December 22, 2014

Canada Lynx in Maine Will NEVER be Removed From ESA List

lynxintrap290I’m reading a lot lately from several sources how that Maine needs to generate an accurate and up-to-date count of the number of Canada lynx residing in the Pine Tree State in order that efforts could begin to remove federal protection of the animal via the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, most of these people either have no understanding of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) history on such subjects as the Endangered Species Act, or they simply wish to ignore it. Historically, the USFWS will do little in this regard and what they do do will be an absolute mess, while continuing to tie up any efforts to “delist” the Canada lynx in unending lawsuits brought on by environmentalists.

Recently Maine signed an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), a permit designed to formulate a plan that would allow for continued trapping efforts while protecting the lynx. Seemingly, within hours of signing the ITP, two lynx were reported killed in traps set for other furbearer species. Odd isn’t it? Only two lynx were killed in traps “incidentally” since 2009 but within hours of signing an ITP, two are “killed” in traps almost at the same time. Hmmmm. One could also ask what the State of Maine was thinking to agree to a plan that provides for only 3 “incidental” deaths from trapping in 15 years – the duration of the permit? If two were “incidentally” killed in 5 or 6 years, why would they think it reasonable that only 3 would be taken in 15?

However, essentially the trapping season in lynx critical habitat has been effectively eliminated. Some are now claiming that if Maine and the USFWS had a definite count of Canada lynx, it would show the critter “recovered” in Maine and so can be removed from federal protection. If it were only that easy.

As a reminder to readers, any and all criteria that placed the lynx on the “threatened” list of the ESA, must be remedied before a species can be removed from that list – all of them.

It took the USFWS years to approve an ITP and it will take years, if ever, before they will make any effort to delist the lynx. As an example, the USFWS is required to formulate a recovery plan. One would think that before the animal was listed, or at least immediately thereafter, the USFWS would have devised a lynx recovery plan. How, may I ask, can the USFWS or anyone else, know when a species is “recovered” if they don’t know that ahead of time? If the efforts were truly about recovering a lynx population, one with a brain would have to ask what the plan was to accomplish that task. And yet, the inept and corrupt USFWS does not have a plan and Maine people should not expect one anytime soon. They got what they wanted – to place the lynx on the ESA list. Any efforts beyond that, historically have proven to be a complete joke combined with insincere efforts, playing into the hands of the environmentalists. The issue will end up in the corrupt court system, which historically has proven to be nothing more than a means of reinterpreting fake laws, using fake science.

Estimating and determining species populations is mired in politics and science. Maine officials might come up with a sound, scientific estimate of lynx numbers but being that the state is a slave to the Feds, the Feds will play games with those numbers.

Should the day ever arrive, and I believe one day it will, the USFWS will make a feeble attempt to delist the lynx but immediately upon doing so, the environmentalists will line up with their lawsuits (and the Feds know this) and all efforts to manage a lynx scientifically will be trumped by lawsuits and “new-science” “best available science.” When the lawsuits roll out, the USFWS will run and hide, seldom, if ever, making any honest attempt to do what is in the best interest of the animal or the citizens of a state or region.

For Maine people to place their hopes in government bureaucracy in order to manage a lynx population, that is currently at artificially high numbers, is asinine and certainly plays into the hands of the USFWS whose only real goal here is the perpetuation of romance biology and the complete cessation of consumptive game practices.

What has been discovered, because of the corruption of the USFWS and the continued propping up of Environmentalism, is that there is no solution to the corrupt process of dealing with animals under the administration of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, the mindset in this country is to fight dishonesty and corruption with dishonesty and corruption. As per the gray wolf, the ONLY solution appears to have been legislative action by the U.S. Congress to remove wolves from federal protection and include a restriction on further lawsuits. Because of that action, more and more states are turning more quickly to that form of totalitarian rule to get what they want, not realizing the door swings in both directions.

But Maine would have a problem in that regard. Their Congressional delegation are basically gutless and never become involved in anything to do with fish and wildlife issues in the state. Historically they have done nothing to assist in protecting their constituency from the onslaught of environmental attacks and lawsuits. While other states’ delegations are helping to raise millions of dollars to fight Environmentalism and implement predator control programs, Maine runs silent.

