April 21, 2014

Wolf Rookies and Disregard of Global Wolf History Re: Wolf Introduction

FraudScienceOne of the complaints I have always had about gray wolf (re)introduction has been the fact that claims of using “best available science” was a sham and a deliberate con job right from the very beginning. For Best Available Science to be a viable tool, then science must be the driving factor. Science is science and it doesn’t work at all when personal agendas and politics are the driving forces behind such events as wolf (re)introduction.

I have stated before that it is easy to look back on what took place in order to learn going into the future. In so doing, researching has discovered many things about wolf (re)introduction; very little that was claimed and predicted has come true, those involved were inexperienced “rookies” and some very serious and important information was completely disregarded about wolf history globally and the dangers to public health from diseases, worms and parasites carried by wolves.

In a recent article on this website, I wrote about how, in my findings of researching the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), deliberate lying and misinformation was given to the public in order to influence public opinion that would support wolf (re)introduction. One has to wonder what the outcome of pre-introduction polls would have been if people had been told the truth.

One blaring example I gave was that everywhere Ed Bangs and his band of wolf marauders went that sold the public on what I believe was an intentionally misleading claim that within the three regions where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wanted wolf populations when 10 breeding pairs or 100~ wolves were confirmed for 3 consecutive years, wolves would be removed from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection and management of wolves turned over to the states. That, as we all now know, not only never happened but it never happened so badly that over protected wolves have destroyed far too much.

The other aspect I want to cover is the terrible disregard of valuable information and the fact that there was no experienced scientists available or made available in dealing with wolves, especially wolves being dumped into areas adjacent to human-settled landscapes. Those pushing to get the wolves were only guessing what wolves would do based on models from watching wolves in cages or in remote areas of Canada or Alaska. These same people refused to use any kind of historic documents about wolves claiming it was mostly fairy tales and folk lore. What puzzles me is that it is ONLY that information that is available to United States scientists who refuse to accept with or work with people and scientists in foreign countries who have dealt with wolves for centuries. Perhaps our elitist attitudes and desire to not use historic knowledge of wolves and wolf interactions with humans, for an agenda of getting wolves in this country, has cost the American people substantially.

To go back and review the FEIS and all associated documents is quite an eye-opening experience. Looking at this issue of “best available science” and what appears a deliberate disregard at the utilization of the best science and historic documents that were available at the time of wolf (re)introduction, we see disturbing claims that should have been troubling at the time.

On page 54 of Chapter 4 – FEIS – Consultation and coordination, we find this statement:

Research
– Obtaining information through scientific techniques has lead to tremendous benefits to society. Wildlife management has been greatly improved through scientific investigations and research, including the use of radio telemetry technology. Any reintroduction of wolves would be closely monitored and new information used to improve the program. However, wolves have been intensively studied in many areas of North America and many of the basic questions about wolf biology and behavior are well documented. Currently, another massive research program is not needed to re-study the basic nature of wolves in the western United States. While there will certainly be some interesting and necessary questions that may arise from the actual reintroduction of a top predator into an ecosystem, more research or study is certainly not required before wolf restoration could proceed. The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.
(emphasis added)

Did our scientific community fail this badly? When you honestly consider that very little predicted in the FEIS about wolves, their behavior and impacts that a recovered wolf population would have on the ecosystem and that of humans, materialized, can we look back on this event and not question what was behind wolf (re)introduction?

To claim just prior to wolf (re)introduction that Ed Bangs and his cohorts knew all there was to know about wolves, that they had “fully exhausted” everything that they could use to predict what was going to happen and then find the results we did, one has to view this as perhaps an agenda-driven, politically motivate event, designed to specifically deceive the American people. Or perhaps it is even something more sinister and/or criminal.

USFWS refused to examine or at least consider historic documents of wolf history that contain years and years of conflicts between humans and livestock, as well as wildlife impacts due to wolves. Their refusal was evidently based on some elitist notion that this history could not be substantiated and the most of it was lore and made up stories. Is this how we treat history? Will one hundred years from now, people look back at wolf (re)introduction and disregard it for many of the same reason this generation of fraudulent scientists did?

Nobody involved in wolf (re)introduction had any kind of real experience and first hand knowledge of what it would be like living, as humans, with wolves. It’s not their fault. Wolves were mostly gotten rid of before any of these people were born. But, there are history books and there are and were at that time, many countries who were living with and dealing with wolves. Did we then disregard their knowledge and if so why? Did our scientists NOT want to learn the truth because they had an agenda?

Watching some wolves in a cage or documenting their behavior in remote forests and then creating “models” to GUESS what wolves will do, is not best available science and wolf (re)introduction should never have been allowed to happen. With zero actual knowledge and experience, and confirmation that wolves were recovering naturally in Northwest Montana and parts of Idaho, we should have left it alone and continued to learn first hand about wolves.

