August 22, 2014

“Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

I am reading law Prof. Hamburger’s “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” and he makes the case that administrative law is not new rather it is the old King’s absolute prerogative reborn, the same prerogative that the Framers sought to prevent with the Constitution’s system of divided government.

He sets out how administrative law is extra-legal (outside the law), supra-legal (above the law) and, because it is not limited by the Constitution, it is unlimited in power. That is, it is no different than the unlimited power of the King.

Notwithstanding a few cases that attempt to rein in the administrative state, there seems to be in Texas a conscious and clever effort at the legislative and administrative code level to protect the unlimited power of the administrative state from constitutional limitations.

In this first example, in order to test some of this thinking, let’s take a very extreme and hopefully very unlikely example. Assume that the administrative code says that anyone who fails to pay an administrative fine by the 10th day after issuance by the agent shall be lined up and shot by firing squad. (If you think this is too far out, consider Obama’s man who used Roman crucifixion of Christians as a parable to guide the mind set for those involved in environmental enforcement.)

At this point in our jurisprudence most can readily state that such a code provision violates Constitutional guarantees of substantive due process that protect our human right to life. But if today’s Administrative Code set out such a punishment, where would such an issue be litigated? Apparently, Travis County, Texas, in the administrative court system.

In this second example, let’s assume something more regular, for example, where the administrative code says that the owner of property shall submit to a central control of private property regulation of some sort or pay a daily fine of $10,000.00. One can argue that this administrative process creates its own ad hoc condemnation process whereby the rights of groundwater owners are denied for the “greater common good”, an argument that is made by the Office of Public (Government Ownership) Interest Counsel in administrative hearings.

Others might pick a better suited example.

[Please note that enforcement agents might well be violating an old common law prohibition against the combination of the duties of the Sheriff with the duties of the Judge. Such administrative law provisions destroy the ancient safeguard of the impartiality of the Judge who is supposed to hold the Sheriff to a burden of proof and to determine the innocence or the guilt and punishment. Today's administrative law judges are there to simply rubber stamp the regularity of the combined actions of the enforcement agent.]

With regard to this second example, some argue that administrative central control of private property is not a clear violation of the Constitutional prohibition against takings without just compensation. Balderdash. Central control abolishes private property. In 1958 J. Edgar Hoover said that our exceptionalism is America’s exception from Communism. The exceptionalism that provides our great wealth comes from private control of property. Karl Marx wrote of the central control of private property and the modes of production similarly. Last two pages Chap. Two Communist Manifesto, 1848.

I suspect that 60 years ago or so an extreme example of administrative law would be what we are seeing today, the illegitimate supplanting of an administrative process for the Condemnation process. So, let’s jump to an example that might seem extreme today: violation of the prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that I’ve had the passing thought, and I am not the only one who has noticed, that the fervor of the environmentalists and some adherents to Gaia as Mother Earth resembles a religion. Some might argue that we have already reached the point of an established de facto state religion in the environment (which is conceptually indistinguishable from Marx’ eschatological concept of the utopian commune), that is, earth and animal liberation and their derivatives embodied in legislation such as the 1973 Endangered Species Act together with corresponding overreaching administrative provisions.

If the power of the Administrative State is truly unlimited, then how many other provisions can be violated?

And where will those issues be litigated?

And, how much longer can the judicial branch safely ignore the holding in Jones v. Ross that states: “It is fundamental that the Constitution is the paramount law of the state and cannot be altered by legislative amendments.” 173 S.W. 2d 1022, 1024 (Tex. 1943).

Livy writes from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Hijacking Dietary Guidelines (of all things!) for Politicial Gains

USDA’s Switch From Science-Based Nutrition Advice to Green Agenda Harms Americans

Health Policy Expert Warns Against Politicization of Diet Advice

Issues Such as Climate Change Don’t Belong in Government Policymaking About Healthy Eating, Says Health Policy Expert Jeff Stier

New York, NY/Washington DC – The naming of an “environmental nutritionist” to a top USDA nutrition post is drawing fire from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division.

In an op-ed published in Friday’s Des Moines Register, “Iowan’s USDA Appointment Raises Concern,” Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier writes, “The appointment of Iowa’s Angela Tagtow, a controversial ‘environmental nutritionist’ and local food activist, to head the United States Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is causing more headaches for the agency, already facing criticism about politicization of federal nutrition advice and its consequences for public health.”

Stier earlier criticized the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and its work to establish new recommendations for federal nutrition policy. Stier’s concerns have been widely echoed over recent months, given the DGAC’s mission creep towards environmental activism. The DGAC is meeting this week in Washington.

In that context, “the appointment of ‘food crusader’ Angela Tagtow to a USDA position responsible for assessing and implementing the Committee’s recommendations is cause for serious concern,” says Stier.

