March 28, 2015

In a Rigged System a Bill to Allow Access for Hunting, Fishing

For decades the rigged system many people wrongfully label a democracy or a constitutional republic, has worked at every opportunity to prohibit hunters, trappers and fisherman from as much access to land as can possibly be done. At the same time efforts exist to ban hunting and rob people of their right to keep and bear arms. If they can’t do this outright, they will accomplish the same through what is often called incrementalism or back door regulations to chip away at any and all aspects of hunting, fishing and trapping, including land access.

Then along comes another effort to put an end, at least to some degree, to the continued prohibitions against land access and those who helped to build the rigged system cry foul and claim preferential treatment.

According to Pajamas Media, the Sportsman’s Act of 2015, “builds on previous efforts and adds new provisions to increase access and provide new opportunities for Americans to enjoy our federal lands.”

It appears that in this bill there are provisions that contradict the existing laws surrounding “wilderness” regions – those areas set aside as preferential treatment to only those wishing to see access to federal lands restricted to specific groups or individuals.

And herein we see the hypocrisy and elitist attitudes coming out from those who promote “wilderness” for their own selfish purposes.

“Certain language [in the act] may be interpreted to allow activities in wilderness areas that are not consistent with the Wilderness Act,” Ellis explained.

Leslie Weldon, deputy chief for the National Forest System at the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the Department of Agriculture, expressed concern that the bill seems to give preferential treatment to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. That could prove problematic given the wide range of activities enjoyed on public lands — and the service’s charge to accommodate everyone from bird watchers and hikers to school groups, photographers and, indeed, hunters and fishermen.

Please understand this. As it exists now, within the rigged system developed and designed to eliminate hunting, fishing and trapping, preferential treatment is being promoted by restricting activities by some in order to promote the desires of others in an exclusive use – and they fear such a bill would be preferential to hunters and fishermen.

Also understand that that those who seem to believe they have a right to own and restrict others, lament that such a bill would cause problems because their choice in recreational activities might be infringed upon in order to accommodate others. This is the result of years of brainwashing that hunting, trapping and fishing is bad and shouldn’t be allowed, giving people the false belief that they have exclusive rights to use the land and that right shouldn’t be at all restricted in order to accommodate others. This is the epitome of blind selfishness.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

In Protest Against False Arrest for Possessing Weapon

This is an interesting presentation. I’m assuming the raw footage is real. The people there should be allowed to protest but their message is based upon wrong information. If we were free men, we would not be having the need to protest. If we were free men our right to self protection would not be limited. The misinformation is that the constitution was for the individual. It is a contract between the Federal Government and the States. America was never “won” from King George. The Paris Treaty of 1783 and the Jay Treaty of 1794 assured that. And what was left of any constitution was completely changed with the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment. Our rights come from God not man. We should all stand up for God-given rights; that no man can give and take away rights. Because of this, none of us are free men.

A Practitioner Re-indigenizing Myself

Obviously I decolonized my own mind! long ago and have been a practitioner re-indigenizing myself by growing the majority of my own food, raising my own fruit, meat, and using my immediate environment for wild leaves, herbs, roots, fish and meats. Wild meat preservation requires that I manage wild predators. I already tried what you preach and it is BS. So keep in mind readers that environ-mental-ism-ists are condemning hunter gathers who are trying to decolonize their minds from the European federalism which is a legal term for corporate contract which they promote and condemn us for re-indigenizing ourselves by practicing self determination food gathering rather than being coddled by their federal contractual corporate nanny king..? I laugh at the “federal” contractual corporate lands fraud and I realize that, like all things man made, this legal fraud will pass into the dust bin of bad ideas with the knit-wits that thought it up and those that do not comprehend it’s true meanings and purposes as set forth by the real owners of those corporate contracts.

What does “federal” really mean?

From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary
FEDERAL– a. from L. faedus, a league, allied perhaps to Eng. Wed, Sax . Weddian,* * *.
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.

So the real meaning of “federal” is a contract or agreement and has nothing to do with a particular type government, although it was a contract that formed government.

So, where is your contractual agreement you signed giving you entitlement rights to my immediate environment and how I preserve it? Here’s a big clue, IT DOES NOT EXIST…

2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations;

YOU ARE NOT MENTIONED HERE AS YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH A STATE OR A NATION. As stated by the judge in the Padleford case;

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.”

Right here is all the proof you need that you are not a party to any compact (contract/Agreement) with the federal government or state government for that matter under any constitution.

#2 of Webster’s definition; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; * * .

