August 23, 2017

Nature Balances Itself Unless I Say It Doesn’t (Fits My Narrative)

Stupid people want to believe what they want to believe because….well, they are stupid. One of the giant echo-chambers, ad nauseam, is that “nature balances itself.” Short of debating what nature and balance is, honestly educated people understand that balance in nature is not the idealistic Disney movie they have been taught…but few are capable.

Included in the echo-chambers of filthy perversion we also hear that wolves are an “apex” predator. There is only one apex predator and we walk upright on two legs…period. We are told that wolves are important and a necessary part of our ecosystems because they “balance out our ecosystems.” What fantasy! What nonsense! What hypocrisy!

However, somebody always has a “study” to prove their romantic, biological, perverse and extremely stupid assumptions about the role of wolves in our fields and forests.

But what nonsense, fantasy and hypocrisy. Consider the latest tripe about another new “study” that concludes that wolves need more room to do what wolves do. No, you can’t make this crap sandwich up. Somebody stupid has to dream it up and so they have. “Wirsing co-authored a new study in the journal Nature Communications. He said current land management policies don’t offer apex predators enough space, but that doesn’t mean he wants to see wolves roaming rampant across North America. ??

“We need to allow predators to occupy more landscapes than just remote, protected areas,” Wirsing said. “On the other hand, we also need to heavily manage them, recognizing that they do conflict with people.””

Unless you’re incapable of basic understanding, try to understand what this person is saying. First he calls the wolf an apex predator. In the context of what is written, there must be several “apex predators” in his mind. How can that be? He says wolves don’t have enough space, and that they need to be “allowed to roam” and be “heavily managed.”

What happened to balance of nature and the wolf that changes the paths of rivers and streams? Why does anything, according to the environmentally insane, need to be managed or heavily managed, if nature balances itself out? And if the wolf is so damned wonderful and powerful, and does all these clowns say it does, and is a necessary and important part of our ecosystems, why can’t the wolf create its own space?

If the wolf is an apex predator, that means the wolf is not prey to any other animal…I guess including man. I ask again, if this is at all true, why doesn’t the wolf create its own space?

Morons want their cake and eat it too. They want wolves to retain a status in excess of the existence of man. And yes, many prefer the lives of wolves over the lives of man. They mouth that “nature” balances itself and that when it is not in balance it is because of the evils of man. Once they have fought for that false idol, then they can manage everything else as it fits their narratives and fulfills their agendas – but somehow it’s not management and manipulation. This appears to be the ultimate in insanity, in which these gODS of the ecosystems kill anything, man, beast of plant, to save whatever the animal worship of the day might be.

A simple honest read-search of history, reveals to us that wolves did once exist in many places in North America. That was when essentially there were few people around. The environmentalists readily admit that man did a number on wolves as they settled the landscapes from East to West. It happened. It was going to happen. It could not be stopped. That is how things are. It sucks to hate man so much that you would prefer the existence of any animal over theirs. Now, with idiots in charge, although they won’t necessarily come right out and say it, we have a choice – either man goes or the wolves go.

Why do you think they are so persistent with forcing wolves into our backyards and onto our ranches and farms? Wolves DO NOT belong in man-settled landscapes.

Share

Can We Stop the “Social Justice” of Wildlife Management?

Over the past few years, I have made many an utterance condemning the idiotic “social justice” approach to wildlife management. Perhaps if deer, bear, moose, loons, piping plovers, and all other animals, could sit down to a cup of coffee and “tell us how they really feel.” The job of providing for their welfare would be a bit easier…or not. Our human society, at present, believes that providing things for free – by utilizing another person’s money – is the correct thing to do, along with forcing idealistic lifestyles onto others. Evidently wildlife management is not exempt.

Animals can’t tell us how they feel, what they want, where they prefer to live and what their basic enjoyments in life are. Because we can’t communicate with animals, as with man, we are supposed to use science to figure this all out. There once was a day when it was acknowledged that in order to understand animals and care for their existence, the tried and proven principle of honest, scientific method and approach was an honorable challenge.

Today it seems that this scientific approach to wildlife management has been replaced with a form of social justice, the result of which has created a form of scientific injustice.

Social Justice can be defined as, “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” With each enforcement of social justice, all hopes at individuality and even self-determination are forever lost.

Social Justice is a Leftist term of idealism. Environmentalism and Agenda 21, both glorified perpetuations of social justice, has put a stranglehold on future individualism and aides in the destruction of God-given rights. Agenda 21, pretending to be a guideline to “save the planet,” was the infrastructure needed by those seeking social justice. It has been woven into the very fabric of American life. Every movement we make, we run face to face with “sustainable development” – the ultimate destroyer of self determination and individualism – perhaps even life itself.

Agenda 21, therefore, has become a dominant theme in wildlife management, even if never spoken. It seems, whether by design or happenstance, no decisions within wildlife management departments, crafted to care for our wildlife, can be made unless first they seek the wishes of society. With a fully propagandized public, surely wildlife management has become a form of social justice. To continue this thought process, understand that “Climate Change” (note it’s in capitals) is all a part of Environmentalism, Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and Social Justice. They didn’t just independently appear one day.

I’m not here to debate the proclamation that all wildlife belongs to all the people. That’s not what this is about. Whatever happened to when wildlife departments, their foundations built on a firm understanding of the responsibilities before them, devised scientific management plans to achieve the goals that they knew would satisfy a majority of the public, and stand behind those decisions with strong, honest and real science to support it? Today, regardless of science, if you have enough money and holler loud enough, you’ll get what you want. The system is gamed.

So where are we? Can or will we ever return to rational, scientific wildlife management? Probably not, however, before the doom arrives, we might witness some degree of a push-back. It might even be a substantial one.

To be forthcoming, please understand that I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two political systems diametrically opposed to one another. The paradigm is manufactured, the result of which is vividly on display presently coming off the November presidential election. It all about propagandized perceptions.

Because the paradigm is fake, doesn’t mean that the perceptions of the people are fake as well. They honestly believe what they say and do…or at least they feel convinced enough to say and do some pretty far out things. As Yehushua stated in the last moments of his earthly life, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Some are calling the events and fallout of the election a sudden fall of the Left and a rapid rise of the Right. Reading “Wretchard’s”, Richard Fernandez’s recent column, is a great example of how some are seeing things.

The premise being presented here is that the Left pushed and pushed and reached a point where they considered themselves to be in the catbird’s seat controlling everything of importance within their progressive lifestyle. All of a sudden, the Left came crashing down as the great wall of the Right was rapidly built around Donald Trump. As Fernandez describes it, “In an instant what was formerly yielding pudding becomes incredibly resistant like liquid armor.  The Left hits a wall.  Progressives, perplexed at this sudden change in resistance doubles down.  But this makes the liquid armor even more impenetrable and they double down some more. Unable to understand i[f] they naturally  blame conspiracies.”

So, what is this? Is any of this real? I’ll let you answer that question, however, there is everything real about perceptions. Perceptions are what guide us. It’s the forming of those perceptions that have, historically, been an extremely dangerous thing.

In the dozen years or so that I have covered the emotional politics of wolves, this paradigm of Left vs. Right (perhaps better recognized as Rep. vs. Dem. or better yet, Liberal vs. Conservative) has run its course of ups and downs. Often I wrote of how the Left (Environmentalists, Animal Rights advocates, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Social Justice warriors) always pushes for more; exercising their perceived power of controlling all things wolf, ignoring any and all opposition to their determination at achieving social justice for an animal regardless the cost. To what extreme will the Right go, if allowed?

The “pudding,” at times, runs up against “liquid armor.” In the Left’s comfort and incorrect perceptions of power, they went too far. The perceptions of the Left caused them to feel as though things have come crashing done on them. The Right began their push back. They are feeling power, some control. And so it goes. There is no ending.

I don’t believe for one minute that the progressive lifestyle is dead. Too many people love their immoral lifestyles, made legitimate in the minds of Leftists claiming a “changing world,” where all things desired must be achieved void of any thought toward morality and decency. But they do not see their world that way. What is dead is the lifestyle of tolerance, anchored by a truly moral foundation.

It matters not whether you and I want to accept the manufactured internal war of Left and Right. The reality is that a very large population of people believe (perceive) in “their side” and we are receiving hints that some are ready to fight to the death for it. What a very huge mistake that would be, especially when an honest examination of what one is fighting for is undertaken.

Historically, it has been a common existence of what appears to be ups and downs, or maybe Rights and Lefts, as each “side” maneuvers their pawns on a chess board in hopes of gaining more power than the other. Is any of it real, at least beyond the ends of their noses?

The perception may be that the Left has been in control too long. Their idealism has been forced onto the American people, for a time long enough that those on the Right believe they have “fought against” the “pudding” and have created “liquid armor.”

What then will happen to wildlife management by Social Justice, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Climate Change?

I’m offering little hope that wildlife management will ever return to what it should be, but can I help you to better understand?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is in the process of keeping their cash flow solvent, by complying with the blackmail practices of the Federal Government, to devise game management plans for deer, moose, turkey and bear. In all preliminary readings of what to expect in these revised management plans, there is a common and readily repeated theme of making decisions within the plan based on social tolerances. In this case the social tolerances are the result of strong-arm indoctrination of Social Justice, through Environmentalism, Agenda 21 and Climate Change.

With this mind manipulation running its course and having achieved giant strides in promoting its agenda, there is little hope, short of a massive flow of liquid armor.

Perhaps another example of blind ignorance as to what has befallen us, can be seen in Maine’s effort to lay out tens of thousands of dollars to hire a company to conduct a survey of the Department and their practices. And because it’s a “well-known” and “well-respected” company, are we supposed to blindly take their propaganda, bought and paid for by MDIFW, as the gospel?

All questions in this survey are general in nature, with little or no specifics, including background data that might prompt the questions. The multiple choice of answers never include all the answers – only the ones the company wants you to choose from – often leaving respondents frustrated. Did I mention the survey was bought and paid for by MDIFW? (Learn about the Delphi Technique)

But, I don’t want to create my own distraction. Now that MDIFW has THEIR survey results, all, of course, favorable to MDIFW, that will become their answer, along with Climate Change, for everything. We’ve already seen it. It’s nauseating once you understand it.

I have searched for any kind of legislation that Maine might have that forces MDIFW to consider social tolerances within their wildlife management plans. I have found nothing. One then can only conclude that the choice to implement social tolerances into scientific processes, is that of a state government so deeply indoctrinated in the idealism of Social Justice, they believe it is the correct thing to do. How do you counter that? Isn’t this same sort of Social Justice prevalent at all levels of government, throughout all departments?

We have seen in this most recent presidential election one the biggest, if not the biggest swings in political idealism. Whether real or imagined, if this political push-back, i.e. the liquid armor, has and will have actual destructive powers to dismantle, at least to some degree, the progressive lifestyle running rampant in this nation, remains to be seen. Will any of this backlash and power gained, trickle down into state’s fish and game departments, like Maine’s, that will spoil the “pudding” of the progressives who have taken over wildlife management? One can only hope. Or none of this is real.

At some point in time, many aspects of wildlife management, based on Romance Biology and VooDoo Science, will run their course. Some people will see. Some won’t, nor do they want to. A push-back will ensue. To what strength remains to be seen. I doubt any will go noticed. The beast is too big with not enough people left who care enough to do anything about it. They love their Kool-Aid. Drink it and like it.

But always remember that democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe is such a wonderful thing, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Perhaps at one meal time there may be two sheep and one wolf.

 

 

Share

Socially Acceptable Levels of Nonsense

It’s beyond foolishness that fish and game departments across this totalitarian nation – that thinks it’s a democracy – aim to implement “socially acceptable levels” of wild animals as it pertains to their legislative mandates to “manage” them. Wildlife management is a science – even though more often than not that science is severely fouled through Scientism, outcome-based pseudo science, environmental idealism, Romance Biology, Voo-Doo Science, or just plain political bias. Make way for “socially acceptable levels” of wildlife injected into what once was a scientific process formulated in the best interest of the people, the health of the animals and the desire to utilize a natural resource for the benefit of providing a food source and continuing a heritage that has been a part of human survival since The Great Flood.

In order to be transparent and forthcoming, let me say right up front that if the real, honest, scientific process determined that any and/or all hunting should stop, for the purpose of sustaining a game species, I would support that. I have in the past.

This “social acceptance” nonsense rose to recognition right along with Environmentalism and the perversion of Animal Rights. Much because the American person has been so misguided in their understanding as to what purpose animals have on this planet, that existence has risen to such a psychopathic level that we witness, as a common element within our society, of, not only humans living, eating, bathing, and sleeping with their pets, but offering these animals a perceived right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, equal to or greater than those of men. Utter nonsense and far beyond the realm of human intelligence.

Now we are witness to fish and game departments, caving in to the mental illness of equal existence of man and animal, that somehow it has become necessary to bastardize and pervert what was left of honest, scientific, wildlife management in order that people get to express their tolerance levels of wild animals – based on nothing but one’s manipulated perception, formulated on selfishness, greed, laziness and a myriad of other emotional factors and useless, non-redeeming social values.

Perhaps the only half-sensible level of tolerance that should be considered is that of public safety. However, are we to accept the idealism of some city slicker, who has never seen a moose, bear, turkey, deer, or downhill-side-badger, as a legitimate means of managing wildlife? Nobody wants to run the risk of running into a large wild animal with their car and getting hurt, even if they are too stupid to know when to slow down or to slow down at all. Few understand the real risk of confronting large predators due to distorted views allowed to be presented. Aren’t these issues something that should be decided by science and not socially progressive emotional clap-trap?

In what other things in our life are we asked of our “socially acceptable levels?” Please don’t confuse “socially acceptable” with economic tolerances, although in some wildlife management issues, some level of economic tolerance exists.

Does the EPA consult with the people, i.e. sending out surveys and questionnaires to get a sense of how much the public will stand for their fascists dictations?

Does the Department’s of Transportation, actively seek social tolerances with automobile drivers as to how many deaths by vehicular destruction is acceptable? Do they do the same before setting the speed limit, building or repairing roads?

Does the Department of Energy and Defense consult with you and I about our social acceptance of the number of nuclear weapons or the need for war?

Are we consulted with what our tolerances are with the military and U.S. Government spraying chemicals daily in our skies over us?

Even in fake, government shams like “Global Warming,” you and I aren’t consulted with as to what our tolerance level is as to the amount of carbon dioxide we are willing to “suffer” with.

We have been told for decades now that man explored space and landed on the moon. When was the last time you were probed as to your social acceptance of rockets in space and vast amounts of resources, time and money it took to pull this off?

Are we consulted for social acceptance as to how many trees get cut, fields get planted and harvested, or who gets to place their land in Tree Farm status?

This list is endless and yet, science be goddamned, it has become necessary for officials within our fish and game departments to consult with mentally ill animal perverts, even placing them on department committees, in order to figure out how much people can take. Who made that decision? What a joke. And how irresponsible can it be, to pretend to somehow balance sound and responsible wildlife management with the demands of environmentalists and animal perverts?

Maine is in the process of wasting time devising copy and paste game management plans so they can continue to be eligible for Federal funds. The latest laugh comes from plans to decide how many wild turkeys is “socially acceptable” to Maine people.

According to George Smith’s article, the Department wants to have enough turkeys for “viewing”: ““Ensure public satisfaction with the turkey population by providing hunting and viewing opportunity and minimizing conflicts with landowners.””

If you haven’t been to Maine recently, the traffic is extremely heavy with idiots wanting to view wild turkeys. Give me a break! Does anyone have a brain anymore? Are we so stupid as to forego everything sensible because we fear political correctness (censorship)? Cannot they see that this sham of “social tolerance” is nothing more than a guise to rid the world of the things environmentalists don’t like while protecting their own. This is totalitarianism and doesn’t even resemble the next worse thing – democracy.

If fish and game departments haven’t the collective brains to have an understanding of “what the market will bear” (no pun intended), then fire them…or better yet, don’t hire them to begin with. Science is first and foremost. To go out seeking public input about social acceptances within a scientific process is fools folly. They should be able to get a good sample of the real population’s tolerances by listening to the phone ring with complaints.

To pimp the rides of environmentalists is playing their totalitarian games. This nonsense needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. It’s a waste of time, energy and money. Fish and game departments should be applying the real scientific process to wildlife and game management, while considering the recreational value of such management, combined with public safety. If they haven’t figure this child’s game out yet, then what good are they? Get rid of all of them and find those who got a clue.

 

Share

Meet the Coywolf

The ignorance on display in this video, comes from two, very young, fully indoctrinated biologists who believe that coywolves inhabiting New York’s Central Park or anyplace in the cities and towns where numerous people live, is a wonderful thing.

Spoken very little of, is the potential danger these animals pose to the public, saying that, while we shouldn’t make friends with the wild canines, we should “make them uncomfortable” to be around humans. Nothing was spoken of the near 50 diseases these filthy critters can carry and spread, and that is, not only a shame, but is irresponsibility bred on ignorance and idealistic Romance Biology and VooDoo Science.

Share

Stop Publishing This Utter Nonsense!!

Damn! It will never stop! The New York Times, noted for seldom ever printing truth, publishes an opinion piece this is so over-the-top in “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Scientism” that this one statement sets the stage for a good round expression of how one loves animals more than people and yet projects human traits on these animals. Makes little sense.

“But Mr. Murie, whose work ultimately exonerated the animals, was more impressed by that sprig-tossing — proof, he believed, of the joy a wild coyote took in being alive in the world.”

and

“We know coyotes are intelligent, social creatures. They do not enjoy death.”

The visual insanity of a world gone stark, raving mad!

But Don’t Go Look!

CoyoteTakeMeHome

I LOVE YOU MAN!

Share

GPS Radio Collars Tracking Maine Deer – WHY?

“In use since 1950s, Maine’s deer allocation system has worked very successfully; however, with a changing climate, changing landscapes, and perhaps, missing data for the 2 extremes of our winter weather – the very mild and the very severe – it was time for the WSI system to be re-evaluated. Kyle Ravana, the lead MDIFW deer biologist, recently initiated a 5-yr study to conduct deer population monitoring using GPS satellite collar technology to track survival and mortality trends in Maine’s antlerless deer – i.e. does and fawns.

The Goals of the project are to:

1) Reevaluate the correlation between WSI and WMR for white-tailed deer

2) Assess seasonal survival rates for the adult female (?1.5 years) and fawn segments of the population

3) Assess cause-specific mortality of our adult female and fawn populations

4) Reassess the current winter severity index and try to identify a new, and more simplistic metric” <<<Read More>>>

It’s not so much that I was born a skeptic and struggle to find “good” in things that are loaded with bad, it’s just that I’m given few reasons to be optimistic about deer management (game management) in Maine. I also do not see putting on blinders, in order to only see the good, and feel good, as an honest means of building for a better tomorrow.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has, of late, repeated the claim that the deer herd in Southern and Central Maine has recovered to a point a 59% increase in Any-Deer Permits (ADP) has been issued in order to reduce deer populations to levels determined by the public. If it is a fact that MDIFW is basing the determination of how many ADPs to issue for the following Fall deer hunt, almost completely on the Winter Severity Index (WSI) for one winter, no wonder the state, overall, struggles to grow a deer herd.

Now MDIFW is in the beginning stages of conducting a deer study – the goals of which are listed above. What I find of interest is the statement before the listing of the goals, claiming that MDIFW’s use of the WSI since the 1950s “has worked very successfully,” and this if immediately followed by a “however.”

The usual scapegoat of “climate change” and “changing landscapes” (wink, wink) leads the list of why there’s no deer but now we see a “perhaps.” This “perhaps” is saying that the previous two “extreme” winters had “missing data?” Can that be? Why is there missing data? Maybe we should radio-collar snow flakes? I hate pulling the logic card, because in today’s society and particularly in the Romance Biology and Voodoo Environmentalism entrenched in a mindless society, such nonsense as rational “thinking” often stands in the way of fulfilling narratives. I find it irresponsible, if there was missing data from the two previous “extreme” winters, enough so that this is worthy of consideration in a very expensive deer study program, to jerk one’s knee and increase ADPs 59%, while claiming the deer population in certain areas needs reducing. How do they honestly know this? Can they see this on their computer screen? And if that is the claim, what is it they are seeing, or not seeing, if there is “missing data?”

MDIFW now claims they are going to collar a bunch of deer in “one” Wildlife Management District- WMD 17. “With approximately 20 deer per square mile and a good variation of winter severities, habitats range from hard and soft wood stands, logging operations, agricultural lands; with some urban forest on the fringes of small towns and cities like Newport, Bangor and Skowhegan.”

Again, shouldn’t we ask WHY? Why WMD 17? So what if it has all those things stated above. I want to know if WMD 17 is representative of areas where deer aren’t growing. Or is this insurance that any results will fit the desired outcome? Screw the logic, again, but shouldn’t we be more interested in what’s killing the deer in places where the deer are being killed? This tells me MDIFW doesn’t want to know and/or they have already made up their minds. Hell, what do I know. I’m just a freak who can’t see things the same as other people. None of this makes me “feel good.”

And, once again, we return to the same point I brought up yesterday. Why spend the resources to collect any of this data, when MDIFW makes decisions to manage deer based on what the Environmentalist tell them? With a prominent member of the Humane Society of the United States sitting on a committee that will help decide bear management practices, a person who recently, through referendum, tried to ban bear hunting and trapping, and during the same time span sued the State of Maine; and, a group of people wanting to make more money conducting moose watching tours tells the MDIFW how many moose permits to allocate in their WMD; and, surveys and public meetings from the public at large being used as the major factor in determining game species populations; and, Maine Guides dictating to MDIFW how to run their hunting season in order for them to maximize profits, and there is little reason to think anything other than fish and game management is going to hell in a hand-basket…quickly.

But, by all means, DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

WOLVES – How Much? How Long?

By James Beers:

I receive many requests to “write something” or “support” some federal wolf legislative proposal or some State fish and wildlife Budget Request for a “special” appropriation to “manage” wolves that are killing livestock.  I regret to say that, like other requests to get behind a “special” federal regulation modification to “return wolf management” to certain states; I more often than not spend my time on other things that I believe to be more useful.

Why do I not actively support such “important” and “necessary” government actions?  Let me count the ways.

  1. As long as the Endangered Species Act remains on the books, all of these things are like a hologram in one of those Star Wars movies; that is to say merely illusions controlled from some far off location.  They can be made dormant when convenient and activated immediately when opportune to bureaucrats and their “partners”.
  2. As we hum like busy bees over the need for more dollars for the state guys and gals that put the wolves in our midst and that look away as they spread and multiply killing livestock and dogs and big game while lying to us about the wolves and when pinned to the wall whine that their “Plan” (dictated, approved and overseen by federal bureaucrats) is all they can go by.
  3. Federal bureaucrats, utilizing federal law and the regulations they (the bureaucrats) write and modify with pro-wolf non-government organizations) to constantly “push and probe” the American public like ISIS terrorists as to how to keep the states “in line” with federal goals as the wolves spread and multiply from valley to plain and state to state.
  4. State and federal wildlife bureaucrats that were once (decades ago) the most highly respected bureaucrats in government have come to be known as liars (the right word) and connivers that, without hesitation or reluctance, ignore legislative review mandates and public input, use groundless figures like puppet-government bureaucrats in an occupied country, and operate and enlarge a lawless shadow government for their own benefit utilizing clandestine NGO “partners” with more lawless hidden agendas than the American Communist Party or the latest Moslem lobbying organization.
  5. I have come to view all those things I admit to not supporting as simply delay and distraction tactics by bureaucrats, politicians and NGO’s that are destroying rural America and the national rule of law.

As I write this, March 2016, the bureaucrats are all being “so nice” and “listening to our “needs”.  Why?  Because there is a Presidential election underway and all those wildlife bureaucrats and their political hacks appointed to run them know where this gravy train is buttered.  They all want a President, Congress, Supreme Court, State Legislature and Governor of either Party that will “support” “sound conservation biology”.  “Sound conservation biology’’ is translated as “bigger budgets”, “more land ownership and control”, “more bureaucrats”, “more government authority and jurisdiction”, and any other things the bureaucrats want that will get and keep votes for the politicians in power.  Thus, bureaucrats will “push and probe” (see 1 through 5 above) in ways that get those politicians most in the bureaucrat’s pockets (yes they are just like lobbyists) elected and reelected.

There are two kinds of politicians that bureaucrats do not want to see elected: one they can live with and one they despise.  They can live with the “can’t we all just get along” politicians.  Those guys will just leave everything (see 1 through 5 above) in place and occasionally throw crumbs like a new Wilderness or Marine Sanctuary to urban voters or suburban women, or support the latest “management return” to a State (under conditions of an “approved” Plan and with the clear bureaucrat understanding that it can all be reclaimed with a lawsuit or regulatory maneuver by federal bureaucrats when opportune in the future).  An example of this was President GW Bush keeping a politician (in charge of the +/-$60 Million missing from the Pittman Robertson Excise Taxes for state agencies’ wildlife programs to introduce wolves in the mid 1990’s into the Upper Rocky Mountain States) in a non-job until the his Party came back into power and made him Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Like so many other transformative Progressive actions, they push and push relentlessly until there appears to be a developing pushback (today?) and then we are all supposed to sing Kumbaya around the fire and let it all stay in place until they seize total power again (like 2009-2010) at which time they resume right where they left off with a vengeance.

The politician the bureaucrats despise the most though is the one that comes in saying and actually intending to amend unjust laws, reduce government and reorient federal intrusions into state and local authorities and jurisdictions.  I saw this first-hand when Ronald Reagan was elected and while he served two terms.  I had been working for the federal government for over a decade by then.  I was in Washington when President Reagan was elected and when he left.  Those were the days (1970’s-1990’s) when the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, BLM and other federal natural resource/land-owning bureaucracies were beginning to marginalize wildlife-managers/foresters/range managers and hiring, promoting and transferring anti-resource management employees with growing minority and female employees largely under EEO Preferences for which bonuses were paid and accepting political appointees with more and more of those anti-management, pro-environmental-sanctification values and agendas.  The result is what we deal with today. The nasty and hateful things commonly said about President Reagan and his appointees (i.e. the “menacing” Manny Lujan, the “dangerous” Jim Watt, et al) in bureaucratic privacy were both stunning and appalling.  The bureaucrat’s propaganda machine did everything it could to make him look stupid and his appointees to look like morons.  It never let up and it was disgraceful to say the least.  Ask yourselves Mr. & Mrs. America, how is any reform even possible without a strong confrontation?

So you ask, what has all this to do with “Wolves”?  What do you mean by “How Much?” by “How Long?”

Never forget or doubt that the Defenders of Wildlife, HSUS, Animal Welfare Institute, Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Wildlife Federation, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, PETA, et al agree that the end game is no hunting, no trapping, no animal management, no animal control, no animal ownership, no animal use, no animal commerce and no unregulated activity by any citizen even remotely involved with any wild or domestic animal.  These groups have annual get-togethers with state and federal bureaucrats, they lobby federal and state politicians and they serve as an employee-pool for federal and state agencies.  They work with and serve as a bookend for federal and state wildlife agencies when paired with the increasingly get-along hunting/fishing/ranching/land owner Non-Government Organizations originally formed to advocate for their namesakes (Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, American Cattlemen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, et al).  These latter have, like many accuse the Republican “Establishment” in Washington of becoming, evolved into “get-along partners” with the very bureaucracies and Non-Government bureaucracies they were founded to either support or oppose.  Add in the big sporting goods businesses (selling smuggled – no Excise Tax – Chinese fishing tackle, supporting federal “Invasive Species Authority while displaying pheasants and brown trout on the walls of their stores, etc.) and you have plenty of blame to go around.

But, the big 800# gorilla in the room described in the foregoing paragraph is which ones (or one), take your time here, would really fight to keep the federal animal control function when (not if) all of the above dandies advocate or go AWOL when Wildlife Services is finally dumped into the bureaucratic junkyard or moved and renamed the Office of Interpretive Human Management or some such concoction?  That is going to happen.

Wildlife Services was the first federal foray into federal wildlife authority and jurisdiction way back in the 19th century.  Wildlife Services has had many names and up until the environmental Armageddon in the 1970’s many USFWS Managers came from the Wildlife Services workforce.  The Avant Garde, Nouveau employees and political appointees of the 1990’s led the charge to abolish Wildlife Services but powerful advocates came to its defense and everyone cheered when the despised Wildlife Services was transferred from USFWS to the USDA under President Clinton.  Make no mistake there are increasingly powerful bureaucrat and NGO forces that will cut funding to and move to abolish the Wildlife Services under the next tyrannical reign (like Roman Emperors’ changes often were) and opportunity.

So, the question is, “How Long will Wildlife Services be around to:

–       Act as a placebo (i.e. “kill a wolf when 2 / 3 whatever ‘verified’ livestock losses take place) while wolves are continuing to spread?

–       Verify, “Yes it was wolves” or “no it was dogs” honestly?

–       Be the only state-wide or national data point for dog losses to wolves?

–       Be the only state-wide or national data point for what is REALLY happening to big game animals due to predation by wolves?

–       Be the only entity capable of actually catching/capturing/trapping/snaring/ etc. offending wolves quickly and efficiently?

–       Be the one remaining entity with a few employees willing and able to kill offending dangerous and destructive animals?

–       Be the only remaining government entity recognizing the destructiveness of both wild and domestic animals and the need to be equipped to take concrete and effective action.

–       Be the only repository of government employees that (while in the field and away from political-hack handlers) can advise and describe wolf problems and solutions to American citizens.

The point being, when Wildlife Services is gone or converted into some sort of environmental seminary for new employees, HOW WILL OR WHO WILL CONTROL WOLVES AND THEIR DESTRUCTION?  The federal and most state governments are committed to not let the “management by the state”, or faux concern for predation, or eased control for rural residents go on long.  That may be when the wolves are irreversible (perhaps in another 4 or 5 states) or when numbers in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 states are in the tens of thousands and the next arrogant President and “his” or “her” Congress takes control and Wildlife Services is teaching macramé; will any of us look back and say (or will out kids and grandkids say?), “how stupid were we (they) to think that there would be:

–       Eternal wolf-counting to monitor adherence to “plans”?

–       Never-ending selective wolf control based on actual damages?

–       Obligatory government protection of rural property and rural lives from government wolves?

–       Ever any management of wolf damage and destruction levels or wolf densities by the bureaucrats and politicians that put the wolves there.

–       Government wolf control in a world of no rural rights to control any animals that was always a lie that once realized it is too late to ever put the wolves back in the bottle or punish the liars that profited and are long gone to some gated-golf community in a sunny climate.

The second question is, “How Much State and Federal Tax Dollars is all this, and Future, Wolf Bay-Sitting Going to Take?”

 

Take Washington State’s latest maneuver to hire a “conflict specialist” or Oregon’s request for more money to control wolves depredating on livestock: where does such money come from?

–       When fewer folks buy hunting licenses because of lack of game and human safety concerns, wildlife program funding declines.

–       When government gun control and ammunition bans make purchases more difficult, more expensive and (except for self-protection) gun sales decrease; Excise Tax Revenue from the sale of Arms and Ammunition for state wildlife programs decreases.

–       Hunting License Revenue and Excise Tax Revenue are the two major sources of funding for state wildlife programs.

–       Baby-sitting wolves (counting, researching, enforcing, public relations, hearings, investigating depredations, etc.) not only comes (from the federal government) with NO FUNDING OF ANY PERMANENCE, IT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE DECLINE OF ALL WILDLIFE PROGRAM FUNDING!  Why it’s enough to make you a “black helicopter conspiracy” guy. Who could let this happen?  Why doesn’t someone say something?

–       So with a federal government +/-$20 Trillion in debt and state governments wondering where their next year’s tax revenue will come from, does anyone in rural America really believe that there will be money from either the state or federal politicians to do all this predation “verification”/compensation-payment/control of offending animals/public relations/censussing/federal compliance/etc. wolf babysitting ad infinitum?

Yeah, the New England environmental voters will support keeping ranching and big game hunting safe from wolves Out West with federal dollars. Federal and State bureaucrats will request budget increases to “study” alternatives like contracting it out to Defenders of Wildlife like wolf compensation was farmed out when wolves were first dumped and forced into states that were too “nice” to object. The Seattle/Portland/San Francisco/Los Angeles voters will enthusiastically vote eternal big ticket state funding to minimize cattle depredation, big game losses and rural dog deaths from wolves in rural parts of their states.  Just like I am sure Minneapolis and Milwaukee voters will gladly spring for more and more millions every year to bring back Minnesota moose or Wisconsin elk being eliminated by wolves.  Especially when the ONLY REAL ANSWER is killing 70% of the wolves every year for a decade and then killing the amount required annually to keep them at about 25% of current numbers or (in a just world) exterminating them from Counties that do not want wolves and then KEEPING them extinct in such environs.  Heck, I’d bet that Chicago voters and Philadelphia/New York voters would be the first ones to step up to the plate to save the state wildlife agencies of other states if they were asked to do so with federal funds.  Who can believe any of this?

We are just like those passengers on the Titanic, so secure in our belief that we and our vessel are indestructible that we ignore the iceberg before us while rearranging the deck chairs.

Jim Beers

30 March 2016

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

“Can’t We All Just Get Along?”

The friend who created the photo below says that so long as the perverse marriage of Romance Biology and Environmental Voodoo (coined by Jim Beers) persists, with offspring that procreates, deer hunting (all hunting, trapping and fishing) will be “unrewarding and infrequent.”

Coexist

Share

Benevolent Wolves & Stubborn States

*Editor’s Note* – I have taken the liberty to highlight the paragraph that I think is the absolute best. It sums it all up.

By James Beers

The following is a response to two assertions about wolves in Wyoming and my recent article about the recent elk predation by wolves on 19 elk in one March night on an elk wintering ground.  These came to me from Utah by way of California.

1.)       They (i.e. wolves) only kill what they need to eat!!!!

2.)      As I understand the problem…the Feds have been after the state of Wyoming to write a “Wolf management Plan” that they can approve so management can be turned over to state F & G …..but WY refuses to take the word ‘Predator”  out and the general philosophy that:

          “WOLVES NEED KILLIN ANY TIME AND ANYPLACE”…..so the Feds won’t approve their plan,

As to Question #1; wolves by definition must kill to sustain themselves.  All sorts of things enter into what they kill and what they attempt to kill:

–       There is the difficulty of killing the prey.

–       There is the opportunity to kill the prey.

–       There is the energy-expended/calorie-reward ratio of potential prey.

–       There is the desirability of the prey (i.e. veal v. a rotting carcass).

–       There is the state of hunger of the wolf.

–       There is the need to feed young in a den.

–       There is anticipated danger from attacking certain prey.

–       There is the behavioral experience of the wolves.

–       There are the dangers associated with certain locations.

–       There is the anticipation of future food opportunities.

–       There is the physical condition of the wolf or wolves.

Wolves will kill and eat any mammal or bird at any given time.  They routinely kill and eat adult, young and unborn (evidently a preferred meal) of everything from big game and livestock to dogs and, yes, humans.  While they prefer live prey and freshly-killed meat; wolves scavenge freely when food is scarce as in winters or when pushed into unfamiliar territory.

History is full, yes full, of incidents of wolves attacking and killing joggers, hikers, shepherds, children, old ladies, soldiers, loggers (one even while operating a chain saw), Native Americans, Europeans, Russians, Christians, Moslems, etc. from Oregon to Massachusetts and Ireland to Kazakhstan and Kamchatka.  Some wolves had rabies, some were spreading Smallpox from feeding on the dying and many just dragged the carcass into nearby vegetation and ate their fill and went on.  Anyone with half an interest in history realizes that most such attacks were never reported or documented for centuries while those living with the wolves had no doubts about what was happening and accordingly invested enormous time, money and scarce resources to control and eliminate wolves from the time of Plato and before, to North American Colonists and Western Expansion settlers and ranchers.

When wolves, just like a pack of dogs running loose from some town, encounter a flock of sheep; or some deer in deep snow; or some kids at a rural bus stop; or elk near some fence or cliff; or some jogger on a lonely road running away from them; or some unfamiliar dogs; or some or a coyote; or some old lady walking to her mailbox; they quickly run down the items listed above and make a decision.  Whether we call it “fun” or “surplus killing” or a “behavioral response” is immaterial.  When the decision to chase or attack or simply to boldly investigate is made; the outcome, especially if it is a pack of wolves or a pack of dogs, is too often harmful to human life, human interests, human society and what the Founding Fathers called “domestic Tranquility” – A Primary and Stated Reason Why The States Drafted, Signed and Agreed To “this Constitution for the United States of America” that established a federal government.

Wolves and free-ranging dogs often attack flocks of sheep or llamas or a group of calves or a herd of wintering deer or a moose cow close to giving birth just like sharks attack a school of mullet or swordfish attack a school of young tuna or wintering striped bass attack a school of menhaden; that is to say they slash, bite, and stab as quickly as they can and then eat what is unable to escape or that has been made into pieces.  They do this until they are full or until they find nothing left to eat.  Wolves and dogs will do the same and when they are “done” chasing, biting, and killing they may eat some of the choicest parts like eating out a cow’s rear-end while she lives and pulling out and devouring the fetus.

Every one of you urban wolf-lovers knows this and fears it about dogs roaming free in your neighborhood as you quickly call 911 or “the Animal Warden” and demand big fines and even jail for persons that let their dog or dogs loose, or that fail to get them vaccinated or wormed or keep them leashed – YET you whinny about how wolves (wild, unvaccinated, undomesticated, big, hungry, etc.) are NOT like that!  It is so stupid it defies a sensible answer.

The most important part about this Romance Biology theorem that “They only kill what they need to eat!!!!” is that it is then inserted into Environmental Voodoo for the media as in, “A wolf only needs 1493 calories a day to sustain itself and an average cow moose weighs 857 lbs. that provides 60, 472 calories: therefore it only takes 8 moose to sustain 2,376 wolves so don’t believe this stuff about wolves having to kill livestock or elk or deer or dogs or certainly not humans when only a few big game animals lost are of no concern except to a few greedy and selfish hunters.” Just like it takes a whole lot more mullet and menhaden to sustain those sharks and swordfish and striped bass than what they eat and just like all those urban mothers fear dogs harming or attacking children; the ideas that wolves ”never” attack people, and that wolves have some magical brain brake that tells them to stop when they have killed, “what they need to eat!!!!”, and that wolves should stick around a carcass (a dangerous thing to do) until it is “all cleaned up” despite preferring fresh meat: these things are the “issue” of the marriage of Romance Biology and Environmental Voodoo ground into documentary fecal matter for the general public.

As to Question # 2; I must immediately dismiss the pejorative statement “WOLVES NEED KILLIN ANY TIME AND ANYPLACE”.  It is silly to request a serious answer when you treat those that do not agree with you like Presidential candidate Kerry applying for an Ohio Hunting License saying, “is this where I can get me one of those huntin’ licenses?”  If you are going to write “killing” I suggest you put a “g” on the end and, even though they are fictitious assertions, write ANY TIME and ANYPLACE as either one word or two words but not in two different preferences separated only by “and”.  More than a few of us advocates for local authority over what is or is not in OUR environment do not drag our knuckles as we walk nor do we have more tattoos than teeth; those are simply fund-raising ploys spread by those environmental/animal rights organizations behind much of this issue.
As to everything else in your question before the final 7 words, I agree with your statement.  It is those last 7 words, “so the Feds won’t approve their plan”, that are the crux of the problem not only in Wyoming but in virtually every Local Community in the Lower 48 States that has been forced and coerced into hosting and living with wolves and the uncounted harms they cause to those forced to live with them.  Believe it or not, many of us feel strongly that the federal (government, politicians, bureaucrats, agencies, Law – take your pick) has NO authority, right or business imposing wolves (or grizzlies or mountain lions for that matter) on ANY Community that is not willing to accept or tolerate them!

So, “so the Feds won’t approve their plan”, by what authority do “the Feds” “approve” any State’s wolf “plan”?  Wolves cause great and irresolvable harm to residents and those residents elect state and local officials with the demand that they call wolves “predators” and that they should control the numbers, densities and distribution of wolves.  They tell local officials that they want wolves kept out of their County and that any entering their County should be dispatched by ballistic vaccination or traps or snares or however.  Do citizens have this right?

Further, if the states continue taking their homework (i.e. Plans) to federal overseers for “approval” they will NEVER regain the authority and jurisdiction stolen from them by the un-Constitutional Endangered Species Act and the lawless and tyrannical bureaucratic behavior it has spawned to the great detriment of rural America.  The ESA needs either a severe rewrite or better yet complete repeal.  The ESA is a Law; that is a lesser matter than a Constitutional Amendment.  When the 18th Amendment (the Volstead Act, i.e. Prohibition) was similarly passed and then ratified as a Constitutional Amendment in a comparable orgy of do-goodism, it took only 14 years for Americans to see the corruption and death it manufactured such that they Repealed that Amendment.  The ESA is similarly creating corruption and destruction far beyond this narrow portion of its reach and should be Repealed and that sound goal is only shoved further down the road when a State like Wyoming (most others have behaved like ladies of the evening for the federal favors “getting along” brings) humbly begs federal bureaucrats to “approve” what they do or don’t do with a Resident Predator that does not belong in settled landscapes and is no more in short supply (i.e. “endangered”, “threatened” or “of special concern”) in the United States (Alaska, Montana and Minnesota were doing just fine before the ESA) than are sparrows or starlings.

Consider the irony of someone telling you that they will only let you manage (?) your (?) wolves if they “approve” what you will or will not do!  In other words your employees and your operational dollars will do what the feds tell you to do or not do or they will simply “step back in”.  Then we can all warble about how “getting along” is the Only way to go.  Otherwise you are a “what”?  There must be an “ist” or “phobe” word for anyone adhering to a Constitutional view of wolves and State’s Rights.

There is so much else swirling about these wolves than all the simplistic chatter about “only killing what they eat” and how ignorant some states are about their subservience to federal masters.  This attempted answer actually reveals the egregious violations of the Preamble to the Constitution birthed by the ESA and exposes the current idea that the one sentence comprising the 10th Amendment is being ignored as the final word in the relationship between the States and the federal government!

Now that we have come to this point; the question I have is “where do we all go from here?”

Jim Beers

28 March 2016

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

Dingoes = Wolves = Coyotes = Dogs

By James Beers:

Dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs are all Canids. The name Canid comes from the Genus name Canis. All four of these animals are called species within the Genus Canis: Dingoes (Canis dingo); Wolves (Canis lupus); Coyotes (Canis latrans); and Dogs (Canis familiaris) but that identification of these as four “species” is misleading.

Species is a term that historically referred to animals with similar characteristics and the ability to freely interbreed and produce viable offspring. For instance, horses and mules are similar and do interbreed but their offspring are infertile and thus horses and mules are separate species. Our four “species” however (dingoes, wolves, coyotes and dogs) share similar characteristics, interbreed freely, and produce viable offspring. A dingo (despite their absence outside Australia) breeding with a wolf or a coyote or a dog will birth or sire pups with shared genes and behavioral tendencies of the parents. Theses pups will grow to adulthood and similarly have viable offspring from breeding with any of the other “species”. They will be as recognizable as to parentage of say a Lab crossed with a Golden retriever or a Staffordshire terrier (AKA Pit Bull) crossed with a Doberman. In addition to these outward similarities, behavioral tendencies like the unpredictability of Chows or the aggressiveness of Dobermans will likewise occur in the offspring of say a wolf crossed with a dog or a dingo crossed with a coyote.

Dingoes are Canids that were probably introduced to Australia by aboriginal immigrants many centuries ago. Question: Ask your favorite “Native Ecosystem” enthusiast, if dingoes were brought to Australia by aborigines; are they – the dingoes and the aborigines – “Native”???). But I digress. Dingoes are yellowish-brown “dogs” or “Canids” that are the size of a medium to small German shepherd. When covered in a semi thick coat of fur they appear like a lean Shepherd-type dog, and when covered in a short hair they look like a lean pointy-faced hound dog with upright ears like wolves and coyotes. Dingoes travel in groups and behave very much like wolves. They are bold and very dangerous predators that (in Australia) kill many sheep, “rabbits, kangaroos and emus” as well as children and elderly people. Anyone doubting this last need look no further than the somewhat recent case of the camping Australian family whose little boy disappeared and the mother was charged and found guilty of (killing?, abandoning? I am unsure) the child and sent to prison. Only after an appeal and thorough investigation was it clearly determined that dingoes or a dingo in the campground had killed and carried off the child to be devoured in some remote location. Just like wolves in India and coyotes and cougars attacking a child for food, it is not at all uncommon for the predator to lunge at the child after approaching quietly as close as possible and then seizing them by the neck to crush or break their neck and asphyxiate them, if still necessary: it is also not uncommon for a child so attacked to make no sound.

The news article below concerns a 5600 kilometer (3,480 mile) long fence that has for decades represented an attempt to seal off the SE ¼ of Australia FROM DINGOES. Like Europeans and North Americans of times past, Australians have sought to eradicate or at least minimize the dangers and costs of having to live with these dangerous and destructive “Canids” or predators in the settled or being-settled landscapes of Australia. Anyone denying the facts as understood by those LIVING WITH THESE ANIMALS DAY TO DAY is seriously and ignorantly meddling in the lives of others instead of respecting their fellow-citizens’ rights to what Americans refer to as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Dingoes, like wolves, do not belong in settled landscapes for many reasons.

European history back to and beyond the days of Sparta and Athens were centuries of necessary and persistent wolf control until wolves were little more than occasional wandering remnants. Islands like Britain and Ireland finally exterminated wolves much to the delight of the rich, the poor and their rural economies.