In the op-ed, Stier writes, “By using the government’s official dietary guidelines as a tool to advance her well-established environmentalist agenda, Tagtow would undermine the USDA’s mandate – to provide families with science-based, impartial nutrition advice. The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services administer the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which makes recommendations regarding the congressionally mandated Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines, currently being revised, are the basis for Federal food and nutrition programs and welfare benefits such as SNAP and educational campaigns, including MyPlate (formerly the Food Pyramid). The USDA touts them to be ‘authoritative advice for people two years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.’”

Stier writes, “According to Politico, recent DGAC meetings raised eyebrows because ‘hot-button issues, such as diet and climate change’ are being discussed in an unprecedented way. The committee has even dedicated one of five subcommittees to ‘Food Sustainability and Safety’ to discuss how the food we eat contributes to climate change, and how the government should recommend changes to our diets based on those concerns.”

While Stier agrees that maintaining a food supply and environmental protection are important, he says, “these issues don’t belong in discussions of healthy eating. But that hasn’t stopped the DGAC from delving deeply into them over the past year. In the January meeting of the DGAC, committee member Miriam Nelson gushed about the importance of promoting foods that have the “littlest impact on the environment,” and invited testimony from sustainability expert Kate Clancy, who argued it would be “perilous” not to take global climate change into account when dispensing dietary advice.

Stier’s earlier criticism drew rebuke from the USDA, for being “premature.” In April, a USDA spokesperson seemed to back away from the row by minimizing DGAC’s role in policy-making, saying ,”the committee is still in the early stages of its work, so it is premature to guess what their recommendations might be, and even more premature to speculate about what will be included in the final dietary guidelines.”

That seems to have changed, Stier notes. “But the appointment of Tagtow to the USDA office responsible for not only developing and promoting the Dietary Guidelines, but advancing prominent programs such as MyPlate, the re-vamped version of the well-known food pyramid, suggests that the agency is doubling down on raising the profile of our diet’s alleged affect on the climate, and other issue that have more to do with political science, than nutritional science.”

Stier slams Tagtow’s firm’s mission statement as code language for politically charged activism.

Her firm’s goal was “to establish healthier food systems that are resilient, sustainable, ecologically sound, socially acceptable and economically viable…”

Stier points out that Tagtow has written that we should select meat and dairy products from animals that have only been fed grass diets.

In the op-ed, Stier challenges the USDA’s new nutrition expert for repeating the “myth that meat is an environmentally-reckless form of protein, suggesting a plant-based diet instead. She says we should reduce our consumption of meat, lean or not, not because of any potential health benefits, but in order to ‘conserve natural resources and energy.’”

Stier also debunks Tagtow’s alleged economic justifications for her radical agenda. “Tagtow has suggested that Iowans could improve the state’s economy by only eating food grown in the state, at least part of the year. She touted a Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture study claiming that ‘if Iowans ate five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and Iowa farmers supplied that produce for three months of the year, these additional crops would add $300 million and more than 4,000 jobs to the Iowa economy.’”

“She fails to mention that in her utopian Iowa, residents wouldn’t likely enjoy the benefits of staples like oranges or pineapples for those months. Nor does she consider the devastation to Iowa’s agricultural community if her agro-protectionist ideals were implemented in other states. Well, now she’s headed to the federal government to promote her narrow ideology.”

Stier concludes, “The maxim that, in government, ‘personnel is policy’ is especially true here, given Tagtow’s policy-making role. The priorities she’s spent her career advancing are far from the consensus among mainstream nutritionists. Her appointment is a slap in the face to thousands of men and women in nutrition who daily work tirelessly and impartially to help Americans eat better. And it casts doubt over whether USDA is willing to dispense nutrition advice based on science rather than an activist agenda.”

Stier has written on this issue in the past, raising concerns over the Committee’s direction in a March piece in the Washington Examiner and in the Daily Caller in April of this year. He is available for press requests on this issue.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and Al Jazeera America, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post , Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Stier has testified at FDA scientific meetings, met with members of Congress and their staff about science policy, met with OMB/OIRA officials, submitted testimony to state government legislative hearings, and testified at the United Nations (video here).

Stier previously worked in both the office of the mayor and in the corporation counsel’s office during the Giuliani administration in New York City. His responsibilities included planning environmental agency programs, legal analysis of proposed legislation, and health policy. Mr. Stier also is chairman of the board of the Jewish International Connection, NY. While earning his law degree at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, he served two terms as editor-in-chief of the Cardozo Law Forum.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Individual Human Rights

The 1986 Lexicon Encyclopedia coverage of Hegel contains magic. In law school, we are not taught that our system is based on the expression of individualism, the same individualism that Hegel, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Garrett Hardin (author of Tragedy of the Commons) and Alinsky reject. The encyclopedic reference says that Hegelian philosophy split into two wings, the left is Marx’ Communism and the right is essentially fascist nationalism. Too many people in the US think in terms of right/left. But the Communists and Fascists are Hegelian twins who reject individualism, the individual rights that are key to America’s exceptionalism from Communism.