Your mutual agreement is with a private organization using the word “federal” in a fraud, because of people’s ignorance. Remember words are used against you every time it is in the criminal’s best interest. Now when you look at Black’s Law dictionary, they are carefully couched in constitutional terms and nations and compacts between the states and never use “Federal” as defined by Webster’s. Even Ballentine’s uses it, as does Blacks.

Now let’s move to present day (1969) Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary. This now states what The Law dictionaries state and have thrown out the etymology of the word federal so you would have no idea it means a contract between parties, leading you to believe everything “federal” pertains to government.

Humm, ok, so what about federal express? Does that mean government express?

So I happen to have a 1911 Webster’s unabridged dictionary and the definition of “federal” is exactly word for word, the same as the 1828 Dictionary. So what happened in 1913 that changed the definition of “federal” to mean only pertaining to government? Think. Words are changed by men to mean what they want it to mean. The Random House Dictionary 1967 uses Webster’s 1828 definition, but also includes what the Law dictionaries define federal as. Here is proof as to how a word changes over the years by men that want control by starting to shove aside what “federal” really means. So the real word “FEDERAL” meant contract between men (parties) or agreement between them.

Waiting for you to show me a legitimate land title agreement between you and those men that set this fraud into motion’ – waiting… waiting… waiting…

It does not exist; YOU public lands owner own nothing. Every time you call those federal lands you mean someone else’s lands not your lands.

If you want an over population of wolves in your immediate environment you deserve what you get from that as well, a whole lot of nothing when it comes to wild elk meat..

This gets better the deeper we research it, you are Federal Human Resources property. How can property own property? How can non signatories of any federal contractual agreement with the international community own federal property? They cannot, they do not, they never did and they never will..

I’ve had this discussion with two judges, and nine lawyers. They have yet to prove me wrong. One of the Judges commended myself for figuring it out and that I was correct..

Have a nice life of lies, because you’ve been and still are owned property.

The America Few Want to Recognize

“Mr Bosworth was handcuffed and taken away. He was never read his rights; his gun was taken, illegally; he was refused an attorney, although asking for one at least six times; and he was interrogated illegally for several hours. The incident culminated when the Spokane County Sheriff intervened and Mr Bosworth was released after being cited for “failure to comply.””<<<Read More>>>

The Source of American Individualism

In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian concepts of Galatians 5:1, 13, 14, 15 are magic in that these verses are consistent with the assertion that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution comes from the concept of Judeo-Christian God-given rights.

Gal. 5:1 “Freedom is what we have – Christ has set us free! Stand, then, as free people, and do not allow yourselves to become slaves again.”
13″But do not let this freedom become as excuse for letting your physical desires control you. Instead, let love make you serve one another.”
14 “For the whole Law [think the Bill of Rights] is summed up in one commandment: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
[The American principle of “Mind your own business” comes to mind.]
15 “But if you act like wild animals, hurting and harming each other, then watch out, or you will completely destroy one another.”
[Don’t behead people for the common intellectual curiosity of exploring other faiths or even atheism.]

Galatians 5 shows us that arguments for marriages based on physical desires such as sexual preferences actually pushes Godless hedonistic sin cleverly masquerading as sacred Judeo-Christian God-given individuals’ freedoms protected under the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

Such deception is only possible through a systematic corruption of the national education system in particular law schools. And it may take beginning the discussion of yanking accreditation of law schools that bury, for example, US v Cruikshank 92 U.S. 542 (1875) [right of individuals to assembly and to bear arms predates US Constitution and are rights not dependent on the Constitution] before systemic changes can be made.

American Judeo-Christian God-given human rights for individuals address critically important freedoms from the brutality and barbarism of the King’s and of Roman Law’s absolutism (that Prof Hamburger discusses in legal treatise “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” 2014). Somehow the Godless would have us believe that American individualism, that is, the Bill of Rights, should include marriages based on physical desires contrary to our Founders’ Judeo-Christian views of freedom. Trials without jury, baseless warrants, seizure of private property, beheadings and other cruel and unusual punishments and more are the true forms of slavery and oppression.

Consider also these sources:

Our individual rights are sacred.
A legislative assembly has an inherent right to alter the common law, and to abolish any of its principles, which are not particularly guarded in the constitution. Any system therefore which appoints a legislature, without any reservation of the rights of individuals, surrenders all power in every branch of legislation to the government. The universal practice of every government proves the justness of this remark; for in every doubtful case it is an established rule to decide in the favor of authority. The new system is, there, in one respect at least, essentially inferior to our state constitutions. There is no bill of rights, and consequently a continental law may controul any of those principles, which we consider at present as sacred.” Id, Agrippa, Tuesday January 14, 1788, p. 538 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Spelling and capitalization in the original.]

