas due to the danger from the bears as are forced wolf introductions exterminating elk and moose hunting along with ranching and rural residences.  Denying it as we do, fools no one.

2.) “Where some of these species of sharks bite people, it becomes more of a social issue, whether the government should be responsible for the safety of their citizens when they go into the ocean.”

Comment: What chutzpah!  As a former colonial and as a US Constitutional supporter, I can only marvel at any representative government being perceived as neither concerned nor responsible for the safety of their citizenry utilizing THEIR beaches.  Yet, the US government mimics this attitude by their wolf and grizzly bear activities being no one’s responsibility when they go horribly wrong and even California’s government behaving similarly with their sanctification of cougars within that state.

3,) “Record keeping on shark attacks is fragmented and inconsistent,

Comment: See, sharks are just like wolves and grizzly bears.  Nothing is for sure so only the government wizards know the “truth” and thus the courts will believe only them.  For those unfamiliar with this lingo, “fragmented and inconsistent” means you must believe whatever we say it is about “how many”, the “danger” and what to expect or who is responsible. If we say moose and elk disappeared because of “climate change” or that persons or cattle killed by wolves were killed by “undetermined animals, possibly dogs” then by golly that is the truth so move along citizen, there is nothing to see here.

4,) “Thousands of underwater video tapes showing that sharks are much more abundant in northern Australia than in unprotected waters like those surrounding Indonesia—the world’s biggest shark-fishing nation”.

Comment:  What a mysterious assertion.  Could there be a connection?  Can sharks prosper in one place (like Australia) while evidently hammered unmercifully relatively nearby (like Indonesia)?  Could this be duplicated on a scale such as lightly-used Australian beaches v. heavily-used beaches?  Inquiring minds want to know.

5.) People for some reason have a real fear of sharks,” Geoff Harris, the club’s president and a veteran lifesaver, said as he surveyed the town’s deserted white-sand beach one morning. “I think it’s the fear of being eaten by something.”

Comment: Ya’ think?

6.) “But you don’t want to jump to the conclusion that the bear’s hungry and it attacked an individual.  Norris also said it’s “never cut and dry that a bear will be destroyed because it attacked someone.”

Comment:  Indeed, animals have “rights”!  Their motive is important!  You never know when there are extenuating circumstances that justify releasing him or her like Americans are doing with criminal illegal aliens that only return and repeat offenses until they stand accused of homicide.  I am reminded of that satirical Jewish definition of chutzpah being the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.

Jim Beers

27 March 2017

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

Protected Predator Species Endangering Other Species

Of course the headline is really nothing new to honest researchers. We have known for some time that over-protected predator species raise hell with other species in order to survive. Is this what we want?

In an article in the Bangor Daily News, stupid is as stupid does, is discovering that too many bald eagles are destroying other species, some of which are also protected species. “Those great cormorants living under the eagles’ gaze are some of the last to breed in the U.S. Once extirpated here, the great cormorants too have made a comeback, reaching a peak of 240 nesting pairs in the early 1990s.

“And there are 40 pairs this year — and eagles have been attacking every colony every year, pretty much,” he said.

“It’s not just great cormorants getting harassed. About 50 miles southwest of Drury’s birding grounds, in Casco Bay, state biologist Brad Allen is documenting declines in several avian species, some common, some not. Recently he was looking for great blue heron, designated a species of special concern in Maine.”

And thus we see one more time where attempting to manage wildlife species according to the demands and whims of society falls flat on its face. Science has been given a back seat to which group of environmental mental midgets and emotional insanity can make the most noise and come up with the most money to force fish and wildlife managers to destroy one species while protecting another.

These environmentalists are the first to cry out that “nature is in balance”…if man butts out, but are the first in line to butt in when they want to have their perverted desires to see more wildlife from the comfort of their air-conditioned automobiles met.

What utter nonsense!

Share

When Wolves Become Terrorists

*Editor’s Note* – Wolf advocates say that people need to learn to “co-exist” with wolves, but is there ever a point in which a line is drawn in their minds where the wolves are taking more than their share of co-existence than the people? It seems that regardless of the results of any wolf encounter, people are always blamed and never can do enough for the wolves to satisfy the totalitarian wolf protectors.

We now see, as indicated below, a family being held hostage inside their own home and limitations placed on the freedoms of the children for the sake of “co-existing with wolves.” This is wrong.

Of course idiots will say that the ranchers are living in the wolves’ habitat and by doing so they must put up with the canine predators. I wonder if these non thinkers feel the same way when violent criminals invade their neighborhoods, terrorizing, killing and causing them to lock themselves in their homes. Do they just put up with it because they are co-existing with violent criminals?

At the very basic level, no animal should be allowed to hold any person(s) in fear of the lives. To think otherwise is extreme and perverse.

Chelsea Matthews said the family is now taking extra precautions, both with their dogs and young children. “We lock all the dogs up at night and the kids have to stay where I can see them (when playing outside),” she said. “It’s not worth the risk of me sending them out of sight knowing that there are wolves around.” Matthews said it is frustrating to not be able to let her children explore and play outside without constant worry. “Our kids should get to experience all the joys of being country kids.”

Source: Wolf attack alarms ranchers | Natural Resource Report

Share

Wolves, Resurgent and Protected, Vex Swedish Farmers

*Editor’s Note* – One wolf supporter in this article defends the presence of wolves and it not being a threat to humans by stating that no person has been killed by a wolf in Sweden for 200 years. According to one report I found, wolves, “was more or less extinct around 1860.” Being that wolves have been extinct in Sweden for going on 160 years, one might suggest that it would be difficult for wolves that don’t exist in Sweden to kill people in Sweden. What you think?

