August 23, 2017

Animal Idolatry and the Lies to Promote It

Animal idolatry comes in various forms. One of the not-so-obvious forms is media propaganda laced with misinformation intended to mislead, most always for the purpose of conning money support out of those unable to think for themselves and to understand the truth of what they are supporting.

In this latest platform of predator drool, people are told about “killing contests” that “killing unlimited numbers of predators is legitimate wildlife management.” In support of their nonsense about “killing unlimited numbers of predators,” we read this: “How many people even know that thousands of coyotes, mountain lions, foxes, bobcats, prairie dogs, crows, and wolves are killed every year in “contests” across the country where winners get guns, belt buckles and ribbons for killing the most animals?”

These drooling fools present “killing contests” as part of “wildlife management.” Obviously they know nothing of wildlife management and/or are intentionally attempting to mislead the public by making such ridiculous claims.

Legitimate wildlife management (which, by the way, exists only in acceptable forms of environmentalism) is aware of so-called “killing contests” and the results of which are factored into their management plans and goals. The reality is that these “fake news” “killing contests” have virtually zero affect on wildlife management agencies long term management plans.

Much like a hunting season, managers allow for several things before making decisions in the next hunting harvest to know how many tags, etc. to issue to meet the goals of the 10-15 year management plans….”killing contests” included.

Now to the meat of the drool given to the public about the “unlimited” numbers of predators killed each season by “killing contests.”

Yes, there are isolated contests in various parts of the country. However, coyote populations are running amok and any legitimate game management agency would welcome reductions in coyote numbers to ensure the “public trust doctrine” the author of the drool presented calls it, can be upheld to provide balanced and healthy populations of wildlife across the board. A landscape dominated by predators, results in predator pits where wildlife in general is nonexistent.

I know of nowhere in North America where mountain lions are targets of “killing contests.” If they do exist I’m sure the reasons are serious and extenuating in order to uphold that cherished, cherry-picked “public trust doctrine.”

I know of nowhere in North America where foxes are targeted by “killing contests.” Foxes, as a rule are a tightly regulated fur bearing animal and seldom, if ever, exist in numbers that make a “killing contest” necessary or even a viable effort.

Bobcats, where they exist in this country, are a prized possession. About the only “enemy” the bobcat faces, other than competition among other predators, is the specialized bobcat hunter/trapper. Again, I know of no locations in North American where hunting contests are carried out that target bobcat.

Prairie dogs are targeted at times by those wanting to hone their shooting skills by shooting these animals at long range. Prairie dogs are notorious for carrying several diseases, many of which are harmful to other creatures, and people, and wildlife managers generally condone any means of reducing the nuisance and diseased animals.

I am not aware of “killing contests” for crows. Many states have an open season on crows and yes, some people eat crow and use the animal parts for other uses. Truth be known, the federal government deliberately kills more crows than any other person, persons or group of persons, even if there where “killing contests” for them. The Federal Government kills crows because they are a nuisance and a public safety hazard. As part of that wonderful “public trust doctrine”  it is a necessary thing in order to protect and promote other species being destroyed or limited due to excessive crow populations.

“Killing contests” for wolves made me laugh. In more states than not, believe it or not, wolves are a federally protected species. I know of one time, in Idaho, when a group, legally obtained all the necessary permits and permissions to establish a wolf and coyote killing contest. After a weekend of wolf “killing,” exactly zero wolves were killed, and a handful of coyotes.

Other than some isolated regional pockets, predator “killing contests” have no affect on the populations of these predators. It is a shame, and borders on criminal activity, that any group would attempt to sway public opinion by publishing deliberate lies in the media.

Shame on them.

I would suggest that before anyone gives money, or supports any organization like this, they first learn the truth about the propaganda being spewed.

But don’t go look!

 

Share

Tough Answer to a Tough Question

by James Beers

As I continue boring through a stack of requests after a recent week in Montana, four questions from four readers are essentially the same question.  I have given much thought to an answer but I am afraid that there is no truthful answer other than the one that will disappoint the fine folks that ask the question and probably tick off many that read the answer.  Doing this to colleagues that have done and do so much is hard to do because it may either discourage them or cause them to simply give up and take up crossword puzzles in some 17th floor, urban condominium.  Nonetheless, here is the question and my answer.

Question: “What can we do to make USFWS ‘return wolf management’ to our state as happened recently in Wyoming?”