Before reading that, I never thought of our system of having been borne of an expression of individualism. But it makes sense. All the rights are individual rights. And of the individual right of free speech, J. Roberts specifically said in US v. Stevens 559 US 460 (2010) that the benefits of individual free speech outweigh the burden on government. I submit that the benefit of all our sacred individual rights outweigh the burden on government.

In law school, they teach that only certain rights are fundamental and others, not so much. However, a reading of The Federalist And Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902, shows that our founders considered the whole Constitution to be fundamental, and that laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. That they considered our individual rights to be sacred and referenced a Maker. We are all entitled to sacred and fundamental individual rights, not just the worst criminals in the US.

Despite the pervasive underlying theme of the TV media, the true dichotomy is not between communistic-thinking Democrats and fascist-thinking Republicans, rather both Democrats and Republicans should reject Neo-Nazi Progressivism. As J. Edgar Hoover stated in his 1958 book “Masters of Deceit”, the setting of the classes against each other is an established tactic of the Communists. To Communists, every opponent is a fascist. As long ago as 1951, Ludwig von Mises wrote in “Socialism” that the communists do not respond to diverse views with reason, rather they immediately respond with a personal attack.

Notice how character assassination is used quite publicly. For example, the rancher in Nevada whose preference grazing rights prevailed against all humans, but not against the subhuman tortoise under the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was painted as a racist.

All the rights are individual rights, sacred and fundamental for humans only. The public policy of the Constitution is clearly one of humans first, a public policy that Congress had no authority to alter with the Endangered Species Act. In my view, Nixon capitulated more than just Vietnam to the Communists in 1973. 1973 was a dark year for Nixon. Impeachment was on the horizon. Did he think that Americans turned on him so, now, he turned on America? In 1973 Brezhnev secretly stated to his Communist comrades that Détente would not stop the Communists advancement of their various National liberation movements. And, for his comrades to trust him when he said that he expected to achieve most of their goals by 1985 without violence. (Page 359, Dupes, Kengor, 2010) In 1975, Animal Liberation was published. Some participants in the animal liberation movement seek to abolish private property in animals and the movement contains elements of civil disobedience to achieve its goals.Livy
Livy writes from the Southern High Plains of Texas

NSA Caught Spying on EPA Caught Spying

A pro-business watchdog group sued the National Security Agency on Monday, demanding that the spy agency turn over metadata logs for some phones registered to top EPA officials in a pioneering legal maneuver that seeks to use the government’s own secret data to check up on other agencies.<<<Read More>>>

A Suggestion for Rural Americans

Guest post by James Beers:

If you are a rural American that:

- Realizes that you are being harmed in many ways by a central government environmental/animal rights apparatus.

- Is concerned about what lies ahead in your community and County for your children and grandchildren as jobs dwindle, grazing and logging are eliminated and hunting and fishing are being vilified and abolished.

- Sees the expansion of government ownership and easement-taking as the ultimate threat to voiding your property rights and jeopardizing your and your family’s future.

- Doesn’t know who to turn to as urban voting blocs, both nationally and within your state, work with national and state politicians to vacate rural America and turn it into a government-controlled enclave by the use of unjust laws and bureaucrat-empowerment of regulatory tightening for personal their gain.

- Is rightly afraid of the human safety, property damage, diseases and impacts on rural American life posed by the introduction, protection and sanctification of uncontrolled and unmanaged predators like grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions and coyotes.

- Understands how Wilderness Declarations, expanding government-controlled lands and government bureaucrats that are no more than radical activists with both a disdain for American Constitutional government and human hegemony in the world causes increasingly common catastrophic fires with increasing destruction of homes, communities and lives.

- Knows that federal bureaucrats from US Fish and Wildlife Service manipulating unjust laws like the Endangered Species Act for the benefit of themselves, friendly politician’s re-election and radical Un-American agendas; to the BLM invading a Nevada ranch with all the equipment and tactics of a US Ranger attack on an Afghan village; to the current revelation of USDA buying submachine guns for unstated purposes, are all matters for great public concern especially for rural Americans.

- Is anxious about how state fish and wildlife agencies are mirroring federal agencies’ hiring and staffing of radical employees that are deeply opposed to rural Americans and their way of life.

- Cannot understand how or why state fish and wildlife bureaucrats have become subcontractors for harmful federal policies and actions while increasingly not only ignoring the harms they are causing to rural residents and communities of their state but steadily aiding the federal bureaucrats in their destructive laws and policies.

I could go on here but I think I have made my point and stretched your patience sufficiently.

As an old bureaucrat writing and speaking on this matter for well over a decade, I believe rural Americans have only 3 choices.