Here’s some more examples found in the FEIS that should have sent up red flares:

FEIS – Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination – page 22:

6. The Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 3, The Affected Environment, and average harvest is presented in Table 3-12. The analysis of wolf predation effects on the Jackson moose population is discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and cited in Boyce and Gaillard’s (1992) modeling of wolf predation on ungulates including the Jackson moose herd. Their models suggest a recovered wolf population may decrease the moose population about 7%.(emphasis added)

And this:

10. The analysis presented in Chapter 4 showed the effects a recovered wolf population would have on various ungulate populations throughout the primary analysis area. Additional ungulate herds or larger ungulate populations added to the analysis means more ungulates available to wolves and subsequent reduced effects of wolves on those ungulate populations. As stated in the analysis, the FWS recognizes ungulate populations can be quite different from one another in terms of population numbers, hunter harvests, and other physical and biological characteristics. Additionally, the FWS cannot predict exactly where wolf packs may establish territories, thus wolves will not impact all ungulate herds in the primary analysis area. However, the analyses and ranges of impacts presented would apply to most ungulate herds if wolves were associated with them.(emphasis added)

And these two items:

13. From the information available, nearly all elk, deer, and a few moose populations inhabiting areas in or near the Yellowstone National Park have population numbers in excess of several thousand. Also, harvests in many Wyoming herd units averaged hundreds of antlerless animals for elk and deer herds east and south of the park. For the herds having large antlerless harvests, reducing the antlerless harvest might be possible if wolf predation reduced ungulate numbers below objective levels. It is possible wolves could keep very small moose populations at low numbers in combination with severe winters, human harvest, and other factors (i.e., the predator pit theory) and affected the antlered harvest, but moose tend to be more difficult to kill than elk or deer and for areas east of the park, moose will not likely be a primary prey species compared to the more numerous elk and deer populations. Elk and deer because of their relative abundance will probably be the primary prey.

14. The primary analysis area was limited to places where wolves would most likely inhabit and to those ungulates wolves would most likely have impacts on at recovery levels. The FWS cannot predict exactly where wolves might set up territories. However, based on the population sizes of the ungulate herds near Dubois, if 1 pack of wolves lived in this area, it is unlikely the effects would be greater than demonstrated for other herds in the analyses presented. Indeed, with more ungulates available for wolves to prey on, overall impacts to some herds (and to associated hunter harvest) might be less than predicted. Overall impacts would be less because significantly more animals would be available and the impacts would be spread among more herds. The FWS also recognized wolf predation might severely impact some ungulate herds because of increased vulnerability (i.e., Whiskey Mountain sheep herd) and that wolf presence might inhibit the states and tribes from meeting their wildlife management objectives. The FWS believes the states and tribes are better able to determine those rare instances where wolves might severely impact wildlife populations and the FWS will work closely with those agencies in developing plans that promote wolf recovery and provide flexible management options when state and tribal objectives are being compromised.(emphasis added)

If, as the USFWS claims above, that they have “intensively studied” and that all wolf behavior is “well documented” and that “predictive models” have been “fully exhausted,” then why all the waffling in these last statements about how they can’t predict this about wolves and that about wolves? In these same claims, officials said, in effect, they knew all there was to know about wolf behavior and yet history has shown us the huge failure. This has to be a gigantic failure of science or a criminal act to deliberately mislead the people to promote an agenda to play with wolves.

It is just as disturbing to look at this evidence about poor science and deliberate disregard of facts, as it is this one statement contained in the quotes above: “The number and level of “predictive” models and studies conducted to date have fully exhausted the ability to predict what effects wolves may have on the ecosystem in Yellowstone and central Idaho without wolves actually being present. Additional studies appear unnecessary and would only serve to increase overall costs and delay real progress toward wolf recovery and delisting.”

This tells me that Ed Bangs and his gang of thieves were no longer, or probably never were, interested in knowing anything more about wolves, as it might spoil their party. They didn’t care. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on humans. They didn’t care about wolf impacts on game herds. They didn’t care about disease. They didn’t care about wolves in Russia, or Finland, Norway, Germany, India or anywhere else in the world. They want wolves to play with in Yellowstone and Idaho and they didn’t much care how they got them there. They admitted they couldn’t predict what was going to happen until they put wolves in there to find out. They called it “real progress.” And that is what they call “best available science?”

Among many terrible things this wolf (re)introduction has caused, it’s a travesty on the science community. This effort has done more to create complete distrust of government officials and the administering of the Endangered Species Act. One can only wonder, knowing and discovering the shameful acts and actions involved with wolf (re)introduction, what other ESA projects are as anti science and crooked as wolf (re)introduction?