Purpose and importance of the Constitution and its relationship to Government.
[Note that our Founders reference a Judeo-Christian God here as the Maker.]
If it be considered separately, a constitution is the organization of the contributed rights in society. Government is the exercise of them. It is intended for the benefit of the governed; of course can have no just powers but what conduce to that end: and the awfulness of the trust is demonstrated in this – that it is founded on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker, and is therefore sacred. It is then an offence against Heaven, to violate that trust.” Letter 4 by John Dickinson as Fabius, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 794 Federalist and Other Constitutional Papers, Scott, 1902. [Emphasis in the original.]

Livy, sharing thoughts from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Should Workers Be Fired for Legal Political Activity Outside of Work?

Leading Free Market Group Asks Dozens of Major American Companies to Protect Workers’ Right to Freely Engage in Political and Civic Activities

National Center for Public Policy Research’s Employee Conscience Protection Project Warns: Millions of Americans Potentially Subject to Workplace Discipline for Private Political Actions and Beliefs

In Response, Credit Card Leader Visa Takes Steps to Protect Its Workforce From Political Discrimination While Wholesale Giant Costco Resists Employee Protections

Washington, DC – Revealing the first results of nine months of behind-the-scenes corporate activism to protect American workers from political discrimination in the workplace, on back-to-back days last week the National Center for Public Policy Research spoke at the shareholder meetings of Visa Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation, praising the former for amending its corporate documents to protect its employees from potential workplace discrimination over political actions and beliefs while criticizing the latter for refusing to do the same.

Visa and Costco’s divergent actions came as the result of shareholder resolutions the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project submitted to each company late last year.

“Visa very quickly realized the merits in our proposal and changed its corporate policies to ensure its workforce that its private political actions would have no bearing on their employment with the company. It is a tribute to superb management that realizes hiring and retaining the best workers involves protecting those workers’ First Amendment rights,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Unfortunately, Costco, which employs more than 195,000 people worldwide, does not share those same values.”

Costco went so far as to petition the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit the National Center’s shareholder proposal from its proxy statement.

At Visa’s shareholder meeting last Wednesday in Foster City, California, Danhof stated, “When we asked Visa if it would consider protecting its employees’ private political and civic activities, the company did not hesitate to amend its corporate policies to do just that. Many major American corporations have resisted such a protection, but Visa employees should feel proud to work at a company whose leadership realizes the importance of employee freedoms.”

Conversely, at the annual meeting of Costco shareholders that took place in Bellevue, Washington last Thursday, Danhof asked, in part, “America was founded on the ideal of a representative government that derives its power from the consent of the governed. In a nation with anemic civic activity participation and low voter turnout, it is disappointing that one of the country’s largest retailers would fight to maintain the ability to terminate its employees for private political activity. My question is this: why did Costco’s leadership fight to maintain “managerial discretion” over the private political and civic activities of the company’s employees?”

In his question, Danhof also quoted directly from the arguments that Costco made in front of the S.E.C. as to why it should have been permitted to exclude the National Center’s shareholder resolution. Specifically, Danhof noted, “Costco fought to exclude our proposal in front of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Costco’s legal team argued that ‘[t]he company must have the ability to exercise managerial discretion over its workforce with respect to these issues” and that the “considerations that arise under these policies… are most appropriately handled by management, not by shareholders as a group.'”

To read the full legal exchanges between the National Center and Costco regarding exclusion of the shareholder proposal, click here and here.

“The company’s answer to my question at the shareholder meeting was almost as disappointing as the extreme lengths that it took in order to deprive Costco’s shareholders of the ability to vote on our proposal,” said Danhof. “Costco Chairman Jeffrey H. Brotman became indignant when I asked my question. He told me that ‘we’ (which I took to mean the company’s leaders) would protect Costco’s workers and that the company’s employees were free to do whatever they want on their own time. He said that Costco fought our proposal to protect the company employees from people like me. Then he backtracked and said, not exactly people like me but rather the company fought our proposal to protect the company from outsiders. From that I understood Brotman to mean that management should have ultimate control of Costco’s workforce and that the shareholders were the outsiders. That is backwards thinking.”

“Costco’s shareholders – who are the true owners of the company – should have been given the right to vote on whether the company will act as a partisan purity shop in which the staff must follow the dictates of management in their private political thoughts and endeavors,” said Danhof. “Brotman’s assertions that management should control these personal aspects and would protect its workers are vapid. The company employs more than 195,000 individuals. The chairman of the board and the CEO can’t possibly oversee and ‘protect’ each individual employee from this type of discrimination. But guess what could? The policy that we urged in our shareholder proposal, that’s what.”