Maine residents probably have better odds at working toward the implementation of legislation to fight environmentalism than they are going to realize in playing the bureaucratic nightmare that is designed to prop up environmentalism. We are part of a rigged system. Therefore, our choices are to removed ourselves, individually, as best we can, or get in there and fight corruption with more corruption. How does that future look?

Insanity and Diversions

Insanity is running rampant in our world, filling the airwaves and media platforms with tons of diversions, i.e. meaningless, nonsense. Here’s some examples:

1. Logging leads to long-term release of carbon from soils in Northeastern hardwood forests

This report is loaded with “maybes” and “mights,” all classical examples of “creating new knowledge” and “shifting paradigms.” Utter useless nonsense.

2. New Jersey bear hunt fueled by emotion over mauling death

Blow-back from the bear mauling death of a Rutgers University Student, delusional people, more interested in romantic notions of bears, blame everyone and everything for why bears attack people. In this case, let’s blame it on hunting and sound proven wildlife management. Remember, these clowns have been brainwashed into believing that “we must change the way in which we discuss wildlife management.”

3. California bans coyote hunts that offer prizes

From the article linked to above, we read: “Awarding prizes for wildlife killing contests is both unethical and inconsistent with our modern understand[ing] of natural systems.” By some totalitarian socialist it is perceived as unethical and because of intense training since birth, believe it is their appointed duty to force their ethics down the throats of other people. However, note the part of the comment that says that coyote derbies WITH PRIZES, is, “inconsistent with our modern understanding of natural systems.” (emphasis added)

This is another classic example of the ongoing effort to “create new understanding,” and “create new knowledge,” and “changing the way we discuss wildlife management.” Modern understanding is absolute post-normal, new-science, scientism at its finest. Also, utter nonsense.

4. More lynx being trapped in Maine, but reasons in dispute

Blinded by hatred of American heritage, all things normal and humans in general, in Maine, totalitarian, animal rights booger men say that because Maine was issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for trapping by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more Canada lynx are being caught in traps. The idiocy here is that the only thing, as it pertains to trapping, that has changed is that Maine designated 22,000 acres of public lands to protect the Canada lynx. None of the already strict trapping guidelines have changed from the Consent Decree that was signed and in affect until such time as an ITP could be obtained.

So, what has changed that might be causing a few more Canada lynx to be “incidentally” caught and released unharmed? How about the fact that when lynx were declared a “threatened” species in Maine, the lie was there were fewer than 500 of the animals. Today, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife guesstimate there are closer to 1,000 – 1,500. One with a brain might conclude that having 2 to 3 times the number of Canada lynx might play a role in a few more lynx being “incidentally” trapped and released unharmed. But let’s not let sensibility stand in the way of human hatred and animal perversion.

Mexican Wolf Hybrid: No Lessons Learned From History

Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fails to take into account any wolf history that dates prior to 1995, nor learn any lessons from the problems with wolves and wolf introduction in the Rocky Mountain States and Great Lakes Region, it is a fraudulent government entity.

I feel bad, in some ways for the Arizona fish and game department in trying to retain some kind of authority to manage all wildlife, but our fraudulent government is working to ensure this will never happen and that is why they refuse to limit the number of hybrid, semi-wild dogs they wish to pollute the landscape with. If the USFWS was an agency actually concerned with the wolf, they would be doing everything in their power to make sure that introducing hybrids into the landscape, which threatens the very existence of the Mexican wolf, never happens.

Two things, however, need to be in practice. First, USFWS personnel need to get out of their air-conditioned, padded office cells, get outside of their unchallenged comfort zones and into the real world and learn something about wolves where people have been dealing with wolves since….forever. But they don’t and they won’t. They didn’t with wolf (re)introduction in the Rockies. They fail to learn and so expecting something different is insanity.

Second, the fraudulent establishment has to actually be looking to protect the Mexican wolf subspecies, if there really is one that is real, and not ruin it with domestic dog genes. In part, to accomplish this, is to stop taking orders from the Environmentalists. Laughing here, because USFWS would be out of a job if these totalitarian socialists didn’t maintain their fraudulent status.