My Answer:

Dear Reader,

“Returning wolf management” to your state is the sort of thing that the saying, “Be careful what you wish for because it may come true” was referring to when first spoken.

I recently spoke with two Wyoming ranchers attending the Western Governor’s Conference in Whitefish, Montana about this very point and each was adamant that unless and until the federal authority to “List” wolves (and grizzly bears as well) under the ESA is repealed, just like Prohibition or the Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court, nothing will change in the long run.  Each rancher was fully aware that this “return of management” was simply a band aid on a serious wound to American liberties.  They fully expected that if “we” (i.e. the Trump Administration and a yet-to-emerge Congressional coalition of vertebrate politicians) don’t get rid of that federal authority, the next age class of progressive/get-along politicians will simply whisk aside all this “management” (i.e. say-so by State governments and the residents of that state about federal wildlife mandates) by state governments and take right off again from where they were on 7 November 2016, the eve of the recent Presidential election.

Allow me to take a stab about why I agree this is so.

  1. The majority of USFWS, NPS, BLM and USFS employees from the newest to the oldest will fight any attempt to repeal superior federal wildlife authority nationwide for any “species” (or “sub sp.”, or “race” or “population” or “segment???”) they believe they have and should have total authority over all wildlife in every way.  This attitude has been fostered by federal laws of the past 45 years that reinforced their belief that they are on a quasi-religious (taxpayer funded) mission to dictate the presence of wildlife, the abundance of wildlife and ALL aspects of the human/wildlife interface nationally and internationally.  They believe that the ESA, EPA, and an alphabet-soup hodgepodge of federal laws and precedents not only grant them this responsibility but also that the opinions of the elites (much like climate change/warming/cooling) and “experts” confirms their legitimacy to rule others through absolute wildlife authority and jurisdiction.

 

  1. The radical Non-Government Organizations from the NWF and DU to the extremists like DoW, NRDC, CBD, PETA, AWI, etc. are, and will remain, supported by rich elites as these NGO’s maintain all their young volunteers, their lawyers and their “connections” (i.e. money) with the federal agencies, federal politicians, Native American governments, key state politicians, certain judges in certain courts, University staffs, and foreign connections with their mirror images in the UN and EU bureaucracies.  They are lying low as I write to fight Trump clandestinely but they will rise quickly like the Phoenix when conditions are again favorable.

 

  1. Congress, no matter how many drain tiles (to “Drain the Swamp”) President Trump and his allies lay in Washington will steadily be “re-watered” by new and drainage-surviving politicians and bureaucrats.  Many cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami et al, and many states like California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota will still send an army of progressive, urban-oriented federal politicians into Washington, DC to eradicate any rural accommodations that Trump achieves while reaffirming all of the environmental/animal rights extremism of the past four decades since they only affect those bumpkins “out there” and not (they think) the smart and rich elites living in the cities that believe they should run the country and the world.

 

  1. State wildlife agencies, with but very few exceptions, have proven in the past 20 years (from their failure to request or demand the replacement of the $45 to 60 Million documented as stolen by USFWS bureaucrats from State PR funds to release Canadian wolves into Yellowstone under President Clinton, to their shameful acquiescence in cooperating with all those mentioned in 1 through 3 above in covering up wolf incidents and damages, lying about the numbers and declines of big game due to wolves, failing to pay compensation for the majority of wolf complaints, and lying about diseases spread by wolves and the documented history of living with wolves since the time of Plato to the settlement of North America and in Asia/Europe today) that they cannot stand up to federal demands or represent their residents.  As a consequence of decades under their desks hoping for eventual federal employment, they have become wolf and grizzly lap dogs to federal bureaucrats, from taking orders from progressive  politicians and activists that they believe (naively) will supplant hunting and fishing  financing and spark a Brave New World of federal tax funding in a make-believe world run by the folks mentioned in 1 through 3 above.

I hear you wondering what all this has to do with “returning management” to the States?  Isn’t “returning management to the States the answer in the “real” political world of the “possible”?

“Actually” (to quote my 11 year-old grandson) the folks in 1 through 4 are prepared to and will do whatever it takes to keep and restore all federal power and the status quo.  As long as the ESA is the source of that power, they have all the advantages (law, regulation, court precedents, media, University “experts” and schoolteachers) on their side.