“If I were a Costco employee, I would be very concerned that my management team, which is directed by some well-known extreme liberal partisans, refused to add policy protections for private political activities. Conservative employees should especially be concerned,” added Danhof.

For the better part of a year, the National Center has been asking corporations to implement policy protections shielding workers from adverse employment action for engaging in private political and civic pursuits. Through its Employee Conscience Projection Project, the National Center has helped protect hundreds of thousands of workers from potential workplace discipline or termination.

The genesis for the Employee Conscience Protection Project occurred in April 2014 when the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his job simply because he had donated to a 2008 California referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, Mr. Eich is not uniquely situated. Only about half of American workers live in a jurisdiction that provides statutory protection against employer retaliation for engaging in First Amendment activities. And some of these laws are weaker than others. Furthermore, many corporations do not offer this protection as a condition of employment.

“In researching workplace protections, one company that stood out was Coca-Cola,” said Danhof. “The soft drink giant’s Code of Business Conduct explicitly makes clear to its employees that ‘[y]our job will not be affected by your personal political views or your choice in political contributions.’ This simple measure speaks volumes in light of the fact that many American corporations refuse to offer this type of policy.”

Often using Coca-Cola’s policy as a model, last spring and into the summer, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project spoke directly with over a dozen CEOs about adding this commonsense employment protection. In addition to protecting employees from retribution for their outside-of-work legal political actions, National Center staffers suggested that corporations also protect civic and public policy engagement. Aside from Google, where CEO Eric Schmidt was steadfast in his assurance that Google employees would receive this full protection, no other company explicitly vowed to enact these measures.

To confront this void, the National Center submitted shareholder proposals to more than two dozen corporations for inclusion in their respective 2015 proxy statements. Some companies, such as Visa, realized the wisdom of these protections and agreed to adopt the proposal. Others, such as Costco, spent significant time and company resources petitioning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit our proposal from their proxy statements.

In the coming weeks and months, the National Center will reveal which companies protect their employees from political discrimination and which companies fought to retain the right to discipline its workforce for private First Amendment activities. Stay tuned.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2014, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 52 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers rights and many other important public policy issues.

The Visa and Costco meetings mark the first and second shareholder meetings for the National Center in 2015.

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, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two 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.

Crooks and Politicians: Neither Obey the Law

TacticalFirearmsSign

Obama Won’t Be Satisfied Until He’s Destroyed Everything

Right after the fake Sony hack blamed on North Korea, then Russia, then someone in the United States and then the kindergarten kid playing with his mother’s I phone (not really), I told my wife this was all an orchestrated false flag to instill greater fears in Americans so that this freak of nature residing in the Whitehouse could have a good excuse to take further control over the Internet.

Getting not much more than a cursory scowl, this morning my wife made a comment about someone hacking into CENTCOM, to which I replied that this, another fake incident, is just another example of what will propel this freedom snatching criminal to begin to demand more control and restrictions over the Internet.

I really don’t know what it’s going to take before people begin to see that this ass clown, and all of them in Congress, think all of us are really stupid. Most are but not all. But I guess that no longer matters.

I hope you all love your slavery as much as I hate it and everybody who lies, cheats and steals to create it.

I’m glad I’m only a visitor on this condemned planet.

“Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama said Tuesday the cyber attacks against Sony and the Pentagon’s Central Command highlight the need for toughened laws on cybersecurity.”<<<Read More>>>

Bill Maher: Cherry Picking Defensible Rights

Maybe the “rights” Maher enjoys, i.e. his right to “free speech”, making jokes and pissing on people’s feet, hit a bit too close to home with Charlie Hebdo. False anger and bravado doesn’t mean squat when you only have the bravery to defend pet rights while dissing others.

“We have to stop saying ‘We shouldn’t insult a great religion.’ First of all, there are no great religions, they’re all stupid and dangerous. And we should insult them, and we should be able to insult whatever we want. That is what free speech is like.”<<<Read More>>>

If I Owned the Woods

Suppose I bought all the woods and hills around a thriving valley where farms and ranches abounded and town families prospered from a mix of agricultural support and several small industrial businesses. Suppose further that all the former owners from whom I had bought the land had been considered part of the greater valley community for generations.

What if I:
– Went to court and closed every road through my property that I could?

– Vegetated every closed road so that travel through my property by anyone from hunters to firefighters was impossible?

– Eliminated all grazing and timber cutting on my property?

– Closed my property to hunting, fishing, and trapping and any access?