“The hate against an animal, against a species such as the wolf, is like racism in people — it is absolutely the same process in the mind,” he said.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Mountain lions are savage beasts

In the late 1980’s it was determined by a relatively small group of financially and politically biased scientists and their lobbyists, that the population of Mountain Lions (aka: Cougar, Puma) in California, was dangerously low. So they launched a massive media campaign to convince Californians there was a genuine problem, giving rise to the 1990 California State legislation that provided a ‘protected’ status for mountain lions. However, there was no overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting such a claim. And if there had been such credible evidence supported by a collective of unbiased and objective wildlife biologists, forming a majority opinion, mountain lions would have surely reached the benchmark for obtaining ‘endangered species’ status, and would be listed as such today. That was not the case.

Source: Mountain lions are savage beasts

Share

Animal Alliance Wishes to Destroy the Wildlife They Claim to Love

A media campaign will ask tourists to stay away from B.C. because of wolf cull

Source: Animal Alliance targets B.C. tourism – Kimberley Daily Bulletin

Share

Wolves/Coyotes/Hybrids: What You Talking About?

In testimony before the Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee, president and founder of the Maine Wolf Coalition stated that Maine could not legally allow the hunting of coyotes, because the coyote is not a coyote. LD 691 is a proposed bill that would allow for hunting the coyote on Sundays. Maine bans all hunting on Sunday.

John Glowa’s testimony is interesting and reveals, not only his lack of knowledge about wolves, coyotes, hybrids, cross-breeding, DNA, and all associated aspects of this subject, but it also helps to open debate on the real problems we face in dealing with protection of a species for the good of the species and protection of the species for political gain.

The president of the Maine Wolf Coalition gets confused in stating that a coyote is not a coyote because it’s a hybrid and attempts to convince the IFW Committee that there is some magical “statutory” definition, that when applied, renders any coyote hunting illegal. By definition, the wild canines running the Maine woods are the result of cross-breeding and not a planned out hybridization in order to create a mixed breed of wild dog.

A dog is a dog is a dog and when practical, all dogs, regardless of subspecie designation, will interbreed. To assist in the preservation of wild dog subspecies, efforts should be made to keep these subspecies geographically separated as much as possible. This is usually done by limiting populations and not by protecting them at every turn and allowing them to grow unchecked, while thinking that coyotes/wolves are necessary for a healthy forest dwelling and that Nature balances itself. This is romantic nonsense that destroys animal species.

It is a bit spurious that arguments, such as the testimony given to the IFW Committee, claim, in order to, at this moment in time, protect coyotes, put forth the claim that a coyote isn’t a coyote because it has wolf genes in it. On another day, the same committee might hear from the same group that any wild dog that has wolf genes in it is a wolf and must be protected.

Protecting wild dogs, and introducing wild dogs into human-settled landscapes, may be the quickest way I know of to destroy the subspecies. With increased overlapping of wild dog subspecies, all wild dogs, i.e. all subspecies of wolves, coyotes, released domestic dogs, released wolf-dog hybrids and domestic dogs, will, over time, and due to protection, become just a mongrel, cross-bred mutt.

Is this acceptable while Environmentalism works to end hunting and trapping?

It’s what’s for lunch.

Share

Deer of Our Future

The current wildlife management programs in America are now driven by “natural regulation” and predator protection. If this continues, the below photo is about all that will be left for people to “view” for deer in their state. Add to that, elk, moose, caribou and many others.

DeerSculpture

Share

Germany’s Serious Wolf Problem

“Their comeback was initially attributed to the emptying of rural areas in what was formerly East Germany.
But with wolf packs settling amid wind-energy projects, along well-trodden nature trails and even on Berlin’s doorstep, it’s now clear that the European Union’s tough protection laws are responsible.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wolf Population in Denali Low, Blamed on Hunting and Trapping

*Scroll for Updates*

The Alaska Dispatch carried an article about a petition generated to shut down hunting and trapping in boundary areas of Denali Park because wolves in the park have dropped from a population of 143 to 50 in about 8 years. But hunting and trapping isn’t the problem.

It was great that the author pointed out how well the fish and game department managed wildlife in a Game Management Unit adjacent to the park but never would come out with an explanation of why there was no prey left for the wolves inside Denali. The author states that, “When prey is abundant, wolves flourish. When prey populations are low, wolf populations become low.” A true statement but what allows or what is responsible for prey populations becoming low? That’s the most important question that should be answered.

Anyone who knows wolves understands that the savage predator can destroy a prey base and then move on. Once the prey base is gone, basically one, or any combination of events, can occur – 1. Wolves move to other areas where prey exist and do the same thing. 2. Wolves die from starvation and disease. 3. Wolves resort to cannibalism.

Chances are pretty good that what is going on in Denali is that the wolves, and they are protected in the park, are effectively destroying their own prey base and thus themselves. If wolf populations have been cut by nearly two-thirds, it might allow for a short period for prey to respond positively, provided it isn’t below sustainable levels, which will bring wolves back for a time to bring the prey species back down very low again. This could be labeled a predator pit depending upon other factors.

The author also points out that the adjacent Game Management Unit, a mass of acreage considerably smaller than Denali, is being perpetuated by wildlife officials for 10,000 moose, 300 wolves and still humans can harvest moose meat. Denali is a protected park and we see the results.

Also of note: This article shows the author’s discovery to two things – people’s complete ignorance of wolves, wolf management and ecosystems and the obvious bias toward anti hunting and trapping and NOT pro wolf. Some of the comments he reveals are pretty funny.

*Update* (4/2/2015 10:01 am) – I was sent another article from Alaska that quotes the Alaska Board of Game director as saying, “[L]ow numbers of moose and caribou were to blame for low wolf population levels.”

Share