Consider, what “returning” Management – not Authority or Jurisdiction – means.  It means the federal bureaucrats and the courts will allow the states to maintain X number of wolves throughout each state.  “Management” is simply the steps necessary to accomplish pre-determined ends.  “Authority” and “Jurisdiction” are the final word in determining the ends that are a federal mandate in this case.  State “management” is simply the privilege to pay for what the folks in 1 through 4 say is the way things will be.  Think of Poland conquered by the Soviets in 1945 and then told that henceforth they are the Soviet Republic of Poland and henceforth they will do and pay for what the Politburo dictates.  Who would consider that a victory worth pursuing?

Poland didn’t celebrate until June of 1989 when Soviet tyranny was voted out in a free election and the Polish Republic was founded.  To this date, Poland has had to constantly fend off both Russian bullying and EU immigration policies that threaten Poland’s very identity.  If there was a lingering key to Soviet or Russian reclamation of  authority or jurisdiction over Poland; who doubts that the Polish Republic  would exist today?  It is exactly the same thing with this “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” ESA AUTHORITY to “save the world’s wildlife” and rural America.  As long as this ESA authority exists, wolf or grizzly to name but two, future federal politicians, judges and bureaucrats can reactivate it like Dr. Frankenstein in his lab on a stormy night.

How is this so?  Consider:

–       Two months ago I asked a lady USFWS employee on the phone if the recent “return of wolf management to the State of Wyoming” meant that “they could kill all the wolves in Wyoming?”  Since I had identified myself as a Minnesotan, I guess she was thinking of me as some sort of fellow traveler and/or lover of “the ecosystem”.  Her lowered voice told me to talk to my friends and write letters to USFWS about our “concerns” and they will try to do something when they can.

–       All of the “Return” agreements mention a base number of wolves, BUT you can’t count wolves so how does that work?  The State agency may have counts or trends or estimates or WAG’s but what happens when Dr. Love the predator “expert” for Wolf/Grizzly International appears before Senator Snodgrass’ Committee on the Environment and refutes that above “data” and pontificates on “alpha males”, pup and cub mortality, climate change, ticks, disease, poaching and a certain questionable attitude by certain state employees about the value of predators?  Who could leave “management” in the hands of such barbarians?

–       State agencies will have to begin (due to lawsuit fears) picking up the tab (from where?) for more:

  1. Babysitting, trapping and transplanting of wolves.
  2. Compensation for damages by wolves.
  3. Investigations of wolf carcasses, poaching, etc.
  4. Explaining wolf impacts on game animals.
  5. Investigating and follow-up on human attacks.
  6. Resolving and preventing dog deaths.
  7. Researching Disease, Infections and Parasite threats from wolves.
  8. Answering lawsuits and other challenges to any “management”.
  9. More diversion of license money and Excise Taxes for training, meetings, lawyers, administrative support, vehicles, fuel, office space, storage, retirement costs, health insurance, planning, etc. for wolves.

–       Speaking of license money, there is a certain euphoria in the air from all the Montana, Idaho and Wyoming residents buying a wolf tag, just as there is a similar whispering about “Delisting” (another MacGuffin intended to divert your attention with no real consequence) Grizzly Bears resulting in a few high cost licenses eventually – the implication being to fleece the rich, another socialist/communist policy favorite.  Wolves are not only hard to hunt, they learn quicker than a Jack Russel Terrier in Obedience School.  As all those license buyers are learning  this and understanding how few can be shot.  This will result in wolf license money becoming a minor factor, just as a few rich cats killing a few of those “sacred” grizzly bears will provide better media fodder to kill such hunts and hunting than that Minnesota Dentist that shot that Lion with a name in Zimbabwe recently.

–       Methods of taking wolves, much less grizzlies, will have to be non-lethal and cause them to put on weight to avoid lawsuits.  Trapping?  Definitely not.  Poisons?  Are you kidding?  Denning (i.e. killing pups)?  Yeah right.  Aerial shooting as Alaska and Russians know is the only effective and affordable means with a chance of real results?  Nope.  Gun calibers, bullet materials, etc. will be set so high that new guns and non-available ammunition will be the norm.  Federal land (USFS, BLM, USFWS, et al) requirements (they are landowners don’t you know) will further restrict all of these things and probably many we haven’t even thought about yet.

