March 17, 2018

A Call for a Possible Bounty on Coyotes Because of Disease Spread

Jon Lund is the owner and publisher of the Maine Sportsman magazine. In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.

Maine got along just fine before the coyote took over the countryside and contrary to the many statements made otherwise, we don’t need them.

However, there is something else I’d like to touch base with readers about that Mr. Lund brings up in his article. This has to do with the use of chemicals and/or “natural” elements to ward off ticks and insect bites.

I’m sure that the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone else who stands to make a profit from their drugs to treat Lyme and other diseases, has thoroughly hyped the presence of ticks and instilled ample fear into the masses. After all, when the people live in fear they will do most anything.

Lund speaks specifically about permethrin. Permethrin is a common ingredient found in compounds marketed as insect repellents or killers. Basically, it attacks the central nervous system of insects.

Permethrin is a synthetic, or man-made, product derived from pyrethrin.

Most fact sheets available to the consumer paint the picture of permethrin/pyrethrin as mostly harmless even though long-term effects have not been studied. Some believe that using products that contain permethrin presents a higher risk of health issues than the odds of getting bit by a tick that will infect you with Lyme or other diseases. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. But to make that decision honestly, you should make the effort to understand the presented “remedies” and “threats.” It’s your health. Know what you are doing.

Lund takes the time to explain how ticks are spread around (I don’t find any factual claims that global warming is the culprit) and refers to a study where “…a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks.”

The same study tells us that the incidence and presence of Lyme disease are not related to the abundance of deer but to the absence of key small predators. “We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.”

This claim is in direct contradiction to the theory that predators kill only the sick of the prey species and justifies the “need” for predators to keep our ecosystems healthy. Not only is there no evidence that the presence of large predators reduces the presence of disease in ecosystems, this study seems to prove the exact opposite.

We forget or never learned history. Large predators like wolves and coyotes were not tolerated on the landscape by early settlers. And there were reasons for that, some of which include not only the destruction of property caused by these critters but it was known that they carried and spread diseases, many of which are harmful and even deadly to humans.

And yet, today, there is an all-out effort to protect these same predators. It appears that for some anyway, the demand for an abundance of coyotes at the expense of public health is just fine and dandy. I don’t see it that way at all and I’m not alone.

As the trend continues in the direction that it is headed, it should be fairly easy to predict there will be increased fall-out about protecting any animal that spreads dangerous diseases among the people. Few tolerate the presence of rats knowing and remembering the unbelievable death and destruction caused by the bubonic plague. Is there a difference in protecting the health and safety of the public because one culprit is a nasty rat and the other is a nasty wild dog?

Mr. Lund is correct in asking the question about the role of coyotes in Maine, or anywhere else, where, according to provided data, the coyote is directly affecting the growth, perpetuation and spread of Lyme disease.

If Maine cannot effectively control the population of coyotes for public health and safety with the current management strategies, then it may be time to look at something more effective.

It is dishonest by the many who blame hunting and trapping for the decimation and/or extirpation of wolves and coyotes but go out of their way to deny that hunting and trapping of the same animals today have any effect on reducing their population numbers.

Many decades ago when it was decided by governments that wolves and coyotes were destroying property and spreading diseases, one of the elements employed to rid the landscape of the nasty canines and the diseases they spread was a bounty system. Any bounty must be attractive enough to draw enough to the plan. What is the limit in the cost of healthcare?

Such a suggestion will be vehemently opposed by many, especially those who hate hunting and trapping. They are wrong that think people like Jon Lund and myself might promote a bounty system for coyotes only for improving deer hunting. Little do these people know and understand the real conservation of wildlife.

In the normal world which is being left in the dust, there would be no question as to what is the right thing to do. Normalcy tells us public health and safety take precedence over animals and the spread of disease. One has to wonder what the extent of the bubonic plague would have been like if people had known and took real action to get rid of the rats that spread the disease.

But, we live in a Post-Normal world now where many things are upside-down. Are we to wait until more and more people get sick and die before we begin to act? Are we serious about finding a cure to a problem or is there just too much money to be made along with the genocide many promote?

It appears so.


Maine Bobcat: The Only Wild Predator in the East That “Regularly” Kills Deer?

I was reading an article this morning from Mount Desert Island, Maine about how the presence of bobcats helps to control the deer population on the island. Puzzling was this comment: “This interesting member of the cat family is our only wild predator in the east that regularly kills deer.” 

Like with any words in a written document and no author to explain, we are often left with guessing what certain words were intended to mean. Such is the case here.