Neither of these two exist. The elites in Washington would never permit the USFWS to reach beyond their puppet strings.

A USFWS spokesperson said they have an obligation:

“We have met with hundreds of stakeholders representing a diversity of perspectives to ensure that our reintroduction of Mexican wolves takes their interests into account,” she said. “We deny the characterization of our meetings with our state partners as backroom deals.”

The notion of managing wildlife, which can ONLY be done with science, with social influences from communist organizations and ignorant people and groups that know nothing about anything scientific or wildlife, contributes heartily to the fraud of the USFWS. But one thing the spokesperson said that is true, but not in the way most people think, that there are no “backroom deals.” A deal implies that there were negotiations. There are no negotiations. History in this field and this fraudulent government agency, shows that they have already decided what is going to happen and there is nothing Arizona, New Mexico or anyone else can do about it.

The deck is stacked, the event is rigged and all “public participation” is a fraud based on a crooked Delphi technique of manipulation for preplanned outcomes.

Someday, maybe, but I doubt it, people will begin to understand this. Until they do….well, who won the football game last night?

Maine/USFWS Plan for Canada Lynx Incidental Take Permit

Press Release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

Agencies release revised plan, assessment for protecting Canada lynx affected by Maine trapping programs Maine to manage at least 4,785 acres for Canada lynx
August 5, 2014
Contacts:

USFWS, Meagan Racey, 413-253-8558
MDIFW, Mark Latti, 207-287-5216

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one step closer to making a decision on permitting Maine’s state-regulated trapping programs for effects to the federally protected Canada lynx. The Service and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife reviewed public comments on the necessary documents for the permit and have released revised versions for public review and comment through September 5, 2014.

The agencies previously released draft versions of MDIFW’s incidental take plan and the Service’s environmental assessment for public comment in November 2011, followed by three highly attended public information sessions. The Service received about 285 unique letters, 129 comment cards from public information sessions and 6,100 form letters commenting on issues from outreach and monitoring measures to lynx handling procedures and enforcement.

The revised plan describes measures proposed by MDIFW to minimize the effects of incidental trapping on lynx, such as increased trapper outreach, compliance monitoring by wardens and veterinary oversight, and it incorporates several new methods of trapping and new trapping regulations. MDIFW proposes to offset, or mitigate, for the effects on lynx by maintaining at least 4,785 acres of lynx habitat in the state’s Bureau of Parks and Lands Seboomook Unit in northern Maine. The agency has added the predator management and animal damage control programs as activities to be covered under the plan, but the addition has not changed the expected effect on lynx.

The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to “take”—meaning trap, capture, collect, harass, harm, wound or kill—federally threatened or endangered wildlife, such as the threatened Canada lynx. Some activities, such as trapping for common species like bobcat or fisher, have the risk of incidentally taking protected species. An incidental take permit would allow trapping through the recreational, predator management and animal damage control programs to continue as MDIFW undertakes practical measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of lynx.

Incidental take plans, known also as habitat conservation plans, identify the impacts to wildlife from a project or program; the steps the applicant will take to reduce or compensate for such impacts; what alternative actions were considered; and how conservation efforts will be funded.

To learn more and comment on the documents:

Visit the Maine Field Office website, http://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/, for questions and answers about the revised documents, species information and an archive of the draft documents.
Visit www.regulations.gov and enter docket FWS-R5-ES-2014-0020 to review comments submitted during the 2011-2012 comment period, the Service’s response to comments, and the revised plan and assessment.
Submit comments at www.regulations.gov or by hard copy to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R5-ES-2014-0020; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. Please reference the docket number for this notice.

After the comment period ends, the Service will determine whether the application meets the permit issuance requirements.

Copy of an email sent to various recipients from Mark McCollough of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has updated its draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) revised incidental take plan (ITP) for incidental trapping threatened Canada lynx. The agencies will make both available for a 30-day supplemental public comment period. They will be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 6. There will be a 30-day comment period ending September 5, 2014. No public meetings are planned.