Misleading Information by Feds in Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Reintroduction

100WolvesIt is numerous times through the 414-page Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone Park and Central Idaho, that we can find this repeated statement:

No modifications in harvest of deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be
required to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves.
Conclusions
– Harvest of cow elk may have to be reduced 10%-15% in central Idaho (396-594 fewer
cows killed than in 1991) to accommodate for predation by 100 wolves. No changes in management of
harvest for deer, moose, bighorn sheep, or mountain goats are expected to be necessary.

While the statement in and of itself may be debatable in its accuracy, at best it is misleading and done in what I believe to be the intent of the Federal Government and those behind and promoting wolf reintroduction. It drives home the notion that little, if anything, the Federal Government does can be trusted.

The lie that was the focal point of the entire FEIS was that when Yellowstone National Park, Central Idaho and Northwest Montana had all achieved verifiable breeding pairs of wolves (10 pairs) and/or approximately 100 wolves, the animal would be “delisted,” i.e. removed from the list of threatened of endangered species. We now know that benchmark was an intentional lie. It was never intended to be an actual benchmark in which “science” had determined what would constitute a recovered species. It was only created as a means of appeasing those people with legitimate concerns about how a recovered wolf population would impact existing wild game species and in particular the ungulate populations of deer, elk, moose, etc.

What was sold to the people, and what I believe they bought, hook, line and sinker, as can be supported in a review of the questions posed by the public to those traveling salesman who set up to become the essence of insurance salesmen. People believed that the intention was to introduce wolves, and what breed or subspecies was introduced didn’t make any difference, and monitor those wolves until all three regions in Northern Rockies had 10 breeding pairs or at least 100 wolves. The public bought the lie that with only 100 wolves, there would be no impact on hunting, with the exception of perhaps a slight decrease in elk cow permits. The public bought the con job that once each zone had 100 wolves, the wolves would be delisted and each state in the recovery area would take over managing the wolves, with the public believing that wolves would be managed at numbers representing 100.

The Feds and those NGOs involved with getting their way to bring wolves down from Canada, knowing it was never their intention to allow wolves to be delisted at 100, could not represent anything close to the truth as it pertains to recovery numbers within the scope and draft of the FEIS. It is for that reason we find repeatedly throughout the FEIS the above emboldened statement. Making a repeated statement as this one was reassuring to some that the goal was 100 wolves. After that delisting of the animal, state takeover of wolf management and no harm no foul.

The rest is history as the old saying goes and we know that even now with some made up number of 1,700 wolves, those who brought the wolves to the U.S. continue to sue or are threatening to sue to stop any kind of management of a diseased-ridden varmint that is destroying ecosystems, killing off game animals and threaten humans with disease. Wolves have destroyed hunting guide businesses, local economies and put undue stresses and strains on ranchers and their losses of livestock; all of these the people of the region were told would never happen with 100 wolves in their state.

It is unfortunate that somebody (or maybe they did) didn’t pose the question to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of what would be the impacts to humans and game species, etc. with 3,000 wolves.

It is my belief, as I said, due to a review of the FEIS, that the USFWS was able to successfully do a snow job on the public and therefore nobody believed it necessary to ask the tough questions of what if.

The Federal Government and all their lackeys should never be trusted……NEVER. Should this government or any other NGO suggest the introduction of any species anywhere in the world, it should be fought against tooth and nail if for no other reason than these people lie, cheat and steal to get what they want.

ESA and Hybridization: Dealing With It Case By Case

hybridwolfThe issue of wolves, the Endangered Species Act and “intercrosses”, i.e. cross breeding or hybridization, seems to have moved to the forefront in discussions about wolves. Before even getting to any discussion about what constitutes a hybridized wolf and how this is dealt with in the administering of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), consider some of the fallout and collateral damage protecting “intercrosses” can result in.

First, and probably foremost is the issue of actually protecting the purity of a species. As much as some have little or no use for the wolf, in parts of the world I believe a “pure” wolf and certain “pure” subspecies of wolves can be found (although I, personally, place little value in the notion of subspecies as it pertains to wild dogs). Is it therefore of importance to protect that species? Surely, although I recognize some might disagree. And also, to what degree and worthy effort is this protection to be carried out before it blows back in our faces as promoting further destruction of a species?

The question then becomes how do we protect a “pure” wolf species? Short of creating as much isolation from all other canines, wild and domestic, I’m not so inclined to think it honestly can be completely protected, at least not in some geographical locals, and that’s part of the problem that exists today. Attempting to force wild, and “pure,” wolves into heavily populated regions aren’t we begging for hybridization between wolves and feral and domestic dogs?

Secondly, we have learned that canines carry and transmit as many as 50 or more different kinds of diseases. In understanding the habits of wolves, we know that wolves travel great distances, sometimes extraordinary distances. With wolf populations being allowed to flourish, does this not force more wolves to disperse? Is not this flourishing also creating a situation in which wolves will find need to eat livestock, pets and basically hang out in people’s back yards? Isn’t this dispersal creating a better chance of perpetuating no fewer than two conditions: spreading of diseases into greater geographical regions and increasing the chances of “intercrosses?