First, is the author intending to refer to “our only” as meaning the bobcat is Mount Desert Island’s only large wild predator? Second, we are uncertain whether the author’s reference to “in the east” means in eastern Mount Desert Island, eastern Maine or the eastern United States. Third, what is meant when the author says “regularly kills deer?”

Guessing the precise definition really doesn’t matter in the accuracy of the claim. Either way you look at this, the statement is incomplete, at best, and also misleading, whether intended to be that way or not.

I would have serious doubts that Mount Desert Island has only bobcats as a large predator. As common as coyotes are in Maine now, it is almost certain they can be found there.

There are several “wild predators” in the east of Maine or in the east, that regularly (that’s a value-weighted perspective so this is my perspective) kills deer, although many refuse to acknowledge and understand the fact.

Excluding man, black bears, coyotes/coyote-wolf hybrids, bobcats, and Canada lynx regularly kill deer in Maine. Black bears regularly kill deer in Maine. This happens most often during the springtime when doe deer are fawning. Bears learn where deer go to fawn, as do all other predators. However, we must also remember that when any predator gets hungry enough they will take up doing things they might not normally do when food is plentiful. Black bears, under the right conditions, have been known to “ambush” a deer, sometimes taking one deer out of a traveling family of deer.

Maine’s coyotes, which we now have learned are actually a cross-breed mix of assorted coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs, kill deer sometimes at rates that leave us astonished. For ease of writing, I’ll just call them coyotes.

Coyotes and bears both can smell a fawn soon after it has been born. They often move in and take the fawn while it is basically helpless. In winter, coyotes regularly visit winter deer yards. When conditions are right, a winter deer yard can take on the appearance of a bloody battlefield.

I once spoke with a Maine Warden who told me that one particularly “harsh” winter, while conducting aerial fly-overs, several areas were shockingly awash in blood on the white snows. His comment was he had never seen anything like it before.

When coyotes move into deer wintering areas, often they hamstring the pregnant does and, while still alive, eat through the vaginal canal of the deer and extract the unborn fetus. Evidently, this is a bit of a delicacy for the wild dogs.

Video exists of coyotes taking down adult, healthy deer. Partly because of genetic exchanges, these coyotes have learned to hunt in packs and, while perhaps not the method of choice, have proven they can take down a fully grown male deer.

The same is true for bobcats. The bobcat has a different method of killing a deer, but lethal nonetheless. Once again, photos and video readily show a bobcat latching onto an adult deer and persisting until the prey is killed.

The Canada lynx has been known to kill deer as well and shouldn’t be discounted as a threat at certain times to the deer.

Maine has several large predators and those predators will kill deer…regularly. Depending upon the conditions, a large predator may or may not kill deer. Depending on the conditions, a large predator may or may not attack a man. Nothing within a wild ecosystem is all that predictable. There are so many instances that are driven by conditions at present.

One thing is for certain. The bobcat is NOT the only wild predator that kills deer regularly.


Selective Blindness, Changing Perceptions and the Growing Cultural Divide

Today I laughed. I actually laughed or at least grinned several times. Why? Mostly because I do not willingly exist in what most would consider this “normal” world – normal being whatever each individual and group of individuals has determined to be correct and thus normal. Because of my sometimes “out-of-planet” experiences, witnessing the normal, but to me, abnormal, events of the day must cause laughter. Without it, I’m not sure the results.

Most entertaining is when intellectuals(?) wander down roads of philosophical bliss, pointing out the obvious, created by the obvious, for the obvious, but pause in confusion, not understanding such creations, or better yet, intimating that the answer must lie in some unexplored human psyche beyond mortal comprehension. Yikes!

At the root of this laughter, sometimes contrasted with anger and disgust, was a long, sometimes rambling essay of what, in part, was the transformation of human attitudes and perspectives about life in general and living with predators more specifically. The author writes:

We have become tame in Europe, and that is a good thing. Europeans are on the whole no longer wild or savage, as we certainly were a thousand, five hundred, or for that matter sixty-seven years ago. The potential for savagery and bloodthirstiness remains within us, as shown with such dreadful clarity during the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991?1999. But we are for the most part tame and prefer that state-sanctioned bloodletting on a large scale happen outside the borders of the European Union. And that is, all things considered, a good thing. No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers. The same can be said about our relationship to animals. Most aspects of the living conditions of pets and farm animals are regulated by law in the EU. For wild animals, there are special habitat directives.