In summary, from 1999 to 2013, 84 lynx have been reported incidentally trapped in Maine (seven were caught in killer-type traps and 77 in foothold traps). Under the revised plan, the MDIFW anticipates that up to 13 lynx per year, or 195 total, might be incidentally trapped in restraining traps (e.g., foothold, cage traps and cable restraints) following issuance of the 15-year permit. The MDIFW expects that the majority of lynx caught in these traps will be released with little to no injury. They are requesting the permit to allow for up to three lynx fatalities as the result of incidental trapping. The MDIFW does not anticipate take in killer-type traps and take of orphaned kittens. The MDIFW seeks incidental take coverage for lynx that might be trapped in fur trapping, predator management (coyote control), and animal damage control programs. The agency proposes to phase in cable restraints, a new form of trapping for Maine, rescind regulations governing the size of foothold traps, and resume use of cage traps in northern Maine. The MDIFW will conduct a number of minimization measures that include increasing trapper education; a trapper hotline; biologists responding to lynx trapping incidents; assessing, classifying, and treating injures; rehabilitating injured lynx; and a protocol to care for kittens in situations where a female is trapped and injured and must be removed from the wild for rehabilitation. To mitigate for potential lynx mortalities, the MDIFW will maintain and enhance at least 4,785 acres of lynx habitat on a 10,411-acre area in the Maine Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry, Bureau of Parks and Lands Seboomook Unit in northern Maine.

The documents are available for review today at the Federal Register Reading Room at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/08/06/2014-18548/incidental-take-plan-maine-department-of-inland-fisheries-and-wildlifes-trapping-program. The Service is releasing the revised versions of the plan and the Environmental Assessment for a 30-day supplemental public comment period. We encourage you to submit comments. Written comments may be submitted electronically by September 5, 2014, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy, via U.S. mail, to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2014–0020; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. The docket number for this notice is FWS–R5–ES–2014–0020.

Following this comment period, the Service will evaluate the revised plan and comments we receive to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We will also evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit complies with ESA section 7 by conducting an intra-Service consultation and biological opinion.

All documents associated with MDIFW’s 2008 and 2014 incidental take permit applications (including the Service’s draft Environmental Assessments) will also be posted at the Service’s Maine Field Office website Canada lynx page: http://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/Canada_lynx.html. We are also posting public comments that we received during our 2011-2012 90-day public comment period. Responses to these public comments are appended to our 2014 draft Environmental Assessment.

The Service issued the attached press release and question-and-answer documents this afternoon.

Please contact Laury Zicari, field office supervisor (207 866-3344 x111, Laury_Zicari@fws.gov), or myself (contact information below) if you have any questions. We encourage you to comment through www.regulations.gov.

Please distribute to others who may be interested in this issue.

Sincerely, Mark McCollough

Mark McCollough, Ph.D.
Endangered Species Specialist
Maine Field Office
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Canada Lynx Incidental Take Plan and Permit Application for Maine Trapping Program
Questions and Answers

USFWS Publishes Draft EIS for Mexican Wolves

I’ve not had the opportunity to read this document yet but readers should be aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mexican Wolves(DEIS).

Readers should take note of what they might expect in this DEIS. If what I discovered, due to a reader pointing out certain information, is indicative of the entire DEIS, it is a typical action in the creation of fiction, promoted by outcome-based romance biology, all for the purpose of protecting wolves and filling the countryside with nasty, disease-ridden varmints.

Beginning on Page 64, an entire section is dedicated to public safety. The USFWS uses an outdated 2002 study, takes information out of context and presents statements declaring there have been no wolf attacks on humans and further claims that accounts of historic wolf attacks and human deaths caused by wolves worldwide, is based on unreliable information and cannot be substantiated. What lying bastards!

In addition, tiny steps appear to have been taken to MENTION that wolves carry Echinococcus granulosis but then repeats themselves that it is no threat to humans.

In short, if this one section is indicative of the rest of the DEIS, which I’m inclined to believe it is, just like the FEIS(Final Environmental Impact Statement) for Northern Rocky Mountain wolves, it is criminal and the drafters of this document should be charged with fraud.What lying bastards!

Will Feds Be Successful in Defining “Significant Portion of its Range?”