Third, what then is becoming of the very institution of wildlife science and scholarship where it is known that protected species are interbreeding with other non protected species, and willingly this institution watches as the very species they claim to want to protect is being destroyed?

Fourth, of what value then, can be placed on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (with amendments)? It’s no secret what the purposes and plans of the ESA are:

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.

Is there mention here of protecting hybridized species? As a matter of fact there is no discussion or regulations in the ESA having anything to do with “intercrosses” of wolves. So, how do we stop this, or do we?

In email conversations over the past several days, I read comments from others far more expertise in these affairs than I am, repeating that the ESA does not protect mongrel species. I wanted to know where in the ESA it says that or by which Section of the Act one can interpret that is what it means?

Thanks to the help of Ted B. Lyon of Ted B. Lyon & Associates, P.C., and co-author of the brand new book, The Real Wolf: The Science, Politics, and Economics of Co-Existing with Wolves in Modern Times, I got some help. With the help of a law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, I was directed to some cases in law where it gives us perhaps a bit better understanding of how the courts, in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, define and interpret “pure” species compared with “intercrosses” and how it is being dealt with.

As was given to me, here is a statement found in The Endangered Species Act: Static Law Meets Dynamic World by Holly Doremus

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS,” also known as NOAA Fisheries) (together “the Services”), do not currently have a formal policy on hybrids. The Interior Solicitor’s office waffled in the early days of the ESA, first concluding that any progeny of a protected entity was itself protected, then quickly reversing course to say that the progeny of interbreeding between species or even between subspecies were flatly ineligible for federal protection [70]. That stance was withdrawn as too “rigid” in 1990 [71]. A new policy was proposed in 1996 [72], but it was never finalized. FWS now evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis [73].”

The short of all of this appears to be that the Endangered Species Act was not drafted with the intent to protect hybridized (intercrossed) species, BUT the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service “evaluates the legal consequences of hybridization on a case-by-case basis” because they granted themselves that authority to do so. And, we are squarely back to ground zero; the courts show deference to the Secretary and Congress gives the Secretary authoritative flexibility.

What does that then mean? That’s a good question. To me it means that if the USFWS has an agenda, aside from it’s written mission (Gasp!), and for political reasons, it can, on a case-by-case basis do whatever they want while running the risk of lawsuits from friends, what then is the rule of law worth? Realistically, the only lawsuits USFWS usually face come from animal rights and environmental groups. All too often, all of these groups work in unison with the same political (and financial) agendas.

In The Real Wolf book, an entire chapter covers the hybridization of captive wolves before and after Mexican wolves were introduced into the Southwest. This must be one of those case-by-case examples the USFWS says they will make determinations about. The information and facts presented are a clear and well-defined example of the United States Government spending millions of taxpayer dollars to protect a Heinz-57 mutt in the desert Southwest.

From my vantage point I see at least two seriously flawed examples here of what is wrong with the Endangered Species Act. One, that the Secretary has the authority, and that authority flexes its muscle knowing the Courts grant deference (and environmentalists, et. al., can cherry-pick the courts they want for the judges they will get). Secondly, the Secretary can bastardize the actual purpose of the ESA by playing games with intercrosses on a “case-by-case basis,” i.e. politics and agendas.

But the flaws date back to the very beginning of the ESA. With little or no definitions, establishment of actual authority and provisions to easily craft changes to the act based on the rapidly changing environments we live in, we can only expect the ESA to fail in protecting species and become a political tool of benefit for those who can see financial gains and abuse to promote causes. Can you say OUTDATED? I know you can.

Wolves were and never have been threatened “throughout a significant portion of its range.” Wolves and human populations cannot coexist. This has been proven over and over again. In addition to the threats these animals cause to humans, intercrosses are inevitable and are a threat to the protection of the pure wolf species. Why is that not being considered here? Or is it really NOT about the wolf?

Despite Claims of Wolf Taxonomy Game Playing, Agendas Shine Through

The article teased and linked to below provides some excellent points about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) game playing of wolf taxonomy in order to achieve some kind of political end game. The USFWS wants to “delist” the gray wolf in all the Lower 48 states. Their reasoning, or at least that which they are making public, is their fabricated claim of another breed of wolf, Canis lycaon, that once roamed the majority of the Eastern United States; a claim not too many others can agree with.

The USFWS has repeatedly played this subspecies game with wolves and it has repeatedly kept them in the dog house.