–       Speaking of aerial shooting to “manage” wolf numbers and distributions; 100 years ago men formed posses and rode down and killed the last wolves in Counties much like Irish and English landowners came up with wolfhounds – not for sport but to kill the last wolves in Ireland and thereby end the scourge, death and destruction wrought by wolves.  None of these are conceivable today in the Lower 48 states.  Private property and federal ownerships require Permission to fly over and shoot into, or to ride posses through or to run killer dogs in.  The federal estate behemoth and the private property owners with wolves will, for a multitude of reasons make any of that all but impossible.  I have written for years that County Wolf Boards in Counties desiring wolf control are the answer like County Weed Boards authorized to control wolves in various ways and any property owner (including federal properties In The County either allow access for wolf control, accomplish County-directed wolf control, or the County bills the landowner and places a lien or sues to pay for County-financed wolf control.  But, this requires delegated State Authority and a state with merely “management” delegation from federal authority cannot delegate that which it does not first possess.

If you still think “management return” is worth pursuing I will mention one last factor.  If you live in rural Minnesota you will always have the Twin Cities/Duluth political dominance (like Illinois has with Chicago) to contend with about wolves.  Rural Wisconsin has the same issue with Madison and Milwaukee.  Similarly rural Oregon has the same issue with Portland/Eugene that rural Washington has with Seattle.  Why allow them and all their compatriots in 1 through 4 above to utilize lawsuits and blackmail revolving around  withdrawing wolf management they so magnanimously granted.  You have to fight them anyway so level the field as best you can, for you will have no federal backers when push comes to shove.  Eliminate the federal tool just like Poland eliminated Soviet hegemony and tyranny  when the chance presented itself.

Now folks smarter than me might recommend achievable incremental change over time but I say that if Poland had followed that advice Pope John Paul, Reagan, and Thatcher would have died and the Bushes, Clinton, Obama and the current Pope would come and go and Poland would still evoke our pity and “tsk, tsks” as they were brought up at Brie parties on the Chicago North Shore (or maybe we would be speaking and reading Russian today?)

We need to push for real reform in federal law while this period of real change is underway.  Say and think what you will about President Trump, his voters have created a tumultuous atmosphere in Washington where momentum might favor achieving what everyone says is impossible.  If the folks in 1 through 4 above ever get back in power, we must make it so that they have to try and reauthorize this travesty in a law passed by the Congress and signed by the President that does what millions of rural Americans KNOW should never be re-instituted.  We could defeat that after what we now know is afoot.

When we ask for and get “management” returned to states we only quiet things down while real change is possible, thereby make a quick return to the status quo and where it has been leading us inevitable when Washington is again a problem.  Additionally, if we get “management” returns; how many rural Americans will believe that is the best we can do and then go into hibernation and let this reform of the law opportunity pass us by only to waken us with a bang when those in 1 through 4 re-seize federal power.

Those folks in 1 through 4 represent ideologies and a future that should be repugnant to all Americans but it is mainly rural Americans up until now that they are harming openly (the diversion of tax dollars and foregone work diverted to their peccadilloes are topics for future articles).  Their habits and notions cannot be “reformed”; we must defeat their programs by repealing them.

“Returning Management to the State” is merely a placebo we take to fool ourselves into believing we have taken something real.  Anything short of eliminating this Constitutional insult at this time is a real defeat and anyone telling you different should be listened to at your (and our) own peril.

Jim Beers

11 July2017

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

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Wolves Don’t Change Rivers

“Yes, you heard that right. The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 have not restored the landscape. They have not brought back the aspens and willows. They have not brought back the beavers or the songbirds. And no, the rivers have not changed, either.

Then why does “How Wolves Change Rivers” (HWCR) claim otherwise? Because the creators of the four-minute long viral video (now approaching 20 million hits just via YouTube) “are adherents to romance biology,” according to former USFWS biologist Jim Beers. Plus, the whole notion of Yellowstone as wilderness is “inherently racist,” argues wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Kay. I spoke with both Jim Beers and Dr. Kay in preparing this article. Dr. Kay was especially put out by the video’s claims.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maine: Deer Baiting, Feeding, Crop Damage

If it is important enough that laws in the State of Maine be made tougher to extend and grow the penalties for hunting deer over “bait,” perhaps it would behoove the lawmakers to take the time first to define “bait.”

A proposed new law, LD 1083, would, “…makes the penalty for hunting over bait during an open season on deer a mandatory fine of $500. It also provides for the one-year suspension of a hunting license of a person convicted of doing so.”