“The ESA defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” But the law didn’t define what qualifies as a significant portion.

Under this new policy, “significant” indicates that one portion of the species is so important to the survival of the species as a whole that, if it were lost, the species would likely go extinct.”<<<Read More>>>

Anybody Out There?

A guest post by James Beers:

Two hours ago I sent out a short article (Public Employees and Animal Rights) about how the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) was suing USFWS and the State of Alaska for “using federal wildlife restoration grants to illegally support killing wolves and bears to increase moose and caribou hunting”. What they call “grants” at this point on their website they later refer to as “federal funds” and later yet as “federal wildlife funds” and finally as “money from taxpayers in the other 49 states” are actually none of these.

Evidently in the time it took to mow my lawn and pull a few (native?) weeds in my garden I gained a significant number of new and unhappy readers. The hate mail is surprising and indicates a nerve has been struck.

Boys and girls, sorry but “killing wolves and bears” allows “moose and caribou hunting” to both increase and endure. FYI, those dollars the U of Alaska Prof and other bleeding heart public employees have gotten the “vapors” about are NOT “grants” or “federal funds” or “federal wildlife funds” or certainly not “money from taxpayers in the other 49 states”. Those Funds are EXCISE TAXES ON ARMS AND AMMUNITON AND CERTAIN SPORTING ITEMS USED FOR HUNTING. They are collected by the federal government for the exclusive use of state fish and wildlife programs for WILDLIFE RESTORATION. BY law the funds can only be used by State wildlife agencies and the states receive their share of the annual available funding BASED ON ½ THE SIZE (SQ. MILES) OF THE STATE AND ½ ON THE NUMBER OF HUNTING LICENSES SOLD IN THE STATE. These EXCISE TAXES and this Pittman Robertson Program were instituted in 1937 by hunters to perpetuate and enhance hunting opportunity under honest and professional state wildlife programs.

Curious, those words “Wildlife Restoration”: they replaced the words “Pittman Robertson” and “Wildlife Management” in the early 1990’s when the old P-R Law was retitled by Congress. At that time only a small group of hunting advocates raised any question and they were marginalized by the USFWS bureaucrats AND the State F&W Directors AND the hunting NGO’s. Why, you might be tempted to ask? Because that was the “Dawning of the Wildlife Age of Aquarius” when everyone believed hunting, trapping, and fishing were soon to be banned and “Chickadee Check-offs”, “Birdseed Taxes” and “Outdoor Taxes” (how about that last one Madame Secretary of the Interior and former “outdoor” Co. Exec?). The name change was unopposed by the very same State Directors and hunting NGO’s that lost their voices a few short years later when those same federal bureaucrats that led them forward into their Brave New World STOLE $45 to 60 Million from those funds to do 2 things Congress had (wisely) refused to either fund or authorize – 1. Release wolves into Yellowstone Park to spread all over the Mountain West, and 2. Open a new office in California for USFWS and all those radical environmental/animal rights groups that dwell there to cozy up together like some cheap Grade-B movie characters. So all those old, but valid, objections by a few hotheads like yours truly are hereby shown to have been true. Even wildlife “scientists” (OOOH) tell the entire nation that “their tax dollars” are going to something he dislikes and should be stopped and those doing it punished.

Well Herr Doctor and all the rest of you with your panties in a wad this “ain’t” healthcare where you can mandate it and then complain about old folks getting knee replacements or stints that “YOU PAY FOR.” First, if you want to complain start buying guns and ammunition and then whine as a real contributor, and then 2. whine about why anything that perpetuates and increases Alaskan moose and caribou hunting and license sales (short of turning over Christian children to Jihadists) is not a worthy use of those Excise Taxes.

This brings up two other items. First, this PEER lawsuit has USFWS fingerprints all over it. USFWS is always modifying the regulations and with the current crop of “Public Employees” would see this suit as right up their alley as a way to kill hunting. Their moral indignation and ignorance is only exceeded by the arrogance that bleeds all over this PEER lawsuit. Yet another reason to reduce bureaucratic power and the size of the federal “work” force.