1.) Continue hoping for the best like Oregon loggers and mill owners did; like Minnesota moose hunters did; like all the former grazing allotment holders did; like all the ex-sheep ranchers did; like the cattle rancher that committed suicide did; like the people killed and seriously injured by unmanaged and too-numerous predators did; like the thousands that have lost dogs to protected predators; and like current rural old folks and kids especially, living in rural America in the same sort of stress and fear common in primitive Asian societies where guns are prohibited and to quote Thomas Hobbes writing in Leviathan about a similarly out-of-control central government in England in 1651 described the resulting life of the people as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and a “war of every man against every man.”

2.) Tinker around the edges of the destruction by “increasing participation”. “transparency”, and understanding why our destruction is “good” and “beneficial.” Tolerating teachers indoctrinating our children; politicians that worsen and refuse to better our condition; and bureaucrats that abuse us and treat our families, our communities and our way of life with haughtiness and contempt. This is similar to current approaches to immigration, Islamic interfaces and current handling of Constitutional rights from freedom of speech and religion to the right to bear arms that are all only digging the holes deeper and giving a false sense of hope as things get worse and worse.

3.) Begin taking concrete actions to reverse, not amend or modify, the political and bureaucratic actions that are strangling rural America.

Numbers’ 1 and 2 above are not acceptable. They lead to either:

- Living as slaves under tyrants and dictators as all Constitutional “guarantees” are eliminated and all power over all things resides in the most powerful factions and individuals that seize and hold power. Or…

- Armed conflicts between government and the governed, and the “war of every man against every man” that Hobbes wrote about and our Founding Fathers fought in addition to British Troops during The Revolutionary War.

If you want to begin taking back the rural America we built and enjoyed until what I write of here took hold, I submit the following for your consideration.

Neither federal nor state government (politicians & bureaucrats) will be reformed without solid pressure, just as they have been perverted by radical agendas promising rewards from radicals and the Treasury to politicians seeking re-election and bureaucrats seeking their own enrichment. Where is this pressure for reform to come from?

Either it will come from the military ( a horrible thing to contemplate) or it must come from Local Governments strongly advocating for Local Communities and Counties.

Just as strong Local governments are the venue for reforming state governments gone astray, so too are strong state governments the venue for reforming an out-of-control federal government.

But, the fact is that Local governments and their revenues have been prime targets for these radical agendas of destruction right from the get-go. Their presence and their voice have purposely dwindled as their revenue dwindled from economic destruction of rural areas and the growth of federal rural restrictions with state tolerance and the expansion of federal ownership and land controls.

The first step is to elect Local politicians that will fight for you at the state level. That means reasserting Local power in your state Capital.

- Overhaul your state agencies that are harming you and make structural changes in the State Legislature to balance rural representation. Consider that the US Constitution originally designated TWO US Senators for EACH STATE to balance tiny Rhode Island and Delaware with Leviathan’s California and Texas. Something similar is needed to balance the “800 lb. gorilla” effect of the Chicagoes and Manhattans in the states they occupy.

- Enact and enforce Ordinances and Regulations that require the state government to side with you against unjust federal intrusions. For instance, require a County Permit to introduce or release any wild animal in YOUR County. That means federal or state bureaucrats. If your state government will not recognize its role as protecting and nurturing you and opposing federal abuses that you will not tolerate then Reform it with all the enthusiasm and determination of those that took it from you in recent years!

- Elect good Local politicians to state offices. Then elect good state politicians to federal offices with an agenda of repealing and amending unjust laws and reducing the power and agendas of out-of-control federal bureaucracies.

- Repeal the 17th Amendment that, in 1913, changed the way US Senators were appointed (from “chosen by the Legislature thereof” to “elected by the people thereof”): this began the steady and incremental loss of States Rights under the 10th Amendment that underpinned the growth of the problems facing us today. While the Senate and its awesome powers (Ratify Treaties, Confirm Judges and high Appointees as well as passing on all Legislation and Budgets) were designed to Represent Each State; today they represent and advocate for the changing and variable (mostly urban) voting coalitions that elect and re-elect them AND NOT THE STATE they reputedly “represent.”

So, here is my suggestion on getting started. Since I am on old wildlife guy, this concerns wildlife but I challenge you ag guys and timber guys and road guys and rural businessmen to come up with some similar beginning at the Local level.