However, in this same article, comments expressed seem to show that despite reason about wolf taxonomy, some people just cannot get beyond their own ideological nonsense about wolves, the history of their abundance and where these varmints once ranged. The point being that for these wolf promoters, including their idiocy that wolves create some magical nirvana of our forests and fields, there will never be enough wolves. They choose to manipulate the Endangered Specie Act to fit their narratives and agendas and mislead the public about what is really going on presently and the long term history of this much undesirable animal.

This excerpt tells the story. You can read the entire article by following this link.

“I think probably over the decades at least a few of us were lulled into this sense of acceptance, that everything was getting better and that people now understood the importance of predators like wolves,” Barry said. But the debate over the delisting proposals has been a reminder of the residual anger towards wolves in the rural West, where influential ranchers have long fought wolves for depredating livestock. “Merge that in with the whole tea party fervor against government, and what you end up with in the state legislatures is this race to the bottom to see who can be more anti-wolf,” Barry said. “The biology of the thing gets thrown right out the window.”

Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal

February 7, 2014
Contacts:

Gavin Shire, 703-346-9123, gavin_shire@fws.gov

Independent scientific peer review report available for public review

Following receipt of an independent scientific peer review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the comment period on its proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. The Service is making that report available for public review, and beginning Monday, February 10, interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal.

The independent scientific peer review was hosted and managed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a highly respected interdisciplinary research center at the University of California – Santa Barbara. At the Service’s request, NCEAS sponsored and conducted a peer review of the science underlying the Service’s proposal.

“Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.”

The peer review report is available online, along with instructions on how to provide comment and comprehensive links relating to the proposal, at www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best available information. Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov under the docket number FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073.

The Service will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency will post any personal information provided through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes. Comments must be received by midnight on March 27.

The Federal Register publication of this notice will be available online Feb. 10 at www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2014 Proposed Rules under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

The Service expects to make final determination on the proposal by the end of 2014.

Killing Owls at $1,000 a Bird, To Save Owls

Insanity runs rampant these days and way out in front is the United States Government. It’s representative sprinter appears to be the Endangered Species Act, part of Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

USFWS has “specially trained biologist” who have killed 26 barred owls, part of a $3.5 million program to “experiment” with killing one species to save another; in this case the spotted owl.

When one considers some of the outward display of insanity, doesn’t it become clear that there is something seriously wrong here? And why aren’t people questioning the insanity? Is it because it’s not recognized or doesn’t want to be recognized?

Remember the reason given many years ago, along with the abusive power of the Endangered Species Act, as to why the spotted owl was supposedly in danger of going extinct? It was that man was destroying “old growth timber.” Guess what? That didn’t seem to pan out well for the environmentalists fascists and so they are on to their next hypocritical trick; killing another species to save the spotted owl, hoping it might be the barred owl this time. But that’s only a guess, as was running the timber industry out of business in the Northwest (Oh, wasn’t that really the plan.)

So, at $1,000 a barred owl assassination, where are the environmentalists who claim balance of nature? Where are the environmentalists who claim that if man just minded their own business and left “nature” alone, everything would be alright? Where are the environmentalists who claim that wolves, coyotes, bears, lions and all large predators have no effect on the ecosystem that isn’t “natural?” Where are the environmentalists who demand that predators, like the coyote, can’t be trapped in order to protect the Canada lynx? The list is unending.

This is all insane. Trial and error wildlife management. And that’s found where in the Endangered Species Act these clowns love to manipulate for financial gain?

Unemployment and Wolves

A guest post by Jim Beers:

This morning’s news reports on the TV and the radio are full of a news item broken in The New York Post that an employee of The US Census Bureau has revealed that he was told months before last year’s Presidential Election to do whatever it takes to lower the Unemployment Rate below 8% before that Election. As a result this employee (and others?) fabricated interviews and data that did indeed reduce the National Unemployment Rate below the magical 8% level, above which no President had ever been re-elected in recent times. As all the reportage of this scandal fulminates about how unbelievable it is to imagine a “federal employee” or a “federal agency” actually lying like this and then further maintaining a political fiction of this magnitude as some sort of scientific or analytical finding for more than a year now; an explanation is emerging.

The explanation given is that direct control of the US Census Bureau (as with the IRS managers that “handled” Tea Party tax exemption requests, State Department Security managers that “handled” Benghazi, and ATF managers that “handled” Fast & Furious gun smuggling to Mexican killers and Drug Lords) was placed totally under White House political hacks and czars when the current Administration took office 5 years ago. As was once so aptly observed by that American philosopher and former great catcher for the New York Yankees, Yogi Berra; for me this US Census Bureau scandal was “De ja vu all over again”.