The head of the Maine Warden Service supports this bill because, as he states, “the agency averages over 100 deer baiting cases per year.” 100 case per year, times $500, equals a nice little windfall, perhaps enough to pass out some raises. And, at a guaranteed $500 per case, doubling that to 200 is good profit.

The new proposal also states that, “A hunting license of a person convicted of placing or hunting over bait in violation of section 11452, subsection 1 must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

Taking a look at Title 12, 11452, subsection 1, we read,1. Prohibitions.  A person may not, during an open hunting season on deer: A. Place salt or any other bait or food in a place to entice deer to that place.”(emphasis added)

So, what is “bait?”
Part B of Subsection 1 describes the limits of hunting from a tree stand or an observation deck: It is prohibited to B. Hunt from an observation stand or blind overlooking salt, grain, fruit, nuts or other foods known to be attractive to deer.” (This is inconsistent with the above prohibition.)
What’s inconsistent in this regulation is that Part A prohibits anyone during deer season, to put out things that will “entice deer to that place.” In Part B, there are limitations as to what a hunter can observe from a tree stand, i.e. he can’t hunt over “salt, grain, fruit, nuts or other foods known to be attractive to deer.” This does not specify “bait.”
So, what is bait?
Can I climb my tree stand and hunt over “bait?”
So, what is “bait?”
It appears that the issue here, aside from the threat of the spread of disease, is that authorities don’t want hunters placing “bait” some place in the woods, which happens to be in front of their tree stand….or maybe not.
I know I sound like a fool, but, what is “bait?”
If the concern is over “baiting” a deer to the location in which a hunter awaits in ambush, then isn’t anything a hunter puts out, in, around his tree stand to “attract” deer, “bait?” The existing law states that you can’t use items that are known to be attractants for deer and lure them to a specific location. If so, then what is putting out scent attractants to draw deer to your stand?
Maine has to do a better job of making the work of law enforcement better but more importantly so that hunters fully understand what is legal and illegal and why. When we see exceptions to “baiting” it often times is a matter of a certain lobby fighting for their preferred methods of hunting at the expense of others. In case you aren’t keeping up, I might suggest that the manufacture of deer lures, scents, attractants and covers, is a giant money-making industry. Serious argument can be made as to whether those are “baits.”
It’s also very stupid that you can’t “bait” deer to a specific location, like a tree stand, but you can plant a “crop” and place your tree stand overlooking your “crop” – the result of a “standing crop” or “foods left as a result of normal agricultural operations…” (emphasis added)
So, what is “bait?” Your guess is as good as mine.
The other issue being discussed presently is what to do about deer and crop damage. I am a bit confused. Much of this debate takes place in Washington County, the eastern portion of the State of Maine, due to blueberry crops being destroyed by deer.
As anybody who has read much of my writings will know, I am as big a property rights supporter as there are. However, a scant few years ago, Washington County, along with many other parts of the state, had pretty much a non existent deer herd, much the result of too many coyotes and some tough winters. Efforts were put forth in the area to construct a systematic approach at reducing the coyote population in order to save the deer herd.
Killing coyotes helped the deer herd and now the blueberry farmers are complaining about crop damage. That’s understandable.
However, if one examines Maine’s history with blueberries and deer, both have existed since settlers first came here. I am willing to believe that at certain periods of time, deer were far more plentiful in blueberry country, and other areas of farmland where crops grow. What was done about that damage then?
I’m not opposed to doing what is reasonable to limit crop damage. I’m sure that same feeling has existed for decades. But, now the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is suggesting a bill that would give the Commissioner authority to establish deer killing zones around crop lands, even the blueberry patches in Washington County, where deer numbers are only beginning to recover. Something tells me that either some people want too many deer, or some want crops that are never harmed and they don’t want the responsibility to deal with it. Or something. Is it just the tolerance level of people has dwindled so low that nothing is to be put up with? It seems we only bitch and complain and propose another law to stop somebody else from doing something somebody doesn’t like.
From testimony before the Committee, we are told that the Food Safety Modernization Act prohibits the harvesting of crops where animals have eaten or defecated. Obviously the Act is a Leftist nightmare creation, never intending to implement public health and safety but to destroy our food crops. But, that’s another book. How can we harvest any crops anywhere if any animal has excreted their waste there? What have we become?
Some want to kill deer to mitigate crop damage, complaining that deer defecate in the crops, while others want to protect the coyotes, to kill the deer, with no concern about the coyotes defecating in the fields. I’ll guarantee you that coyote scat is far more dangerous to our health than deer scat. This is a sure sign of animal perversion over human well being, including the protection of private property.
This morning I was listening to rubbish on television, when a news anchor asked a senator why they took so much time off. His answer was that some people would like it that Congress didn’t meet. I concur. We are so brainwashed to think that all legislation, at every level, must make laws and keep making laws. Why? The existing laws are incomprehensible, designed by lawyers for lawyers, and are either unenforceable or lacking the manpower to enforce them. And yet, we keep piling them on, as is the case here in Maine.
I believe that with increased levels of anger, hatred and intolerance, we can only expect that the number of totalitarian-type legislative proposals will inundate our politicians, who scramble to take care of only those that feed them money for reelection.
Share