Enact an Ordinance that establishes that you (the Local Level) are the Primary Authority for the presence, management and control of wild and domestic animals in Your County. You will determine if, what, where and how many cougars, coyotes, free-roaming dogs, black bears, foxes, raccoons, etc. will be tolerated in the County. You will set the seasons, conditions, limits, methods and circumstances that said animals can or will be taken. You will provide a County where cattle or hunting or fishing or recreation or all in some mix is what is desired by residents for their own good in their own communities. You will prohibit the state to release cougars or coyotes or bears from urban areas where urban residents think that wild animals can be managed in line with human necessities by live-trapping and kicking them out on some rural County road in the dead of night. (This latter phenomenon is going on all over the country as I write.) You will require a permit from any federal, state or local entity releasing wild animals and that application will have a written permission of any landowner in the vicinity of the release. You will prohibit certain species like grizzly bears or wolves from becoming established in the County and authorize landowners, hunters, ranchers, County Animal Control and others to shoot, trap, snare, etc. any arriving in the County or live trap them for the agency responsible who then pays a fine the first time after proving the animal has certain vaccinations and the second time the animal is euthanized.

The state government should back you up in this. The state game warden and the state wildlife budget should recognize, protect and nurture the Counties in these regards. The state wildlife managers and wildlife control agents should enable Counties to create Local environments for the Local people.

Now, if you think there won’t be extreme blowback on this, you are mistaken. The state is “superior”, “it won’t work”, “they don’t know what they are doing”, etc., etc. will be screamed everywhere. Massachusetts’ Constitution, California’s laws, Illinois’ regulations will all suddenly take on all the importance of The Ten Commandments as the Capitals are filled with squeals. This is EXACTLY what must eventually take place in Washington when a majority of the states get squared away and real reform of the federal government begins.

Finally, as this is “pooh-poohed” by state and (behind the scenes) federal government; try this. File a Freedom of Information (FOIA) Request with your state government and the federal government for a summary of the circumstances of all live-trapped wild animal in your state for the past (3?, 5?) years AND the LOCATION of where they were released. You will be surprised whether you live in Oregon, Illinois or Connecticut .

Now I personally expect that just like the numbers of wolves or the numbers of elk/moose in wolf country, some states may, like their federal “partners, lie about this since they believe they are truly unaccountable but, some will be rightly fearful that being misleading or lying or destroying records could possibly wind up in a court before a judge that does not see them as above the law.

Maybe this could be accomplished with the help of some legal aid or law advocate firm or organization or maybe even some firm interested in American Civil Liberties? Maybe some of the elk/deer/hunting/fishing/Unlimited/Forevers/Sporting Goods Stores, et al might possibly see how this affects them and drag themselves away from the federal buffets long enough to help legally and financially? Maybe even ranchers and farmers and loggers and rural businesses might even discern a stake in such a move to begin getting things back on the right path?

The following cartoon was drawn over 250 years ago before there was ever a Declaration of Independence, US Constitution or a United States of America. Just as Ben Franklin was addressing the colonies to unite and address British tyranny peaceably at that time, so too must rural Americans either come together and prevail or the consequences will be far more awful than anyone will admit. This idea for bottom-up reform starting with Local government that I am suggesting here is made in the same spirit that Ben Franklin addressed those colonists centuries ago.

JoinorDie

Join, or Die by Benjamin Franklin was recycled to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule

Join, or Die by a well-known cartoon by Ben Franklin appeared in the :Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754 to encourage the former colonies to unite against British rule. It is the earliest known pictorial representation of colonial union produced by a British colonist in America. It shows a snake cut into eighths (New England was treated as one) with each segment labeled with the initials of one of the 13 American colonies or region.

Jim Beers
24 May 2014

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

When THE LAW is the Problem

LawProvided by James Beers:

Yesterday I wrote TWO QUESTIONS, an article that appears [on this website]. An astute and well-informed reader in Europe wrote me the following response to that article:

By American law ..

I : = B
2 : = B

In other words, pups born as the result of the mating of a wolf and a dog are legally unprotected dogs and not protected wolves. This is true. Additionally, anyone that shoots, traps, injures, harasses such a DOG is not bound by any law concerning wolves but only those state and local Laws and Ordinances concerned with DOGS. This is also true.

However, I submit that today neither of these things are really true.

We throw around these reputedly “scientific”-based terms like wolf, dog and coyote like they are elephants, lemurs and kangaroos. While these latter THREE Species don’t look alike or eat the same things, they are absolutely, inexorably and basically different because THEY CANNOT MATE AND PRODUCE VIABLE (fully capable of and able to reproduce their own kind) OFFSPRING. Once upon a time for centuries and until very recently this capability to produce viable offspring was the defining characteristic determining, what was a distinct group of animals we defined as a Species. That is why mules (the offspring of a horse and a donkey that are not capable of producing viable offspring) are NOT a species, for instance. This definition of Species, while biological, has served us all well for centuries in myriad ways as we domesticated animals and managed wild animals for the benefit and protection of our families, communities and societies.

Enter the wolf and federal wolf laws and regulations.