– Refused to clean up downed timber after a big storm?

– Refused to spray insect-infested trees, or to remove dead ones?

– Brought cougars, wolves, and grizzly bears onto my property and released them?

– Refused to accept any responsibility for human injuries or dead animals resulting from MY predators?

– Made firefighting access and water availability to fight fires that started on my property unavailable UNLESS the valley residents bought ME airplanes and hired many new employees to work FOR ME when they weren’t fighting MY FIRES that could spread to the valley?

– Went to court and obtained a judgment that because I was not commercial and was considered a charitable, scientific entity that Local and State governments not only could not tell me what to do on my property, they and my neighbors would have to accept any impacts my land use practices imposed on them?

Well, of course:
– Sawmills would close because timber harvests that had gone on for generations ceased.

– Sawyers, like ranch-hands, would become unemployed as timber cutting and grazing acreages disappeared.

– Ranches would steadily dwindle in herd size and then in numbers as forage availability dwindled.

– Farms would dwindle as part-time work in the valley and in The Woods disappeared.

– Businesses would dwindle and disappear as transportation into and out of the valley was constricted.

– Real estate values would plummet as farm land became unprofitable and town homes lacked for buyers since there was no work available and predator problems even in town became endemic. Insurance rates skyrocketed since predator damage was the sole responsibility of the unfortunate citizens damaged in any way.

– Hunting, fishing and trapping disappeared. Businesses for guiding, housing and feeding such folks also dried up as access disappeared and predators both reduced game and posed deadly threats to visitors, children, and others considering outdoor activities.

– Local government and State government revenue of all sorts fell precipitously while demands for government “help” skyrocketed. My land went untaxed since it was “devoted to a higher ideal”, businesses closed up, agriculture dwindled, families moved away or went on welfare, and vacant and “foreclosed” home sites proliferated.

As all this went on, I became more powerful. I bought up parcels all over the valley. While I closed them to any use by local people, I bought, or rented at a discount, properties that would further close roads and pinch off increasingly isolated private property of former ranchers and farmers and long-time residents of the valley. Local government did only what I ALLOWED and I stacked the State Legislature with the best politicians that MY MONEY COULD BUY!

QUESTION: Who am I?
No, I am not Henry Potter. You remember him don’t you? Lionel Barrymore played him in “It’s a Wonderful Life”. He was the evil old cuss that made everyone poor and created that gloomy town where James Stewart (George Bailey) contemplated suicide until the angel showed him how important he (and really EACH OF US is) was to his community.

No, I am not some media mogul or Hollywood gazillionaire buying up rural land and then imposing urban standards and fantasies or rural communities.

I AM UNCLE SAM!

I am the US Forest Service. I am the National Park Service. I am the Bureau of Land Management. I am the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I control over 40% of the United States.

I am steadily eliminating all sustainable uses and management of RENEWABLE natural resources on MY LAND. I am eliminating roads and access on MY LAND. I am ignoring enormous fire-fuel accumulations resulting from Wilderness, Parks, storm damage, Roadless Areas, insect damage. I am closing access and roads everywhere to impede firefighting and public access. I am demanding that already-impoverished taxpayers give me more firefighters and expensive equipment to appear to be fighting fires of increasing magnitude and frequency. I accept NO RESPONSIBILITY (exactly as I have established the legal precedence for damage from the wolves and grizzly bears THAT I INTRODUCED AND SPREAD) for fire damage to residences, towns, and businesses resulting from fires STARTED AS A RESULT OF MY ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ON MY PROPERTY! I have spent over 40 years establishing legal precedents that say State and Local governments cannot tell me what to do or not do on MY PROPERTY. I have financially and professionally seduced State bureaucrats and State politicians to become my secret mistresses for whatever I want to do. I put millions of rural employees and thousands of rural businesses out of work and then vow to “reduce unemployment” and “support small businesses”. I pay no taxes and renege on promises to “replace lost taxes and share revenue with State and Local government”. I breed and release wolves on MY PROPERTY to infest State and private “neighbors” and do likewise with even more deadly and destructive grizzly bears and, like Henry Potter, despise and ridicule the ignorant bumpkins he evicts into the snow.

Uncle Sam has exceeded the slumlord Henry Potter in arrogance and evil. I suggest that when they make the movie one day, they consider cutting and pasting Spencer Tracy from the movie “Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde”. The 4 federal agencies cited above go about like Dr. Jekyl daily making scientific pronouncements and seeming good; while in truth killing and spreading evil nightly before reassuming the sweet appearance of a do-gooder.

Jim Beers
20 August 2012
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