Living In Lock-Down Because You’re An Idiot

In San Mateo, California, during the wee hours of the morning, a mountain lion entered a residence and made a meal out of a small dog. Authorities have stated, “… to secure their doors and windows before sleeping.”

Jim Beers comments on this event: “The human parallels between mountain lions, grizzly bears and wolves are many and large.  From the human excuses to justify their actions i.e. “unusual” and “young animal” to “they belong in settled landscapes like this because”…(?) to the media, professors and bureaucrats that sell this abomination as the “new normal”.  While the dog is valued property, the undeniable fact that the next time it could be an American child or adult in what was once termed the families “castle” is evident to the most blind supporter of California’s evil policies and laws regarding these animals.  What are the “tolerable” consequences; a child per year, two joggers a year, three attacks and serious injuries per year, ten horse per year, 20 dogs per year ???  The fact that hundreds of millions of tax dollars have already been spent on establishing these deadly predators in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States and that millions of our tax dollars are being spent annually to establish, mythologize, excuse and babysit these predators only points out the cultural decline and moral vacuum that is hollowing out America today.

“Cougars, wolves and grizzly bears do not belong in settled landscapes and it will, hopefully, one day again be seen and understood  as a travesty of justice and the value of human lives in totality that we allowed one group of people (be they voting blocs, pandering politicians, self-serving bureaucrats, radical organizations with anti-human values or world government enemies of our Constitution) to impose on rural, suburban and other persons and their families these deadly dangerous animals.  There is no acceptable legal or moral excuse or justification for this situation of encouraging and tolerating such animals where many of those being forced to live amongst them DO NOT WANT THEM.”

Jim Beers

To read some comments about this event, some have great entertainment value, follow this link to Instapundit.

Share

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

Destruction of Deer Environmentalists Refuse to Acknowledge

Share

Bears are Bigger Killers Than Thought

*Editor’s Note* – When media crafts these headlines, it would be nice if they were a bit more accurate and explicit in whom they are referring when they write: “Bears are Bigger Killers Than Thought.” Thought by whom? I didn’t think they were sparse eaters of such things as moose, caribou and even cannibalism. Perhaps maybe, scientists are catching on a little bit instead of relying on Bambi and Yogi Bear to determine who kills and eats what.  

Overall, the bears [just seven of them] killed an average of 34.4 moose and caribou calves over 45 days. That’s far higher than average kill rates from previous studies using other methods, including aerial observation. Compared with one 1988 study in which scientists counted an average of 5.4 moose calf kills from the air in a different part of Alaska, the new study found an average of 13.3 moose calf kills. The new study also found wide variation in the number of calves killed by any one bear, with one killing 44 calves in 25 days and another killing just seven in 27 days.<<<Read More>>>

I wonder what cameras on wolves would reveal?

Share

Poliquin supports, Pingree opposes bill to allow killing of denning wolves and bears in Alaska refuges

*Editor’s Note* – I find it interesting the name of this joint resolution is called “Killing Baby Animals in Alaska Act.” Also, the information provided in the article that I have linked to is incorrect – or should I say it is untruthful. If Congress can cede authority to manage animals on wildlife refuges to the states, they can just as easily take it away. Making laws to take freedom and rights from everyone is what they do best. The idea of lifting this ban is to not take away needed tools to manage and control these large predators. Those with knowledge understand that you don’t “manage” large predators. They have to be controlled at all times and should never receive blanket protection.

“The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a joint resolution (H.J. res 69 aka the Killing Baby Animals in Alaska Act) that would allow the killing of wolf pups and bear cubs, and their mothers, in their dens on National Wildlife Refuge lands in Alaska. The vote was 225 to 193.”<<<Read More>>>

Share