In the late 1960’s, in the midst of great social chaos in the United States federal jurisdiction and authority over wild animals took major authorities from state governments under the auspices of “saving” endangered Species. This new federal authority steadily grew into previously unimaginable federal power to take and control private property; destroy formerly viable businesses; close public lands to any use or management or renewable natural resources; stop construction projects like dams and irrigation districts; eradicate valuable game animal herds; destroy local economies and communities; and even destroy the lives, families and livelihoods of rural men and women protecting their property and families from radically destructive government actions.

Early-on federal seizure and protection of remnant wolves as an endangered “Species” in Minnesota and subsequent releases of wolves in the Upper Rocky Mountains in a National Park and on an Indian Reservation (two locations that share the unique distinction of always having been outside and beyond state or surrounding local jurisdictions and their authority). Long story short, absent the federal “Endangered” Species Act, absent the absolute central government power it spawned largely due to federal bureaucrats writing and amending federal regulations to serve their own purposes plus the inattention of the public and state governments busy “Hoovering”- up (i.e. vacuuming or sucking-up) federal dollars with “strings” – were it not for all this – there would only be a remnant wolf population (and moose to hunt once again) in Minnesota and other than a few straggling wolves along the western Canadian/US border NO WOLVES IN THE LOWER 48 STATES today.

But, what is a wolf? Wolves breed with and produce viable offspring with all dogs, all coyotes PRODUCING VIABLE OFFSPRING. The genes of these three animals are in reality a stew of all manner of interbreeding from numerous wild encounters that have gone on for eons to the intentional crossbreeding by men to obtain more fearsome animals or animals with more stamina to do work like pulling sleds or any of a countless number of other human intentions lost in the mists of time.

Thus we in the Lower 48 States find ourselves fighting for our lives, families and livelihoods against a hostile (against humans) government with the outcome often hinging on points like:

- Was that a wolf you killed?

- Was it a wolf that killed your sheep?

- Is that a wolf hanging out where your kids play or catch the bus?

- Was that a wolf you were shooting at?

- Is that a wolf den with a wolf bitch and wolf pups “out back” of the pasture?

- What is your expertise to say it was not a wolf?

- You should have exercised due caution.

- Do you just shoot at anything?

- How could you have placed a snare like that where wolves were present?

- How do YOU tell a wolf from a German Shepherd or a large coyote?

- On what do you base YOUR expertise?

Ah, but you say “we have DNA Analysis” to identify wolves. HMMM, who sets the “Wolf” DNA Standard: The “Dog” DNA Standard: the “Coyote” DNA Standard? Is it the same “scientists” either employed by or funded in large measure by the federal government? “’It’ is a dog when ‘it’ has 30% of this and a coyote when it has 62% or more of that and a wolf when we say so”! Really?

DNA Analysis is perfectly suited for individual identification as shown daily by criminal investigators. But there is a great difference between tying someone’s DNA to the DNA found at a crime scene and the ARBITRARY standard that there is a genetic line and on one side we will call them wolves and on the other a dog and on yet another it is a coyote. Those are value judgments made by bureaucrats and the “scientists” they employ AFTER the fact of all these disputes arising from the forced introduction and protection of wolves. When such determinations determine prosecutions and great harm to citizens they are reminiscent of 19th century phrenologists describing the “criminal type”, or acolytes of Margaret Sanger describing the mentally-deficient that should be killed, or 1930’s racial “experts” describing those with Jewish “blood”.

None of that DNA specificity about wolves (in all their, like dogs, endless VARIETIES) is published in any regulation. That they can and do often look alike is undeniable. It is as if citizens were told that some deer had a gene resistant to Chronic Wasting Disease and they are totally protected but all the other deer, without the gene, should be killed to save the deer from the disease. The fact that they all looked alike and could only be identified after being killed was the shooter’s problem and if a warden found you with a deer THAT HAD THE GENE; you would be prosecuted, fined, imprisoned and have much of your property seized by the government. Distinguishing such deer is no different than relying on arbitrary government DNA Standards to identify real wolves! Such use of DNA findings is in fact (I speak here as an old state and federal law enforcement officer) DISCRETIONARY.

Forget that you thought it was a coyote or that you were sure it was a large dog that killed your dog or livestock. If I was the state or federal enforcer you wound up with and I was interested in:

- Ingratiating myself with environmental/animal rights zealots running my agency.

- Making an example of you to put the fear of (Gaia?) in others.

- Helping to rid the area of hunters, grazers, loggers, etc.

- Making a name for myself with a prosecution that engenders lots of publicity.

- Simply interested in proving how tough I am to both the public and coworkers.

- Getting even with you for some reason.

- Impressing everyone with how important these nutty laws are.

- Needing a complex investigation to justify overtime or Premium Pay.

- Forging a case with “Precedence Value” to immortalize myself.

- Etcetera.

I could be your worst nightmare.