My initial reaction to reading this was to ask, what world does this person live in? But then, I realized it wasn’t what world he lived in but my own existence shuns the false world he displays. While what he writes certainly may reflect his perceptions of things, I believe it only substantiates the success of the work of those who control this world and all that is in it. There must be considered the absurdity or insanity that, “state-sanctioned bloodletting” is acceptable beyond the bounds of the newly perceived “tameness.” Talk about living a life of blinded ignorance. To accept the premise of, “No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers,” is to accept a lie and live it. More people would live in fear if they realized that all of this still exists today but is well-hidden. Media control and manipulation, outright lies and deceit, propaganda and control prohibits us from seeing the terrible things that are going on all around us.

The author admits, and accurately so, that this same attitude of blissful blindness and the denial of existing savagery, carries over into how people want to distinguish themselves and their coexistence with animals, both wild and domestic.

To this the writer states:

But something has been lost in the advance of civilization. In pace with the introduction of the refrigerator, hot running water, bathrooms with subfloor heating, and cable TV, our relationship to things wild has changed, especially our attitudes towards the predators among us. The bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx: all have been transformed in our minds into symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions. It is human nature to do so, and in a way, one could argue that this has been the case for much longer than since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, the already simplified traits have become more starkly black and white in modern, highly urbanized societies.

From the perspective of one suffering from “out-of-planet” syndrome, a serious argument could and should be made about whether or not civilization has advanced or regressed. There is no arguing the claim that “attitudes toward predators,” has changed, certainly, that man has established most animals as “symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions” to a point where animals are given equal or superior rights to man and are always discussed with terms using human identification.

We know that out of World Wars I and II, the rapid growth of understanding the human mind and how to control and manipulate it, was exploited, for all the wrong reasons. How did it become possible that our minds see things in a completely different way than how our parents taught us and their parents taught them?

But is this really human nature to see animals from this perverse perspective? I don’t think so. It is learned or probably, in this case, planned programming of our minds in order that changes forced onto people for sinister reasons by perverts with more to gain and without one care for the welfare of any animal…or even you for that matter.

The author touches on one of the reasons for the changes in attitude when he writes:

Out in the country, that argument does not hold full sway, at least not in the areas where the predators are actually found. Country people’s empirical knowledge runs deeper and is often — though not always — more complex and objective than city people’s. The problem with European attitudes towards “our” predators, however, is that most Europeans live in cities and not in the countryside.

And the plan, as it appears to me, is to work toward changing the dynamics of human population densities so that urban dwellers surpass in numbers those of the rural world. For certainly their exists differing attitudes and perspectives between the two cultures. It would make perfect sense that if someone or group of someones was interested in control they would work using whatever means possible to grow the numbers of whichever side was ideologically prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause. This may sound a bit extreme, but is it in reality? When you consider the words, the attitudes, the hate and the anger being perpetuated throughout, often targeted or presented as urban against suburban, somebody must have an important task to undertake.

We are but duped pawns!


Coal (No Deer) in Your Stocking


Of Course It Was Presence of Garbage Cans That Caused “Coyote” To Attack 3-Year-Old Girl in Washington

“On Thursday, father Douglas Lucas says his three-year-old daughter was attacked by a coyote who came up to the front porch of their home and pounced on the child.”

“The city of Snoqualmie suggests that people keep trash cans inside their garage until garbage pick-up day. They say the smell of food is the main thing that lures animals to homes.”<<<Read More>>>


Colorado Man Survives Attack by Three “Coyotes”

Note that in this article, it prattles on about how rare attacks by coyotes are and at the same time telling us that only 89 attacks by “coyotes” have been reported and verified in the United States, and two fatalities. RARE? The majority of “attacks” are never reported and we know not how many of those reported went unverified.

We know little about this particular attack but as long as authorities insist on irresponsibly reporting how harmless large predators are to humans, more attacks will happen due to ignorance and the wrong belief that wild animals “are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

Even though God told Noah and his offspring: “Also the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heaven, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.” (Genesis 9:2), the times they are changing. For countless reasons things are not as they once were. God promised the animals would fear us, but He also warned us that sin combined with tribulations of the final days, animals would begin to terrorize people.

Note also that the article states that the majority of “coyote” attacks happen “near the suburban-wildland interface.” This tells us that the growing trend is a real conflict between attempts to allow large predators to go unchecked while forcing people to “learn to live with them.” Animals may fear us but with too many of them and a shrinking habitat, it is completely unpredictable what a starving large predator will do. When the predator sees man as a meal, all bets are off that the animal is going to have much fear of man.


Rockholm Video: The Real Wolf Story


Photography: Buck Out-swims a Hungry Wolf

Please follow this link to view some photographs of a wolf swimming after a buck across a lake. The wolf takes a bite but is unsuccessful in bringing down the buck.


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!



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: