July 24, 2014

Trapping: Effective Management Action

Abstract

Many populations of wildlife, including large- and medium-sized predators are increasing in Europe. Trapping can be one way to reduce negative impacts of predators on human interests, such as game species and threatened species, but there is little knowledge of trap usage and motivation behind it. We used a mail survey in Sweden (n?=?3,886 respondents) to compare predator trappers with hunters who used other methods to kill predators, and with other hunters who did not kill predators, in regard to sociodemographics, beliefs, behaviors, and constraints. During 12 months prior to the survey 19 % of respondents had trapped any small- or medium-sized predator, while 15 % of respondents had trapped and 55 % had hunted (without using traps) red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European badger (Meles meles), or corvid birds. Reducing predator numbers was an important reason for hunting predators with traps. Of predator trappers, 97 % had hunted species that were potentially prey of the targeted predators (e.g., roe deer [Capreolus capreolus], hare [Lepus spp.], and grouse), 94 % believed that there were too many red foxes, badgers, or corvids on their main hunting ground, and 64 % believed it to be very important to reduce predator numbers to benefit other game species. We conclude that the use of traps is widespread among Swedish hunters, and that increasing wildlife populations, increased presence of wildlife in urban areas, and management of invasive species calls for effective management actions, of which trapping can be one. (Note: This Abstract is part of the overall study results posted online. For those interested the entire study can be purchased online as well. Learn more about this by following this link.)

Impacts of Wolf Hunting/Trapping on Tolerance of the Gray Wolf

ABSTRACT:

The Public Trust Doctrine placed wildlife in trust, via state control and regulation, for the benefit of the people. Managing agencies that lose sight of the importance of public acceptance of predator policies and management actions may find themselves legislatively or judicially subverted. This study examines how the Montana public wolf hunting and trapping seasons have affected tolerance and acceptance of gray wolves (Canis lupus) among rural resident ranchers, hunters, and trappers. Twenty residents from the Blackfoot, Bitterroot, and Ninemile Valleys were qualitatively interviewed over the summer and fall of 2013. Potential participants were initially identified using purposive sampling, with subsequent interviewees located through snowball sampling. The presence or absence of the public wolf hunting and trapping seasons is not the sole determining factor of tolerance or intolerance of wolves in this sample population. The pattern of determinant factors instead more closely represents a web of influence than a direct line of cause and effect. Eight main nodes, or themes, were identified in interview transcription data identified based on frequency of occurrence in interview data and how essential they seemed in shaping attitudes of interviewees: 1) the consequences of political maneuvering (frustration, perceived inequity, and mistrust); 2) the need for management and control of the wolf population; 3) wolf-related impacts to interviewees’ livelihood and way of life; 4) personal beliefs, affects, and attitudes; 5) previous interactions with predators; 6) cultural influences; 7) the place and impact of wolves in the ecosystem; and 8) noted changes in opinion. Most themes were further divided into subthemes, and the connections between all themes and subthemes were examined from there. While the impacts of the seasons have not yet been great or entirely consistent across the sample population, statements made by interviewees suggest that removal of public wolf hunting and trapping liberties would greatly reduce tolerance and acceptance in these interest groups and increase an overall polarization of public opinions. Interview data reveal complex relationships between stakeholders, interest groups, and impacts from wolf re-establishment, as well as complex attitudes towards wolves that often incorporate some level of awe and admiration. Individual’s trust in managing agencies may be critical in moving forward. Data also shows that there will likely be more changes to come in this sample population’s acceptance and tolerance of wolves. Wolf tolerance and acceptance levels should be further monitored in Montana rural resident ranchers, trappers, and big game hunters, the stakeholder groups that are the most directly impacted by and most necessary for continued wolf management and recovery.<<<Download PDF Document>>>

Bringing Wolves Back: “That is no Good!”

Today I was reading through an article about how wolves had returned to France and are now being found on the outskirts of Paris. For some, with extremely ill minds, returning wolves (actually probably wild dogs) is even better than France being liberated from Hitler’s Nazis.

As I was reading, I recalled a comment I had read a bit ago that was written by James Beers, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, who, during his tour of duty in Washington, D.C., traveled to Europe to meet with delegates from the European Union, Canada and Russia. At this time, around about 1998, the European Union, firmly in the grasp of the environmental movement, was attempting to ban the importation of furs from the United States, Canada and Russia.

During a roundtable discussion that took place early in 2010 with Jim Beers, Dr. Valerius Geist, Bill Hoppe, Robert Fanning, Will Graves and Dr. Delane Kritsky, Beers recalled a comment made to him by a Russian government representative (wolf technician) during one particular meeting. Here’s that comment:

BEERS: It is ironic you should mention the Finn solution. In 1998 I was involved in traveling to Europe multiple times that year fighting European unions’ attempt to ban the import of furs. The United States worked very closely with Canada and Russia to do that and we were having lunch one day arranged lunch by the Europe Union and there were two Russian representatives there one with a Ph.D. from Moscow and the other a wolf technician from a region close to Siberia. The technician sat next to me and we got along real well in the meetings. He actually said to me about halfway through the meeting . . . he said Mr. Beers, “Can I ask you something?” I said “sure.” I thought we were going to talk about fur bearers because he was really into sables and the export of furs, but he said, “Is it true that your country is bringing wolves back and protecting them and trying to breed them?” He looked at me right in my eyes and he was unbelieving. I said, “It’s true . . . they’ve just done that in Yellowstone Park.” And I said, “I don’t know where that’s going to lead.” And he actually said to me, “That is no good . . . I do not understand how you ever beat us in the Cold War.” I’ve since reflected on this Russians incredulity at the U.S. folly and the humor of this guy wondering with our bungling mentality on this matter, how we could have ever beaten them.” (emboldening added)

Some may disregard anything the Russians might have to say about wolves but they have been studying and “living with” wolves for a very, very long time. When the United States Fish and Wildlife Service decided they were going to force wolves onto people and lie about it all, one thing that they DID NOT do during the compilation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final EIS, was talk to anybody in Europe, Finland or Russia; actually not one ounce of effort was put into communicating with countries world wide that had dealt with wolves for centuries. The USFWS obviously had an agenda and they wasn’t going to have it ruined by employing any truth about wolves.

Coming from a man from a country that knows about wolves, willingly going about bringing wolves into a country and protecting them so they can breed, “That is no good!”

That is no good!

Another Predator Taking Control of People’s Lives

The fisher, Martes pennanti, now can be found just about everywhere in Connecticut; enough so that people are beginning to see them in their back yards…….really? Claimed to be nocturnal, one science teacher, captured one on video during the middle of the day.

And as one has become accustomed to hear, “Officials from DEEP also say it’s unlikely “fisher cats” will bother humans. Officials recommend removing any food sources such as garbage cans from your property.”

The bit of irony in this story is that wildlife officials in 1988 captured fisher cats in Vermont and New Hampshire and introduced them into the northwestern area of the state. Now, since 2005, licensed trappers can harvest the animals for often times valuable fur.

Connecticut awaits the Loup Garou!

FisherConnecticut

Radical Groups Intend to Sue Idaho to Protect Canada Lynx

LynxintrapThe usual suspects, those lust-after wolf perverts at the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater, plan to do what they do best and sue the State of Idaho believing they are protecting the Canada lynx. These three groups will get what they want and probably more. My advice to Idaho is to just sit down and work out a plan that will essentially stop just about all trapping in lynx habitat. Going to court is a winless battle and a waste of money.

Gasp! I’m sure I will hear from the trappers and the haters of the environmentalist greedy pigs who lust more for money than saving any kind of wildlife, wanting to know why I am saying this. Just look at what happened in Maine. And where is Maine now in their trapping issues and how it pertains to protecting the Canada lynx? It is just surprising that Idaho has gotten away without making changes in their trapping regulations that are believed to help protect the lynx.

First, readers should understand that the Canada lynx, like the gray wolf, like the polar bear and God only knows how many other species romance, back-seat biologists cry out to protect, are not in any danger of being threatened, endangered, or extirpated. But in this day and age of new-science scientist and romance biologists, barking like underfed canines themselves, demanding “new understandings” and a “shift in paradigms” is there any wonder science and reality have absolutely nothing anymore to do with wildlife management. It’s about sick and often perverted dreams of “coexisting” with nasty animals. Best Available Science has become best romantic model.

So, then, what is it about? Mostly it’s about ignorance and what we see is the result of years of planned brainwashing. Is there any other explanation for human behavior that is……well, not human?

The real travesty in all of this is that either there is no real intent to protect the Canada lynx or the ignorance, the result of an inability to think beyond the next lawsuit, cannot fathom that while these environmentalist groups (and by God please let’s stop calling them “conservationists.” They just are not that at all.) wrongly believe that ecosystems would “balance” themselves if man would butt out, they themselves butt in like man does to change what is naturally happening. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

The cry is for wolves to be forced back into places they once lived a hundred and more years ago, with no consideration of the changes to the landscape in 100 years, while disregarding history. The perverse belief that wolves are magical and will create this fabricated “trophic cascade” of Nirvanic spender simply by existing will make everything a miracle or two, like the Candy Man can.

With the absence of critical thinking, it appears none of these shallow thinkers comprehends what competes with the Canada lynx and places it in greater danger of being run out of or killed off in Idaho. Because of the inbred hatred of the existence of the human species, they believe it is only humans that cause wildlife problems. Irrational thoughts of balanced wildlife proportions prevents them from existing in reality and therefore no thought is given to the fact that the wolves they long to protect and protect and protect some more, until everyone has 1 or 12 living in their back yard, kills far more Canada lynx than does a handful of trappers and yet the focus becomes the outrage that three lynx were incidentally captured in traps in the past two years. Two lynx were released unharmed and a third was shot by a trapper thinking the animal was a bobcat.

The “new understanding” and the “paradigm shifts” perpetuated by new-science scientism is this: Man is evil. Get rid of man and ecosystems will flourish and be in balance. However, the radicals can interfere in the management of all wildlife providing it is done their way.

There is no escape. Maine went to court over Canada lynx and the trappers lost; so did the lynx. The trappers always lose. But Maine had a way out. The Courts gave them a way out. Maine operates under a consent agreement, which is probably what Idaho will end up under. The judge in the Maine case said the terms of the consent agreement would remain in affect until such time that the state obtains an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). That was over 5 years ago and Maine has failed miserably in not pushing the USFWS for a permit. Such a permit would stop these kinds of lawsuits but bear in mind that the USFWS, an agency riddled with new-science scientists and balance of nature perverts, is going to place such ridiculous restrictions on trapping in order to get a permit, that the restrictions essentially end trapping.

As a good friend recently stated, it’s impossible to fight against a rigged system. The entire wildlife management industry is simply one small part of a corrupt and rigged system, enabled by “True Believers” and useful idiots with zero knowledge or understanding that they fight for all those things that are against them. Does that make any sense?

If it was suggested that we protect all predators and all animals at all costs and begin killing off the only problem these sick people think exists – humans, that they would do it? Do they not see this is precisely what they are asking for? Do they not realize that they are humans too? Do these same people believe the lie of protecting a desert tortoise is so valuable it is worth the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one man and his family? The potential exists here for something more costly.

It’s a rigged system and the system is so large, few can see it.

The Largest Otter Ever Recorded

In V. Paul Reynolds’ latest outdoor article, he tells of his discovery of what was left of an old log cabin in Maine’s Aroostock County in the DeBouillie area. Through research he finds out, through a nephew of the cabin’s owner, that the cabin used to be the winter abode of trapper Walter Bolstridge:

The cabin was a trapper’s winter digs. And the trapper, Walter Bolstridge, was my friend’s uncle. According to Floyd his Uncle Walter would hire a bush plane to fly him and his gear into the roadless DeBoullie area in October. He would stay and trap. In March he would come out with his furs in time to make the Annual Town Meeting. Imagine that! What a special breed of man he must have been.

By the way, Uncle Walter may still hold the record for having trapped the largest Otter ever recorded. He got his name in the newspaper. The Maine Fish and Game Commissioner at the time, George J. Stoble, said that the critter, which Bolstridge trapped on the Fish River, was a world’s record otter.

Well, with a lot of help from a friend, who did some of his own research, this is what he found about Walter Bolstridge’s world record otter:

BolstridgeHeadline

BolstridgeArticle

BolstridgeOtter

BolstridgeMap

Gene Letourneau: Subsidizing Honest, Capable, Experienced Trappers Makes More Sense

SportsmenSayGene L. Letourneau of Maine was a outdoor sportsman, an outdoor writer and author of many books covering several topics, including game animals, hunting, trapping, fishing, and more. In one publication, “Sportsmen Say,” a book published in 1975 by Guy Gannett Publishing Company, Letourneau talks about Maine coyotes; something he calls the “new wolf.”

Read below his 1975 perspective and then following this excerpt, taken from pages 73 and 74 of the book, I’ll offer some discussion and commentary.

However, the larger animal or the new wolf, may be coming in from eastern Quebec where in the winter of 1973-74 they were considered common in some parts of the Gaspe Region.

By 1974 the establishment of this new predator in Maine appeared permanent. Some people welcomed it, others deplored it. The Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game were trying to satisfy both factions, an impossible dream.

There were suggestions for their control such as hunting them with dogs, calling or tracking them, all idealistic but hardly effective in Maine.

As a hound enthusiast of more than fifty years and being familiar with the hunting of coyotes in some states with dogs, I can only say that any of these three control methods would be a waste of time and money. Subsidizing honest, capable and experienced trappers to operate in the trouble areas would make more sense.

While the Fish-Game Department is aware that the economic value of such an animal cannot be compared with that of the whitetailed deer, it has made no plans to attempt a population control program of the new predator.

Dr. Richens says he expects the animal’s range and number to increase in Maine. But he adds that it is his “personal opinion that coyotes will have little effect on the whitetailed deer herd. They will not kill a significant number as compared to the usual damage done by dogs.”

A state-wide leash law on dogs, however, enacted in 1973, has resulted in a tremendous decline in deer killed by them.

Not everyone agrees with Dr. Richens on the relative effect of the new predator on deer. But a Game Division spokesman sums up the situation with “We’ve got these predators and there isn’t much we can do about them.”

Henry Hilton, a research assistant at the University of Maine Orono Wildlife Cooperative Unit, began a study of the Maine coyote in 1973, planned to spend more time with Warden Sirois studying coyotes in the Big Black River area.

Hilton discounts the “new wolf” theory advanced by Dr. Coppinger and quotes the latter as using the name because is saves a lot of time. He adds, however, that in this matter of professional disagreement Dr. Coppinger stands alone. Hilton contends the animal is not a wolf.

In two years of research Hilton says he will accumulate a good amount of information involving over 100 of the animals, including food and hunting habits and their relationships with deer.

While he agrees with the writer that there is sufficient evidence in Maine that this new predator kills deer in winter he adds “this does not mean that there is a problem.”

No everyone will agree with Dr. Richens or Hilton on the relative effect of the new predator on deer in Maine.

A Game Division spokesman summed up the problem this way: “We’ve got these predators and there isn’t much we can do about them.”

After approximately 40 years, can we conclude that Letourneau was knowledgeable and prophetic?

Gene said the “new wolf” “may be coming in from eastern Quebec.” That seems to have been the case – knowledgeable – check!

Letourneau said that Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (then Game) idea to control the “new wolf” could be done with tracking, hunting with dogs and calling – knowledgeable and prophetic – check!

His statement that, “Subsidizing honest, capable and experienced trappers to operate in trouble areas would make more sense,” was extremely knowledgeable and prophetic – check!. But then MDIFW and the Maine Legislature stole away from trappers the best tool in the arsenal to control the “new wolf.” The snare.

I should like to point out that Letourneau said to use these trappers in “trouble areas.” Did he mean around slaughter sites in deer yards during tough winters? I think so – prophetic – check!

I think it safe to say that Gene Letourneau was knowledgeable enough to predict that his “new wolf” would be a problem for deer in winter deer yards, at a minimum. While others made claims that these new predators were NOT wolves and that these new predators would NOT be a problem for deer, history has shown otherwise.

And with this, it’s quite clear that Mr. Letourneau was both extremely knowledgeable and prophetic – check and check!

Good calls.

IDFG: “How Little We Know About Animals That Live in Our Forests”

IdahoLynxAn Idaho wildlife biologist, part of a five-year program, “to collect information on 20 little-studied creatures in the Idaho Panhandle and northeastern Washington”, was quoted as saying after trappers captured a Canada lynx:

“I was surprised that there were lynx in the West Cabinets,” said Michael Lucid, who’s heading up the Multi-Species Baseline Initiative for Idaho Fish and Game. “It shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.” (Emphasis added)

I have no intention to pick on or embarrass any particular employee of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG) or even the department as a whole (I know. Shocking isn’t it?). The statement made probably has more truth to it than most people know and that some shouldn’t be too eager to make.

The article makes claim of two things. One, Canada lynx is at least one species that is “little-studied” in portions of Idaho. Two, the biologist admits “how little we know” about certain animals his department is responsible for managing and caring for.

But I’m not here to blame IDFG necessarily for not knowing anything about Canada lynx. Instead, I might suggest that one might think that it would be a good idea to have even more than casual knowledge about a species before it is placed on the Endangered Species Act list of endangered and/or threatened species.

Consider this. The Endangered Species Act(ESA), has something to say about what must exist before any species can be considered as being threatened or endangered and protected by law. Note: The ESA, once implemented, can cause severe limitations and restrictions on private property, property rights and even a state agency to effectively run their own wildlife management programs. In short, administering the ESA for any species in any state should be considered a most serious undertaking, due to the potentially devastating fallout it can cause.

Having said that, isn’t it reasonable to expect that any professional wildlife administrator/biologist, governmental and non governmental agency, politician, etc. would want to know more about a species than “how little we know” BEFORE a species is listed and costing so much?

So, what does the ESA say must be the conditions in order to consider listing of a species?

SEC. 4.[16 U.S.C. 1533] (a) GENERAL.—(1) The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

I should also note right here that in order to remove a species from federal protection, ALL of the above criteria must be met.

I ask. Are the above five conditions that this law, enacted by Congress, something that fits the demand and execution of listing the Canada lynx in portions of Idaho that, according to one biologist was, “little-studied creatures” and “shows us how little we know about the animals that live in our forests.”? In other words, how can one honestly administer to protect a species it knows nothing about?

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) has studied the Canada lynx extensively (enough to list a species honestly), then why is it necessary for the IDFG to conduct its own study of a species they say is “little-studied” and admittedly they know nothing about? One would think it sensible to contact the USFWS and get the critical information about the lynx that they MUST have compiled before making such a critical decision about whether or not to list the Canada lynx as a “threatened” species. They did do this, didn’t they? And it was specific to Northern Idaho, right?

If they did this in Idaho, who did the work? Obviously it must not have been IDFG employees because they say the lynx hasn’t been studied and they don’t know anything about it. If USFWS has the information, shouldn’t that be shared? And if so why spend more money to learn the same things? Or is this busy work being paid for through grants in order to keep more government employees at work?

Well, here’s the Canada Lynx Listing Decision page from the USFWS website. You go to work and find in there where studies were conducted and information gathered, specifically for Idaho, that would scientifically warrant placing the Canada lynx on the Endangered Species Act list where it has been designated. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, you can also find information on the IDFG website about the trapping of the lynx in Northern Idaho, but there’s nothing there that answers any of my questions.

And thus, I am left with an even bigger question of which I don’t suspect to get an answer for. Is there ever any real specific information gathered before listing ANY species or do USFWS “experts” just use the same regurgitated information available from Alaska, Colorado and West Canine, and only cherry pick through the information that fits their narrative and agenda and ignore the rest?

Maine is another state where the Canada lynx is listed as a threatened species. And like many species the lynx is not threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” But for political purposes, Canada lynx and other species recognize boundaries when it is convenient for USFWS to do so and ignored when it is not.

While the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources fakes their way though making people think they are seriously proposing changes to the Endangered Species Act, how about I suggest that before any species can be listed anywhere in the United States (and by the way, the United States thinks it has the right to list species in other countries.) specific studies must be done by third parties and paid for by those agencies requesting the listing, before any decisions can be made about federal restrictions.

I think it’s obvious nobody knows anything specific about Canada lynx in Northern Idaho and yet, the USFWS took it upon themselves to flex their muscle and blindly list portions of the Gem State as lynx critical habitat and historic range.

Had this effort been done correctly the first time, it would look something like this. Whoever the entity or agency seeking to list the Canada lynx as threatened or endangered, would have to be prepared to foot the bill to conduct the third party studies to support or refute the claims of those claiming the lynx was in danger. Then IDFG, in this case, could have taken the money and conducted the necessary studies on lynx to determine the existing population of lynx, the health and range, and condition of the habitat. This all being done BEFORE any proposals are drafted for consideration of listing.

Yes, we probably know very little about some or most animals in our forests, but when it comes to the politics of the Endangered Species Act and the money that can be made from it, it’s quite amazing how much information can be faked.

And don’t forget, this is Stop Government Abuse Week.

With Manly Men Degradation, So Goes Hunting, Trapping, Fishing

People could spend a great deal of time discussing whether or not the feminizing of men in this country, and probably worldwide, is a deliberate scheme planned by “the rulers of the darkness of this world.” The reality, however, is a disturbing trend for those of us who desire to fight against those “progressing” to a new world order of unisexism, i.e. adding a bit of manliness to the female species with major modifications to the manly man into a big fat wuss!

For many, hunting, fishing, trapping, survival in the woods and enduring the elements, is a manly occupation and recreational interest, in addition to the implementation of resources to provide healthy food for the family. Ah, yes, manly endeavors! The “rulers of the darkness of this world” see such a lifestyle as a threat to them and their perverse world and therefore must work to change it.

With this changing, the task of putting an end to such things as hunting, trapping, fishing, access to land, etc. becomes easier; therefore adding to the substantiation of the idea that the wussification of man is a planned event.

If you might recall, back in December I posted a video of an advertisement the Obama administration either used or was considering using to promote their fascist Obamacare. By today’s standards, many would think of the sick and perverse ad as being beefcake and manly, but it is quite the opposite. The point being that the target audience, in which the media willingly beats the drum, is the young people, as it is their money that is needed to fund Obamacare. The audience is, by and large, effeminate, and thus the need for such a commercial.

Along the same lines, Pajama Boy, has become the poster child for Obamacare and an example of the kind of “man” this new generation of entitlement mentality has created.

Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez says of Pajama Boy:

It is now unfashionable to be the old manly man. When the Obama administration launched a campaign to attract enrollees into Obamacare, did they they front up a two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping he-man? Hell no. They employed “Pajama Boy” to lure the mice into the trap. This is who they reckoned the rising generation would admire. The heck with aspiring to be a test pilot or an astronaut. What people want today is the “funemployment” guy; the thing who drinks hot chocolate in his parents’ basement preparatory to selling them on subsidized, crap insurance. Pajama Boy is the new beau ideal. Why would the PR men have used his visage to grace their ads if women preferred “manly men”?

You can make the half-serious argument that in order to be a winner in today’s world it pays to be a loser. After all, you get subsidies. You get sympathy. You can play the victim card. Above all, you get the girl.

Isn’t everything, at least that is real, about hunting, fishing, trapping, of the “two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping, he-man?” If then, the men (I use the term very loosely) are becoming sissified, aren’t they then having everything manly bred, manipulated and indoctrinated out their existence?

With the constant barrage of animal rights, natural regulation, the hands-off approach to wildlife management and the lie that hunting, trapping and fishing are “inhumane”, then it would stand to reason that those activists wanting to rid the world of manly men, including the barbarism (in their eyes) of hunting, fishing and trapping, will target the Pajama Boy population of feminized boys.

In 2004, Maine fought against the less mature onset of this feminism movement to ban bear hunting and squeaked out a victory. Will they be able to this time? I can say that the effort will be harder to ward off. I’m not predicting the outcome.

Fernandez says:

But the insight of mutual degradation may provide the right clue. We probably seek people in proportion to our own aspirations. Our romantic goals are formed from our inner state. If we develop a taste for basements, then we look for stuff there. Civilization has lost its taste for manly men, not because those vanished figures are any less admirable but because steadfastness, courage and the need to be true have gone out of style.

It will be November before we find out what’s in the basements of Maine houses.

PajamaBoy

By The Company You Keep

*Editor’s Note* – The following by James Beers is another perspective and response to the letter I published yesterday about an effort to ban trapping on public lands. Please refer to my article for my view point and a copy of the letter Mr. Beers refers to in his article below.

By the Company You Keep

To whom it may concern:

The following letter from Mr. Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Foundation was forwarded to me by Dr. Charles Kay, Wildlife Ecologist at my Alma Mater, Utah State University. I consider them both good friends and front line allies in the war (the correct word) to save rural America’s culture and traditions as well our Constitutional rights. I hold each of them in the highest regard.

Mr. Marbut is writing the letter a Montana State lawyer/bureaucrat to resist an initiative in Montana to ban trapping on public lands.

Trapping has always been a prime target by animal rights radicals and environmental extremists for eradication as a third (after introducing deadly and destructive predators and banning guns) step in destroying rural American economies, families and property values. A little tale about trapping and those that would eradicate it is in order.

In the late 1990’s near the end of the reign of President Clinton, the 2nd woman (oh there is such joy in remembering that “achievement”) Director of US Fish and Wildlife Service and her (former Congressional staffer) Assistant in charge of the millions in state excise taxes stolen from state fish and wildlife programs only a few years earlier were outraged when the European Union backed down from a 6-year threat to ban all furs from the US, Canada and Russia unless they banned the leghold trap.

Now the leghold trap is the only effective, tried and true method to harvest the annual renewable take of furs by private trappers for the fur market and the best control method by private and government control agents to catch and transfer or kill deadly, destructive and harmful animals. The US was the largest exporter of furs followed by Canada and then Russia. Europe was the largest importer of furs in the world. UN politicians and bureaucrats were bribed and cajoled by the same radicals and extremists behind all the government campaigns that are destroying Rural America as I write this. The Director at the time and her Assistant were in the pockets of those radicals, thus their outrage about the European Union back-down since they has been promising the radicals and extremists that they would be successful.

During the final year of the reign of President Clinton, the Assistant met with White House and OMB politicos and tried hard to get an Executive Order signed by the President BANNING TRAPPING ON ALL FEDERAL LANDS. He was unsuccessful mainly, I guess, because a Presidential Election was right around the corner and the trapping ban and all the inevitable economic loss to trappers and furriers (many, many millions) plus the inevitable explosion of animal damage without any available remedy was sure to cause significant vote ripples.

So the other Party got elected anyway, and the erstwhile Director and the “Assistant”? The Director, who had made the Defenders of Wildlife THE federal wolf damage compensation Pooh-BA (a radically questionable move making it impossible for her to go to work for them for 3 years) was hired by the National Wildlife Federation (mouthwash, please) in a high-paying non-job from which she was “let-go” with a golden parachute “package in 2 years and after a one-year hiatus was hired by (guess-who?)
the Defenders of Wildlife where today she reigns as Queen of DOW.

And, what of the Assistant? He was kept around as a “Science Advisor” for 8 years by the reputed “opposition” party until the current Party took over despite all the mess Bush left. Soon the old “Assistant”/”Science Advisor” was named Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service where he reigns as he “services” the rest of us, especially Rural America.

So, I ask you: if we are known by the company we keep, who do you stand with? Is it two brave American heroes like Mr. Marbut and Dr. Kay or two ne’er-do-wells like the Queen of the Defenders of Wildlife and the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service?

As for me, I stand with Mr. Marbut and Dr. Kay and ask you to do the same. We truly are known by the company we keep.

(Mr. Marbut’s letter follows.)[Please follow this link for a copy of the letter in reference.]

Jim Beers
27 January 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net