Look no further than the recent “raid” on the cattle operation of Mr. Bundy in Nevada by such government enforcers, without a court order, that resulted in the shooting of valuable livestock and confrontations with citizens fomented by enforcers armed to the teeth ostensibly protecting a tortoise that nearby government-funded solar panel farms are harming far worse than any cattle. Those enforcers are “doing their job”, being rewarded for a “good job” and are planning their next moves to further oppress citizens as I write. (“Next time we will first use bean bags by the camera and then loudspeakers and then we rush them if they don’t disperse and then…!”)

Wolves, dogs and coyotes that appear for all intents and purposes as the same animal are either: A.) Wolves completely protected at all times, B.) Coyotes that are unprotected and may be killed at any time, or C.) Dogs that are either 1.) someone’s private property and thus covered by property laws and the owners ire, or 2.) free-roaming dogs covered or not by local ordinances and/or state laws. Just as the cattle shooters are apparently unrestrained as they go about their “duties”; so too are the enforcers arresting and prosecuting citizens that kill or bother wolves that may or may not look to every American just like a large coyote or dog.

Utilizing the discretion inherent in this genetic mishmash, I would seize the animal in question or describe it if it got away as a wolf. As I built the case, I would document your background, interview people that had dealt with you like environmentalists and anti-gun folks and game wardens and other enforcers. I would copy and enter as evidence everything you ever said or wrote about wolves or government benevolence. Only if the DNA Analysis was absolute (there is no such wolf or dog or coyote) would I stop if I wanted to go forward. I would document how you thought “it looked like” a large/small, light/dark canid (i.e. wolf/dog/coyote?). How you didn’t know about how tails and ears indicate one animal or the other. I would document how you mistakenly guessed the weight of the animal or how you misread the tracks around your dead dog and how you didn’t know the official government distances distinguishing the tracks of a wolf and the tracks of a coyote. I would catch all the times you said things like “that looked like” something you “should have” or “shouldn’t have” done .I will have a field day because the laws and regulations give the government all the aces and the citizens all the deuces.

In addition to watching ambulance chasers descending on you like vampires when the sun goes down, I would “shop” for the “professor” or DNA “Analyst” (just like litigious modern environmental Americans “shop” for Washington DC or 9th Circuit judges and courts to get judges that prefer them) to get DNA “Results” that will send you like Diogenes in search of “your own” “Analyst” or “Professor” that the court and jury will look down on as inferior to the august government “expert witness”. The public will admire me and begin to look on you as they do that guy that owns (owned?) the Los Angeles Clippers with the “girlfriend” about the age of his grandkids. Whether I win or lose: you lose and I win! Why? Because, it is all based on a bad (un-Constitutional and oppressive) law with all manner of hidden agendas and loopholes put there over time by self-serving bureaucrats that keep harmful federal and state politicians in power with illusions about animals.

So is “B.” the right answer to both questions?

1.) Is the wolf bitch birthing pups from eggs fertilized by a German Shepherd, a coyote and a Yellow Lab (yes litters can have more than one Papa) giving birth to wolves or dogs? Despite what a lawyer or bureaucrat tells you about how DNA “proves” and the Endangered Species Act says they are unprotected dogs: believe them at your own risk. Those offspring are what a court and a judge says they are. Go no further than the next generation when the half-Lab is subsequently bred by a wolf and the Lab genes join the genes of ancient semi-wild dogs from Indian Villages, peasant cottages in Medieval France and caves in prehistoric Europe and Asia in the genetic soup of the “wolf” critter you are charged with “taking”.

2.) Is the person that kills or harasses such offspring of a wolf/dog cross a felon or a hero? See #1. If the pup grows up looking just like his mother’s brother in the Little Red Riding Hood story, I would not hold out a hope or expectation of some benevolent enforcer or government bureaucracy with a scintilla of concern about your welfare if you are caught in a web of prosecution wherein the outcome revolves on what a jury thinks about the charges against you in light of claims about what the DNA “proves.”

I must admit I think the answer to both questions is “it depends.”

Like tyrannies down through the ages, our fate once more has come to “depend” on bad laws that exist only to mask the way the whims of the powerful are imposed on the rest of us day in and day out; in all we must do and all we cannot do.

Call The Police! A Man Has a Gun……….Tattoo

GunTatooGasp! I just couldn’t let this story go by without sharing with others. In Maine, a tree company sets up in front of a man’s house and are about to start cutting trees and limbing branches for the electrical lines running overhead. The man, who works nights and sleeps days, is awoken by the noise of crunching ice.

Scurrying, the man throws on only a pair of pants and rushes outside, into the frigid air, to stop the men from cutting his trees. The man is shirtless and half asleep. He asks the men to stop working and they do.

The man returns to his bed to get back to some needed sleep, when he hears a knock on the door. Answering the door, he discovers the Maine State Police. They report that a worker for the tree company called police to report that the man who lived there had confronted them and that he thought the man had a gun.