North American is replete with the dangers and destruction that wolves presented to aboriginal Americans as well as European settlers and American and Canadian farmers, ranchers and other rural residents. With one or two minor exceptions, wolves were exterminated throughout the Lower 48 USA States by World War I and were being kept at tolerable levels or exterminated by government and private control in much of Canada that bordered the Lower 48 States and certain Maritime Island Provinces where farms, ranches and villages prevailed.

Russia and most of Asia have hosted the largest concentrations of wolves in the world from sweltering Indian villages across Central Asian scrublands to the forests of Siberia. To this day, wolves kill many people every year as well as destroy precious reindeer and other livestock and the dogs used as watchdogs for people and flocks. Dramatic controls like this Australian fence and techniques like killer dogs, poisons, shooting, traps, posses and other innovations have always been in short supply in these countries where weapons were banned; dictators Religious rulers and Czars kept rural people in helpless societies; and where effective, large-scale wolf controls have always been short-lived and susceptible to quick replacement of controlled wolf areas by the constant influx of wolves from robust wolf populations in surrounding areas.

Until recently, Europe, Asia and North Americans were in complete agreement with Australians about the undesirable nature of these large Canid predators in settled landscapes, especially where men and women are forced to go about unarmed. While Russians and Central Asians agree with these views to this day, when told of European and North American actions to introduce and protect wolves they are as stunned as if they were told that Americans were foregoing oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power in favor of windmills or that Europeans were happy with and celebrating the steady increase in livestock deaths, dog deaths and mental instability of European grazers (that support rural economies, reduce fire dangers, and manage European plant communities for many purposes like erosion control and suppression of undesirable plants by grazing their flocks) resulting from wolf increases in both population and habitats across Europe.

This recent wolf worship (the correct word) has spawned a fantasy/science library of articles by grant and publicity-seeking “scientists” claiming “discoveries” of wolf benefits like “wolves change rivers” by killing big game animals and dispersing remaining animals from river banks thus causing trees and shrubs to proliferate as well as “Native” fish, animals like frogs and plants like Indian paintbrush. I call this pseudo-“science” Romance Biology. Unmentioned in these writings are always:

* The loss of big game hunting and the revenue it once provided to conservation programs by wolf activities.

* The dangers to human safety from the recent wolf attack in a Minnesota campground to the deaths of a schoolteacher on the Alaskan Peninsula and a young Canadian man in Saskatchewan. The impact on children, the elderly and families is enormous.

* The loss of livestock and ranches to wolf predation.

* The huge loss of dogs of all stripes to wolf attacks.

* The financial losses to rural communities, rural businesses, rural families and rural government revenue and authority.

As an American, I am always fascinated (less and less of late) by American innovations copied by others. Europeans are grinding out Romance Biology lies as more and more justifications are needed both in the popular media and as justification for more and continued wolf protection in the face of increasing death and destruction from the wolves.

Now, I can add the Australians as copying this propaganda technique that I call Romance Biology. Note the last three paragraphs of the following short article replete with pictures. A professor at the University of Sydney claims that “reintroduced and existing dingo populations” will “restore the balance of nature” (a meaningless term).

The final picture below is a cleverly (just like in the US and now Europe) worded bit of anti-human society propaganda. The composer (very likely an environmental or animal “rights’” radical group) would have us believe that dingoes (or wolves or coyotes or feral dogs or cougars, etc.) killing all manner of wildlife and livestock is both good and offsets any destruction, mayhem or human pain or death otherwise inflicted by these Canids.

Whenever you see this dingoes increase “the biodiversity of small mammals, lizards, and grasses’ or wolves “change rivers” Romance Biology, ask yourself and anyone believing this, “And your point is?”

Any area can have more or less biodiversity and that is to be expected where man lives and raises his family. The priority should always be the welfare and benefit of man, saying that man must abandon places or community supports simply for the sake of more “small mammals, lizards and grasses” is both silly and a declaration that man and his needs are inferior to any and every mix of plants and animals desired by the rich and powerful. Our challenge is to create and maintain a high standard of living for all persons while simultaneously providing for the endurance of all species and a rich biodiversity of plants and animals WHEREVER POSSIBLE. The dingo/wolf et al enthusiast refutes the “simultaneously” part of the equation and ultimately substitutes “primarily” thereby making their “Native”, “Ecosystem”, “Ecology first” mantra superior to man and his society. That is not only nature “worship” it is the rule if tyrants based on their visions of “nature.

For instance, if riverbank diversity was so valuable (assuming wolves, dingoes et al really do what they say, an assumption akin to climate change justifying population control, and the justification on one world government without any checks or balances) why weren’t hunters simply told to kill more grazing wild animals over the years and then manage the remainder in consonance with human activities and “biodiversity” targets? Anyone that thinks unregulated predation that cyclically varies wildly as do the prey, the predators and the resulting “biodiversity” is in any sense comparable to continuous wildlife management of all species is incapable of grasping the issue in any understandable manner. The real answer is that the dingo/wolf et al protection is meant to ultimately vacate the rural landscape and convert it to closed-to-the-public real estate run by bureaucrats and managed for the benefit of powerful interest groups, the rich and politicians.

I am reminded of a luncheon I attended almost 20 years ago in Brussels. I was sitting next to a Russian (actually a western Siberian with the look of a Greenlander or Northern Alaskan) wildlife expert. He was from Magadan on the Pacific coast near the Kamchatka Peninsula. He leaned over and said to me in a low voice, “Beers, can I ask you a question?” I said sure, and he said, “Is it true that you are putting wolves back into areas where they were exterminated years ago and protecting them?” Somewhat embarrassingly I answered, “Yes that is true.” He shook his head and mumbled to me. “How did you ever win the Cold War?”

What a world when a guy from Siberia tells a guy from Illinois that our people are nuts; and the Illinois guy could do no more than nod and shrug his shoulders in agreement.

That Siberian and I have more in common with those that built the Australian fence than all the expert Romance Biology “experts that invent diversions and lies about things that do not matter, be they “scientific papers” or “signs”. Unless and until the autonomy of Local communities to determine what plants and what animals in what mixes are to exist in THEIR community and how that mix is to be maintained; this rule of far-off dictators, interest groups and bureaucracies will only sit and grow like mushrooms after a rain. Local authority like this has only existed intermittently for millenniums in Europe and Asia: it has only existed in Australia and North America for a few centuries and it is disappearing right before our eyes as you read this. The real trick is to enable the humans that live with these animals to manage them for their own good and to permanently abolish the ability of far-off governments to rule the rural people, in their broadest sense, on behalf of the fantasies and imaginings of rich and powerful blocs with both obvious and hidden agendas.

Jim Beers
23 March 2015

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