About a month ago I was interviewed for an article about wolves in a Montana newspaper. Last week, I read several comments about the article. Couched in the remarks about how anyone quoting me should (along with me, ranchers, hunters and other rural residents) be declared mentally unbalanced and committed, were the following two quotes: “You are not going to change the minds of the thousands and thousands of tourists and potential new residents each year who come to Montana to enjoy and appreciate living, breathing wildlife, and who fully understand that wolves predate (although the incredulously ridiculous wolf depredation “figures” flagrantly bandied about by anti-wolf advocates border on the inane), and increasingly more of whom are not among the dwindling 5 percent of the nation that still hunt (and, overwhelming, for nothing other than the thrill of doing so).” “Between 1996 and 2006, the nation’s hunters declined by 400,000. … [This decline] coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996.”

The foregoing two quotes tell us two things. First the writer is unapologetically a pro-wolf advocate with neither tolerance nor respect for anyone objecting to being forced to live with wolves. Second, and most important for us here, is the use of numbers, percentages and trends (i.e. implied “science” and analysis of mathematical and statistical data if you will) to “prove” the author’s claims about the inevitable ascendancy of the pro-wolf “ecosystem” and the concomitant decline of the biological travesty known as the Rural American “Ecosystem” (economy, lifestyle, human benefits, liberties, etc.) known to rural Americans from the signing of the US Constitution until recently.

The dirty little secret about these (wildlife, hunters, “watchers”, etc.) numbers, percentages and trends is this: they have been generated, “analyzed” and reported on by the US Census Bureau since 1982.

Year-in-year-out the US Census Bureau interviews Americans about fishing, hunting and wildlife recreation, they collate and analyze the “data” they collect and then they issue and update the “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation”. This National Survey is both bible and source of unassailable numbers for every radical, bureaucrat, politician, and other ne’er-do-well involved in: – Eliminating hunting, fishing, ranching, trapping, cropland and pastures, timber management, wildfire-fighting, private property, local governments, animal ownership, roads, dams, irrigation, animal damage control, animal management for human benefit, etc., etc. – Increasing the range and densities of dangerous, deadly and destructive predators from wolves and cougars to grizzly bears; Wilderness; federal land acquisition and control; wild animal claims that diminish human rights and freedoms; government size, funding and power, etc., etc.

I know what you are thinking: “Why are federal Census employees and their Bureau doing this?”; “How do Census bureaucrats know what to ask or how to report their findings?” and “How reliable is what they report?” The answer to these questions is that the US Census is merely a tool for truly sinister agendas.

First of all, the US Census Bureau like every bureaucracy since antiquity wants first and foremost to grow itself. One of the best ways to do so, next to conjuring up some new urgent and important task that no one else can do, is to actually do someone else’s urgent and important task. In this case the US census Bureau is ever on the lookout to “collect” data for others at a price and preferably ad infinitum and thus the US Fish and Wildlife Service has had a permanent staff of “experts” “running” the National Hunting and Fishing (the purposeful common misnomer) Survey for over 30 years now. This staff of US Fish and Wildlife Service “experts” (historically run by an anti-hunter overseeing a staff that is at best indifferent to hunting and fishing et al and at worst radical environmental ideologues) composes the questions, analyzes the “data” and actually issues the reports.

The US Census Bureau merely accepts millions of dollars during each ten-year Census Cycle for “collecting” the “data”. Once again, I hear you thinking: “Why is USFWS doing this?” This is a good question and the answer is because the State fish and wildlife agency Directors let them. So now you ask, “That doesn’t make sense that state Directors let them”? A little history might help you understand.

Back in the late 1970’s it was not uncommon to hear federal bureaucrats and political appointees in Washington say, “In just a few years, trapping will be banned in most states and hunting will not be far behind”. Also, “Fishing will disappear as well and then the government will concentrate on preserving wilderness, saving keystone species, setting aside more endangered species areas, conducting ecosystem research, eradicating non-native plants and animals, controlling human activities that harm the environment,” etc. While all this tickled the federal bureaucrats who survive on federal Appropriations from Congress: it scared the dickens out of State fish and wildlife agency bureaucrats who survived primarily on licenses, excise taxes, and permits necessary for wild animal management.

So in the waning days of the Carter Presidency a vision was conjured up by federal and state “partners” that would benefit each. The federal bureaucrats that collected hundreds of millions in excise taxes annually that by law could only go to state fish and wildlife programs would “partner” with the state Directors and skim off millions of dollars each year to hire a USFWS staff to contract with and work with the US Census Bureau to “count” and help “bring together” the gazillions of wildlife watchers and wildlife lovers that heretofore have been ignored so that they will “support” federal Appropriations and state funding from state Legislatures in the future. All that was needed, they thought, was to count all those folks and measure their enthusiasm and politicians would be bowled over with thoughts of courting their votes.

The USFWS staff was hired, the State Directors (with State Governor/Legislature approval??), okayed skimming the funding from their state’s portion of the annual allotment in Washington before it made it to the state; and the USFWS holding it, spending it and quietly reporting on what they were doing with it to the state directors.