Second, yesterday I received a Waterfowl & Retriever magazine in the mail. Page 5 reports “Hunting Expanded in National Wildlife Refuge System”. The “expansion” covers 6 new programs that I suspect are six new refuges and “expansion” on 20 other Refuges of indeterminate amounts. My first reaction was that this was a ploy for Democrats in tight re-election races to brag about bringing home some “bacon”; why else would this be done at this time by the current USFWS bureaucrats?

When I turned the page I saw why. Delta Waterfowl has “sent a letter” (one is tempted to ask if it was one of those “strong letters” said to follow a strong public verbal objection?) to USFWS opposing the USFWS California/Nevada Regional Office decision to “cease migratory bird programming (that means all waterfowl hunting programs Pilgrims) in California and Nevada in order to address a backlog of permitting, research and evaluation needs related to wind and solar energy projects.” So now USFWS is an energy apologist outfit as they exempt wind propeller operations from any prosecution for killing eagles that they will still send you and me to prison for. All of the waterfowl work for which they were founded is now set aside for “permitting, research and evaluation needs related to wind and solar energy projects.”

By the way, this CA/NV Regional Office is the very same office that Congress refused to fund or authorize in the early 1990’s but for which USFWS STOLE $45 to 60 Million from the above EXCISE TAXES to open surreptitiously. Republicans, upon discovering what took place were all set to close that office but serendipity intervened when USFWS made the recently hired daughter of US Senator Ted Stevens, perhaps the most powerful Republican in the US Senate at that time, the office manager. Alas Congress was right when they said NIX to any new office in California but USFWS stole the money, did it anyway and all the “perps” went on to greater fame and glory in Earth Day Celebrations and on lists of great conservationists as their annual salaries reached dizzying heights.

So here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Ask your state fish and wildlife Director where he stands on the lawsuit to bar Alaska from using PR funds for predator control to improve moose and caribou hunting. Tell him you believe this is a very dangerous precedent to allow anti-hunting lawsuits to expand federal authority while diminishing state authority over the use of PR funds for hunting programs. Ask him what he is going to do.

2. Ask DU, PF, RMEF, and any other hunting organization you belong to the same questions as in #1.

3. Send a letter to USFWS in Washington with copies to every state and federal elected person you know, STRONGLY objecting to USFWS rejecting their Migratory Bird Management Responsibilities for which they receive Migratory Bird Funding AND then using those dollars and those employees to be little more than undeserved apologists for the wind energy industry that has consistently killed millions of birds while USFWS looked away and is now receiving exemptions to kill eagles from USFWS. USFWS has lost sight of their mission and the responsibilities for which they were created and exist.

4. If any of the worthies in #’s 1 & 2 tell you they won’t join with Alaska to defeat this lawsuit, or that it doesn’t affect waterfowl or pheasants, etc., or they just try to baffle you with BS — stop giving any money to such organizations and work for the dismissal or firing of your State Director and look to clean the state F&W house of anti-hunters regardless of any federal or state protections, preferences or powerful relatives.

Strong Letter to Follow!

Jim Beers
2 July 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

The “Naturally Migrating” GI Wolves

*Scroll for Updates*

*Editor’s Note* The following was sent to me by a reader of this website. “He” said it was alright to post what he had written providing I not include his name.

(In response to this article posted at The Republic)

After three or four years of people reporting wolf sightings and wolves killing livestock, and finally someone’s dog, the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) will leap to their feet and exclaim “FIRST WOLF PACK in 70 years.” DNA test will be taken which will show that it’s one of OR-7’s pups [from Oregon’s ‘OR-7-named wolf pack], shock will be followed by more shock as the news hits mainstream media; story after story will be told about OR-7 and his amazing trip to California and back.

There will be several articles stating that the wolves had “Naturally Migrated,” – (not just migrated) they would have to throw the “natural” part in so there was no question that the wolves had not migrated to California in pickup trucks and horse trailers. I’m sure they will have a state picked out where the wolves had “naturally” migrated from (Grant’s Pass OR). There will never be anything mentioned about wolves dispersing. By then Washington and Oregon will be old wolf history and the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) crew along with CNW (Conservation Northwest), DoW (Defenders of Wildlife), and the rest of WDFW’s (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) friends will lope off to California for a brand-new wolf story. Of course CDFW will have to start new wolf studies, since wolves that “naturally migrate” change when they cross state lines and are confirmed. The same failed wolf predation prevention tactics will be used, and CDFW will tell the people of California not to worry, wolves are good, they make the aspen grow, balance the ecosystem and beavers flourish.

