May 24, 2019

An Open Letter About the Insanity of Wolf Protection Over Livelihoods

The Merciful Bullet

By Len McIrvin, Partner Diamond M Ranch Laurier, WA 99146

As I looked into the dark, pain filled, pleading eyes of the calf lying on the ground in a dense thicket, many thoughts flashed through my mind. This had been a strong, healthy heifer calf (in human terms, she would have been a 5 or 6 year old girl-halfway between birth and puberty, with-hopefully-her whole life ahead of her)
As I looked at the calf’s ripped and torn, blood-soaked body; with her shoulder ripped from it’s joint, her hindquarters and her back and upper leg deeply punctured and lacerated with dozens of wolf bites – I had to ask myself, “Why?” Why is this becoming a common place event for cattlemen and sheepmen all over the West as they see their herds ravaged by wolves?
The mother cow mournfully bellows to her unmoving, fatally wounded calf. Her udder is swollen with milk but is never again to be suckled by her baby. Showing her love and concern, the mother cow stands watch over her calf all day long; refusing to leave the area where it was attacked by wolves. Her grief-stricken cries haunt me as she continues to call to her dying baby.
Once again I ask myself “Why?” Why this terrible waste to satisfy the desire of a few people who just hope to hear a wolf howl?
I couldn’t help but think “Why” once again as the Fish and Wildlife Officer asked my grandson if he could dispatch the victim, stating that he would then transport the body to the dump. What a waste of a healthy, young calf to end up in that place where she will rot or be eaten by scavengers.
I looked again at those dark, pain filled, and pleading eyes of the calf as my grandson compassionately placed the Merciful Bullet between them. Even though this is an experience I have lived through over 100 times, I still cannot accept this merciless killing of our herd by wolves.

Wolves kill whatever they want to kill, but death by wolves is slow, and horrible, and a long time coming. In the case of this calf, she could have lived for days, or lived until the wolves came back and started eating her alive. With tears in my eyes, I am asking all the good friends, neighbors, and citizens in our area, state, and nation for help in ending this situation.
God has said He put man on earth to have dominion over the animals. For those of you who believe there is a Lord, you must assume this responsibility and demand that this terrible carnage ends and that our predators are managed to the point that our herds and flocks, our pets, and our wonderful herds of game animals can survive.
There are only 3 factors involved in controlling the population density of wolves:
1. The first factor is disease and parasites, which invariably come when wolf population reaches its saturation point. (these are transmittable to humans)
2. The second factor is starvation. The starvation factor kicks in at the point when there is no food source available. At this point, they become cannibalistic and start eating each other, thereby controlling their own population.
3. The third factor and the most viable and effective population control of wolves is man; but in today’s political correctness, man has been taken out of the equation. This is the scenario we are facing today.
As a cattleman who has been involved with cattle all my life-nearly 3/4 of a century, I am asking for your help as we deal with the consequences of an exploding wolf population. Local control is the only answer. Let’s do everything possible to assure that each County Sherriff has complete control and is totally in charge of all the wolf predation that affects his citizens and their property.

Len McIrvin, Partner Diamond M Ranch Laurier, WA 99146

Share

FASCISM RULES: Plow Field, Go To Jail? Feds Threaten John Duarte. He Slugs Back

For Duarte, the unthinkable began in early 2013 when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE) presented him with a “Cease and Desist” Order (CDO) against him and and Duarte Nursery alleging that the act of plowing his field was an illegal “discharge of dredged or fill material.” (Premium Wine Executive News subscribers can obtain the full Cease and Desist Order letter at this link.)Further, the CoE order claimed that Duarte’s illegal discharge was under their jurisdiction because his wheat field was part of the “waters of the United States.”

Source: Plow Field, Go To Jail? Feds Threaten John Duarte. He Slugs Back | Wine Industry Insight

Share

Demanding Regulation and Enforcement

LoggingIt’s easy isn’t it? This American society has become so manipulated and brainwashed that we, without any thought, demand that “there ought to be a law,” also known as regulation and enforcement. It shouldn’t be so easy and isn’t when the demands for regulation and enforcement hit directly home. Odd how selfish people are when it comes to playing with other peoples’ liberties, property and rights while attempting to protect their own. Because we’ve been bred and molded into non thinkers, we fail miserably in finding understanding as to the consequences of demanding regulation and enforcement. We somehow believe demanding of others’ livelihoods is good for ourselves. Have we that right?

Here’s an example. In a recent editorial in a Maine newspaper Online, a writer says that logging is “damaging Maine’s natural resources.” At issue seemed to be the writer’s concern over the state’s deer herd and the threats from loss of wintering habitat for deer because of logging. The writer states: “If the State of Maine is serious enough and has the guts to regulate and enforce effective laws to preserve our natural resources, not ask for volunteers, we can do that.”