Just as The Endangered Species Act’s precedents influenced the Kelso Decision of government power over private property for whatever government wanted to do; so too did this sub-rosa scheme of federal and state bureaucrats laundering money set the stage for the theft of millions 15 years later from the same federal excise taxes by federal bureaucrats with a “wink- wink, nod-nod” from state directors to capture and forcibly introduce wolves into areas where they destroy hunting, animal husbandry, rural economies and rural life as Americans had come to know it AFTER Congress had refused to fund the wolf debacle.

Thus began 20 +/- years of USFWS “National Survey staff “ massaging questions and data to “prove” the viability of The Brave New World just around the corner. It was geared to justify “Chickadee (i.e. Non-Game Funding) Check-offs” on state and federal tax returns but it failed miserably.

Then there was a proposed tax on birdseed but the birdwatchers and bird paraphernalia manufacturers were less than enthusiastic to say the least. Then there was the proposed tax on binoculars and on hiking equipment and camping equipment; all of which failed : unless of course you count the ascendancy of the current female outdoor activity retail store magnate as Secretary of the Interior, and “about time” I say (not really).

Even though all those clever schemes came to naught, the federal and state bureaucrats use the National Survey to continue generating largely bogus nonsense at a cost of millions about how wolf lovers and new birdwatchers will generate the GDP of France annually if only the government spends more money and imprisons any rural residents not willing to move to the city when so ordered.

They bamboozle politicians and hunters and fishermen while schmoozing the likes of Defenders of Wildlife and HSUS et al with the discouragement of rural residents and the encouragement of fund-raising enthusiasms of urban lovers of TV Nature/Animal shows. Just as Heinrich Himmler, the Head of the Gestapo, once famously observed, “We want to use science that supports our ideology” so too are these federal and state directors and their supposed future constituencies searching for data that supports their ideology.

Thus this fellow condemning me thirty years later with the numbers, trends and percentages from no less an authority than the United States Census Bureau! But consider the biggest irony in all this, like Lenin’s statement that “we will buy the rope from the capitalists that we use to hang them with”, the federal and state bureaucrats and their radical environmental/animal rights “partners” have been funding this “National Survey” to eliminate hunting and fishing with the very excise tax funds collected from hunters and fishermen to preserve and manage hunting and fishing for 30 + years! Is this a great country or what?

Finally, “the De-ja-vu all over again” aspect for me is this. For 30+ years the US Census Bureau has been a complicit, though ignorant, partner with federal, state, and radical organizations whose goal is the destruction of hunting, fishing and rural America, truth be known. This has gone unnoticed and is an illegal (in most or all states federal fund eligibility cannot be reduced by state directors but only by the Legislature and/or the Governor each and every time it occurs) activity. So when we are stunned by current White House covert manipulations of the Census Bureau to lie about the Unemployment Rate before an election in order to re-elect a President – remember, the Census Bureau is only acting in the finest traditions of the NSA (no scratch that one), in the finest traditions of our federal and state wildlife bureaucrats and previous Census Bureau heroes who we all know have only the highest standards and goals.

Jim Beers
19 November 2013

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks. Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades. Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Wolf Meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico


Pack the House

for a
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Pre-Hearing Gathering:

People, Predators or Power? Your Choice

Be fully informed about the proposed expansion of the Wolf reintroduction in New Mexico

3:00-4:30 PM
November 20, 2013
Embassy Suites, 1000 Woodward, Albuquerque, NM

FWS Hearing doors open at 5 PM in the same building

Please pre-register at http://wolvesinalbuquerque.eventbrite.com

We need your help. Next week in Albuquerque, a public comment hearing is being held by US Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the future of wolves in New Mexico. The last hearing in Washington D.C. was filled with wolf-proliferation advocates who opposed protections for wild game. Let’s make sure EVERYONE attends this hearing.

Remember, new aggressive plans are asking for aggressive expansion of wolf populations in New Mexico. Without wolf-delisting, important safeguards to protect hunting, livestock and wild game in New Mexico will not be available. Considering the impacts experienced in other states, the future of hunting and wild game depend on your support.

Here is a map illustrating these new wolf proliferation plans: http://www.defenders.org/publications/places-for-wolves-southwest-defenders.pdf

Caren Cowan
Executive Director
New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association
POB 7517
Albuqueque NM 87194
505.247.0584 office
505.842.1766 fax
nmcga@nmagriculture.org
www.nmagriculture.org

You can become a member of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Associaton NOW by visiting www.nmagriculture.org !