Biologists from CDFW will refuse to confirm naturally migrated wolves that pop up in all four corners of the state, or where wolves are to be delisted when they hit a certain number that CDFW’s pro-wolf group pulls from the sky. Game herds will hang in towns for protection and when CDFW are questioned about the impact wolves are having on the herds, they will say “for the amount of hunters that showed up, hunting was a great success”. Livestock kills will be blamed on everything except wolves; CDFW like WDFW will tell the public that you have to eat wolf scat in order to get Hydatid disease; and there have only been two people killed by wolves in North America, the wolves are shy, gentle creatures that avoid humans.

By this time magic meatballs and SS would have been going on for several years, and the rural folks would have caught CDFW releasing wolves many times, and heard them denying it at wolf meetings every time. CDFW would have their biologists along with DoW’s flunkies on hunting sights trying to squelch any talk of CDFW releasing wolves, and coaching them to continually say the wolves migrated naturally, it was a natural migration, there won’t be a wolf mentioned by the pro-wolf crowd without first stating the wolves “naturally migrated” from some state.

Some guy taking an early morning jog will be attacked by some wolves, he will end up shooting one of them, and then being honest like he is, he will report it to the USFWS and CDFW. The story will make mainstream media with a big splash, after the investigation the story will disappear never to be heard about again. Eventually DoW, CNW, CDFW will put up a $50,000.00 reward for information leading to anyone shooting a wolf/wolves.

News Alert- California’s Solar-Q3 wolf has traveled into Nevada, it looks like she went right by Harry Reid’s solar ranch, trotted around and peed on Harry’s porch a few times and is now back in California>>>>Five years later after several reports of wolf sightings, some of Bundy’s cattle killed, and a Chinese solar inspector chewed up, NDOW comes out with First Wolf Pack in Seventy Years, DNA confirms it is one of Solar-Q3’s pups…………………..

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Program Update

2008

Until 2008, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary in Washington or Oregon. However, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, WA (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundary). Genetic testing showed these wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they apparently dispersed southward from the wolf population in southcentral British Columbia. Both adults were radio-collared and the pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. If this pack persists it will remain separated and distinct from the NRM DPS by the large expanse of unsuitable wolf habitat in eastern WA and OR.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/FINAL_2008_USFWS_Recovery_Program_Update_3-17-09.pdf

DNA samples confirm gray wolves are back in Methow Valley By Joyce Campbell
Methow Valley News
July 24, 2008

DNA tests showed that the wolves originated from a population in the northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada.
“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.”
http://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/dna-samples-confirm-gray-wolves-are-back-in-methow-valley

Is there a difference between “southcentral British Columbia” and “northern British Columbia and Alberta provinces of Canada”?

Perhaps the USFWS and WDFW should have gotten their story straight as to where they were going to say the wolves came from? I guess they couldn’t say, we hauled them in from Idaho with horse trailers, it just wouldn’t fit the narrative of: (“This is a natural colonization,” said Fitkin. “The wolves are naturally immigrating.” )

*Update* – June 13, 2014:

“DNA obtained from Lookout Pack wolves has shown they are descendents of wolves living in coastal British Columbia”, who lived separately from inland wolves for many generations, “Conservation Northwest” said in a press release. http://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/25/will-federal-delisting-impact-states-wolves/

Fish and Wildlife Projects Canned In Favor of “Green” Projects

“It appears the federal agency entrusted with protecting fish and wildlife in the U.S. has a new mission – to promote and further wind and solar energy projects on public lands, despite the cost to fish and wildlife programs.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is one of several agencies under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior (DOI). In recent years DOI has evolved into a vehicle to further the Obama administration’s push for “clean” energy, using the more than 500 million acres the Department manages to further this goal.”<<<Read More>>>

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?