Yes, we can do that but what is the right thing to do? The writer suggests that all it takes is “guts” to tell a landowner they can’t have what is rightfully theirs. But people somehow don’t believe it is rightfully theirs. They think they have a right to tell you how to live and how to make your living.

If you were a rancher or farmer, is all it would take would be “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you out of ownership of a barn because perhaps the smell of manure bothered some people? After all, it just takes guts. If you owned a home with a back yard swimming pool, would it be acceptable to “regulate and enforce,” with “guts” no less, for you to be prohibited from having a pool because someone thought it dangerous? What if you had a large tree in your yard that you were afraid would fall and damage your home. All it would take is guts to “regulate and enforce” you into not being able to cut that tree because it might have “historic” value….or something. And so, you have a title to 50 acres of land where your home is built. The government determines that 40 acres of that land is habitat for a rare plant and so, you are prohibited to use or sell that land in order to protect that plant. All it takes is “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you from what is rightfully yours.

Doesn’t this actually define an illegal “takings?” How do we, as a people, a government, have the right to take property from somebody without just compensation? With “guts” we can simply “regulate and enforce” landowners to stop harvesting timber that MIGHT be detrimental to the proliferation of a large enough deer herd so that residents can hunt them.

Isn’t to have the “guts” to “regulate and enforce” nothing more than fascism? If not fascism, certainly totalitarianism. We now live in a totalitarian/socialist state. If we can’t get away with “regulate and enforce” or illegal takings, then, if Maine is so determined that the reduced deer herd, the effect of which is part of a struggling economy, is so important, then landowners should be justly compensated for a “taking.” As such, all residents will endure an increase in taxes to pay for the takings…each according to his ability, each according to his need…and we must also consider the ramifications of price increases due to shortages of resources – supply and demand.

In reality, the landowner isn’t the landowner at all. He holds a piece of paper that allows him to pay taxes on it and to do with that land ONLY what government dictates him to be able to do. We continue to convince ourselves that we own land and can do with it what we want. The short of it is, it doesn’t take “guts” at all. It only takes government to demand and take. Citizens don’t understand that when they demand “there ought to be a law,” they are doing the bidding for the government against the people.

While citizens are making their demands to “regulate and enforce” their own ignorance and selfish greed prohibits them from a deeper understanding of the consequences of such demands. It will be only a matter of time before that demand to “regulate and enforce” comes around and bites them squarely on the backside.

I began this article stating how easy it was to demand laws. Those laws on demand are for somebody else not you, is our attitude. That is our mindset and that is why it is easy. Instead of thinking of what those consequences will be WHEN your turn comes around to be regulated and enforced upon, it’s easier to demand if of other people. And, more than likely, your demands are based upon false information you have been spoon fed that causes you to think “there ought to be a law.”

There ought to be a law that prohibits people from demanding “regulate and enforce.” Ha Ha

Share

The Wolf Blitzkrieg Continues

A guest post by Jim Beers

*Editor’s Note* – The following article is a direct response to information provided in a news article from KRWG.org, “Settlements Reached to Protect Mexican Gray Wolves.” Out of professional courtesy, I will not post the article here. I can only provide a link to the original article. To better understand Jim Beers’ response, I suggest you read the article first as his response is directed at specific comments made in the “Settlement” article.

TRANSLATION –

1.) Arizona and New Mexico are but the most recent communities to stand alone before federal bureaucrats and radicals intent on forcing wolves into ever-widening rural areas for their nefarious purposes.

2.) Just as the federal government has been using the Mexican government to destroy the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution (Fast and Furious gun smuggling, federal pols bemoaning how Mexico’s incredible barbarity and lawlessness is due to “American guns”, using this as a pretext for secretly negotiating a UN TREATY to confiscate American guns, and even giving the President of Mexico a speech platform before our Congress to whine for and demand gun control in the US!): so too is the Mexican government (with all the killings, corruption and poverty rampant throughout the country) spending money and time “releasing endangered Mexican gray wolves a few dozen miles south of the border”? If that doesn’t stink of AMERICAN bureaucrats and radicals working with foreign powers to destroy American freedoms and rights as spelled out in our Constitution, I don’t know what does. Their role model must be the late Mr., now MS Chelsea, Manning and they deserve no less than he/she.