Additional Information:

Posted: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 5:00 am

0 comments

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published two proposed rules under the Endangered Species Act on 6/13/2013; one to delist the gray wolf in the contiguous U.S. but to maintain the Mexican wolf as a listed species and the other to revise the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf.
Tates Ram Box Nov

The Service rescheduled three public hearings as a result of delays caused by the Federal Government lapse in appropriations. We will hold four public hearings on the proposals: 11/19/2013 from 6 pm to 8:30 pm in Denver, CO; 11/20/2013 from 6 pm to 9:00 pm in Albuquerque, NM; 11/22/2013 from 6 pm to 8:30 pm in Sacramento, CA.

In addition, on 12/3/2013, we will hold a public information meeting, principally on the Mexican wolf proposal, from 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm, at the Hon-Dah Conference Center, 777 Highway 260, Pinetop, AZ (3 miles outside of Pinetop at the Junction of Hwy 260 and Hwy 73). A public hearing (for the recording of comments) will be held from 6 pm to 8:30 pm.

To learn more about the proposed rules, view the Federal Register notice with the details of the public hearings, and for links to submit comments to the public record, visit www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery. Written comments on our proposals will be accepted through 12/17/2013.

Published in the White Mountain Independent November 12, 2013 WMI 7931, T, 1x, 11/12/13e

Wolves in the U.S. are doing better than you think

*Editor’s Note* – The below article is republished on this website with permission from the editor of The Outdoorsman. Please click on The Outdoorsman branded logo to the right to subscribe to or donate to The Outdoorsman. All proceeds go to make sure the right people get a copy of this publication. Thank you.

By Larry Kline

(Retired FWS Biologist Larry Kline was involved with endangered species for ten years prior to his
retirement. I believe his article responding to an opinion published in Virginia newspaper on October 1st is an example of the type of input that is needed to silence the wolf advocates who oppose delisting. – ED)

I read with considerable interest the letter from Robert Wilkinson in the Oct. 1 Free Lance-Star regarding
continued protection for U.S. populations of the gray wolf ["Wolves deserve continued protection"]. Like Mr. Wilkinson I am a lifelong hunter. I share his interest and appreciation in predator-prey relationships involving the wolf and other large predator species. I believe as he does that we should not begrudge the taking of game species by predators necessary to sustain their populations, with the
caveat that both predator and prey populations should be maintained in reasonable balance. That often requires management by man.

I am a wildlife biologist retired from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service following 30 plus years of federal service. I spent the last 14 years of my career in the Arlington office of the FWS. Ten of those years were in the Office of Endangered Species and four were in the Office of Management Authority.

I disagree somewhat with Wilkinson regarding the status of the wolf and regarding ongoing management. He
speaks of the wolf being “pushed to the brink of extinction in much of the United States.” I believe “extirpation” is a more accurate term since there has always been a large and secure population of gray wolves in much of Canada and Alaska. He also suggests that full recovery has yet to be achieved in the Lake States and the Northern Rocky Mountain populations when in fact it has been significantly exceeded for several years.

De-listing would have been completed several years ago if not for frivolous lawsuits brought by the
Humane Society of the U.S. and its allies. It is past time that management should be turned over to the range states like every other resident species. Keeping species on the ESA after recovery objectives have been met does nothing but harm the credibility of the act. Appropriately, the Mexican wolf in New Mexico and Arizona will continue to be listed as endangered.

Larry Kline

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I urge Outdoorsman readers to donate any amount, no matter how small, to reimburse us for the cost of providing mailed copies to the elected officials and others who are directly involved in managing your wildlife.

Thank you,
George Dovel

Note: The link to the right of this page for The Outdoorsman will provide a PDF copy of what can be printed out and mailed to subscribe to The Outdoorsman.

Comment Period on Mex. Wolves Extended, New Hearing Dates Set

Contact:
Gavin Shire
(703) 358-2649
gavin_shire@fws.gov

*Service Extends Comment Periods for Gray and Mexican Wolf Proposals, Reschedules Public Hearings, Adds Hearing in Arizona *

As a result of delays caused by the lapse in federal appropriations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced rescheduled dates for the remainder of a series of public hearings on two proposed rules—one to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and delist the gray wolf elsewhere, and the other to improve recovery efforts for the Mexican wolf in the Southwest. Comment period deadlines also are extended until December 17 to allow these hearings to take place within the public comment periods on the proposed rules.

The hearings will take place on November 19 in Denver, Colorado, November 20 in Albuquerque, New Mexico and November 22 in Sacramento, California. Each will include a short informational presentation. The Service has also added a public information meeting and hearing in Pinetop, Arizona, on December 3. The hearings are part of the Service’s continuing efforts to provide an open, comprehensive public process for the two proposed wolf rules and will provide the public a forum by which to register their views.

A formal notice of these hearings and the extension of the comment period will appear in *the Federal Register* on October 28.

To learn more about the proposed rules, view the draft *Federal Register*notice with the details of the public hearings, and for links to submit comments to the public record, visit www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.

Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com