As it turns out, the man did have a gun, or at least a facsimile of a gun. He had a tattoo of a gun on his abdomen that made it look like a gun was tucked into the waist of his pants. See the photo.

Here’s the link to the story.

Sweden’s Problems With Reintroduced Wolves

From Yahoo! News:

“When you know a wolf can turn up on your land anytime, it changes your whole quality of life. You don’t dare let your dogs out in the yard … and people say you need to take a rifle when you walk in the forest!”

There are few differences between Sweden and the USA when it comes to problems with wolves. Sweden, no longer a sovereign state (some may live in denial over that), really has no say over the disease-ridden wolves raising hell in that country. The USA, no longer a sovereign state (many still live in denial of the fact), and the individual states that make up what was once a sovereign union, have no say over what becomes of wolves. All are forced by totalitarian communists to have their right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness snatched from them over the evil dictates of world rulers and powers, all of which we never see, hear and certainly do not elect.

As with news article after news article, this one from Yahoo! News fails miserably to even mention the human-threatening disease these government-sponsored terrorist wolves carry and disperse on the landscape. Just like when some lying, thieving, corrupt person says, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it…..PERIOD,” so too do we hear the same lying, thieving, corrupt people say these diseases are of no harm to humans.

Well, we know how Obamacare is turning out. You want to wait to get diseased before you do something about it?

The Continued Insanity of Wolf Introduction

It is becoming more common to read and see events such as the one where a person’s young colt gets slaughtered by wolves, among other assorted property losses, attacks on humans and the spread of deadly disease, and yet the perverts continue to defy sanity and plan to place more of them useless, disease-infested, criminal animals onto the landscape. Not only is the continued act a substantiation of insanity, it is very telling that such action is a tool for the destruction of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What was once white is black, what was right is wrong. Everything is the opposite of what was once taught. And among the insanity, we read press releases like the one below, in which officials plan to release more useless, mongrel, hybrid, mixed-breed canine killers into the countryside.

From the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release, Feb. 14, 2014

Plan announced for 2014 Mexican wolf releases in Arizona
Releases to replace wolves illegally shot between 2011 and 2013

PHOENIX – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) have initiated actions for the release of two Mexican wolves in Arizona to replace wolves illegally shot, as directed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission in 2012 and to increase the genetic diversity of the wild population.

The Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) tasked with the day-to-day management of the wild population captured two wild males during the January winter population count. M1249 was taken to the Service’s Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility in New Mexico and is paired with a captive female wolf. M1290 was paired with a captive female wolf and is being held in a release pen in the Apache National Forest.

Neither of the male wolves has documented involvement in livestock depredations or nuisance behavior, making the animals good candidates for pairing with a captive female and subsequent release. Both wolf pairs are being observed for breeding behavior and will be released into the primary recovery zone in Arizona in the spring prior to giving birth.

“This is one of the important steps in Game and Fish’s commitment to replace the four wolves lost to illegal causes between 2011 and 2013. One of the key considerations when the options were evaluated was to improve population genetics, which is important to the long-term survival of the subspecies,” said Jim deVos, the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s assistant director for wildlife management.

An additional option to replace wolves illegally shot and to increase the genetic diversity of the wild population – cross fostering wolf pups born in captivity into a wild wolf pack litter – still remains under consideration and will be evaluated in the future.

“The pairing of genetically valuable females with males with wild experience accomplishes two goals, adding genetically valuable genes into the population and replacing wolves that were taken illegally,” said Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Director. “If these pairs successfully establish themselves in the wild, they will increase population numbers immediately and will contribute to a more genetically robust population in the future.”

In 2013, the IFT attempted the release or translocation of two pairs of wolves and a single wolf into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. A single male was released into Arizona and recaptured in New Mexico shortly after release for displaying nuisance behavior. Plans to release a pair of wolves in Arizona were halted when another pack displayed territorial aggression and threatened the safety of the new pair. That pair was returned to captivity. In addition, a pair of wolves was translocated into the Gila Wilderness of New Mexico. However, the male dispersed outside of the recovery area boundary and was recaptured, and the female was later legally shot and killed on private land in the act of killing livestock.

Release sites will be chosen based on several factors including appropriate prey density, distance from occupied residences, seasonal absence of livestock grazing, and occurrence of established wolf packs in the area.

The Mexican wolf population is estimated to be at least 83 animals, the highest number of wolves since the reintroduction began in 1998.

The Reintroduction Project partners are AGFD, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, several participating counties in Arizona, the Eastern Arizona Counties Organization, and the Service.

PIGS Want Man to Stop Raising Pigs

(NaturalNews) A Michigan farmer says he could be facing an armed raid by government agents soon, following a lengthy disagreement with state Department of Natural Resources officials over his refusal to obey an order to kill his feral pigs.<<<Read More>>>