3.) Who will stand with Arizona and New Mexico? Colorado, one of the “Southern Rockies’ States” so coveted by federal wolf bureaucrats and radicals has gone off the deep end and sees wolves like they do a gun-free state where trees die only from fire, cattle are soon to be banned, and rural folks will only get what is due them. Utah, another Southern Rockies State was AWOL in the Montana/Idaho wolf war as an ally while trying to emulate Wyoming’s unique political backbone and save their own state’s hide. The only trouble was Utah has a record of fighting admirably for its own interests (their current efforts to gain ownership of federal lands in Utah is such an effort) and added to all the retirees from elsewhere flooding S Utah, like Nevada, politics are taking a Progressive turn as Progressives increasingly occupy the S areas to be “wolved” at first while they are increasingly gaining a political foothold in the Northern urban areas. Texas, a “borderland”, like Utah usually stands alone, and while they project a Conservative State’s Rights persona, the voters of spots like Austin, Houston and Dallas are no place to look for allies as Mexico releases wolves S of Big Bend where wolf food and local tolerance for wolves is similar to Muslim Brotherhood interest in “dialoguing” with Coptic Christians. The wolves will head N into Texas despite the public back-down recently by federal “wolvers” when Texans (especially the goat and sheep men) raised Hades. When the wolves cross the Rio Grande and are “discovered” on some goat carcass or some pile of sheep recently chased and asphyxiated; the feds and “state guys” will HAVE to protect them. Then while they reproduce and begin covering the state like fire ants the Brie and Chardonnay will flow in the radical’s offices on K Street and the ritzy parties on the N Shore of Chicago and the coffee shops in Seattle and Portland will abound with cheery and wide-awake customers. California stand with any other state on anything other than “more” government? Not a chance.

4.) The “Grand Canyon” is like Yellowstone: a large federal enclave where the federal Park Service (and the public and every federal politician) will, metaphorically, go to the ramparts to prevent ANY wolf management or control. Once wolves infest the Grand Canyon Park, the bureaucrats and radicals are confident that no matter what happens around the Park, they can maintain wolves in the Park much like they maintained buffalo for decades in Yellowstone Park despite brucellosis, broken fences and other harms outside the Park and a running conflict with neighboring states.

5.) Now for the most transparent “Translation” of all. The sentence “Research suggests such conflicts are better dealt with through changes in animal husbandry that reduce the likelihood that wolves and livestock will come into contact.” should be readily understood to anyone following this wolf issue in the most casual manner.

– “Research” is code for propaganda generated by radical wolf professionals, self-serving bureaucrats and tenured professors seeking bonuses and more graduate students. It’s worth, since it is bought and paid for and generated by persons interested ONLY in expanding wolf presence and federal power over rural America in the broadest sense and NOT in either Constitutional government or human society. Beyond stacking it with a Sears catalog and corn cobs in the little “house” out back, it is worthless.

– “Suggests” is a meaningless word in the context of government power plus no one will ever be held responsible for “suggesting” something. It is a perfect “weasel” word.

– “Conflicts” is a soft word (like wolf “bite” and shark “encounter”, etc.) to describe the effort to remove or silence ranchers, grazers, rural businesses, Local governments, rural parents and other rural residents that will be harmed – even after those doing Gaia’s work with wolves have done all they can to “resolve” the “conflicts.

– “Better Dealt with”: better than what? Better than productive and profitable animal husbandry (i.e. raising cattle, sheep, goats, alpacas, chickens, rabbits, etc., etc.)? Better than the sort of animal husbandry (small flocks and rare small herds and boxed up near homes) that is merely subsistence and not productive and profitable as in Asia and other spots where they MUST (of necessity) LIVE WITH WOLVES? Better than killing destructive wolves as opposed denying their harm and telling ranchers and others like hunters to “like it or lump it”?

– “Changes in animal husbandry” is, as they say in business meetings, the bottom line. “Changes” means steadily eliminating as in buying out and closing grazing allotments; as in promising “compensation” and then spending a few years questioning “what” killed the animals (we all know how rural folks lie and secretly believe old superstitions) until the federal and then state money runs out since the rancher/grazer had time to “adjust” but failed to do so; as in shrugging when 176 sheep are killed in one flock in one night or when calf losses make owners quit ranching and finding no buyer stupid enough to buy a place with high losses commits suicide leaving the property a “bargain” for federal realtors and their partners over at The Nature Conservancy.

– Finally, “Reduce the likelihood that wolves and livestock will come in contact” is an attempt at humor by humorless radicals and bureaucrats. The conflict between wolves and livestock will only go away when there is either NO WOLVES or NO LIVESTOCK. Which one do you think these radicals and bureaucrats are for?

Which one are you for?

Jim Beers
28 August 2013

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

How Do Wolves Affect You?

upsidebackwardsFor me a key statement made in this movie pretty much tells the story. A man says, and I’m paraphrasing, that our laws in this country provide for a person to use whatever means they think necessary to protect themselves, their family and their property from human predators but they are left helpless through Government protection of an animal.

How and why did we ever get to this point?

Wallowa County Wolves from OregonWolfEducation.Org on Vimeo.

Share

Obama: Grabbing Guns and Other Property Without Due Process

The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.<<<Read More>>>

Share