August 23, 2017

RMEF: Silver Linings in Great Lakes Wolf Ruling

*Editor’s Note* – Along with the earlier posting this morning, there is little need to get excited or even optimistic about anyone’s “ability” going forward to “manage” wolves or that states will do anything differently than the Federal Government is doing now. What changes is the financial responsibility is moved from the Feds to the states. Nothing else will change as has been proven in states where wolves are no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. If you are hoping and thinking that removal of protection of wolves from the Federal Government to the State Governments is going to result in fewer “CONTROLLED” wolves and the state’s ability to manage populations of game animals for surplus harvest, as has been the modus operandi for decades under the North American Model of Wildlife Management will soon take over, you are seriously mistaken.

For what it is worth – meaning that this is but one appeals court decision and several more can make a mockery out of the fake judicial system and change these decisions with the stroke of a pen – where once, many years ago, I argued that environmentalists and the courts could not claim the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t have authority to delist a Distinct Population Segment while, at the same time, approving of the act to list a Distinct Population Segment of any species. My argument fell on deaf ears and lo and behold one appeals court sees it the correct way.

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Unlike its decision earlier in 2017 upholding efforts to delist wolves in Wyoming, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia chose not to do the same in the Western Great Lakes states.

“We are disappointed with this latest ruling, but the court wholeheartedly rejected a number of claims by environmental groups regarding wolves and wolf management,” said David Allen, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation president and CEO. “The court undid a number of roadblocks thus providing a path forward.”

Positive points from the decision:

  • Rejected an environmental group argument that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) did not use the best available science
  • The Endangered Species Act allows the FWS to delist a distinct wolf population segment
  • Supported FWS’s reliance on state management of wolves and other wildlife in the Western Great Lakes states
  • Upheld the FWS’s determination that disease and human mortality do not pose a significant threat to the wolf population
  • There is no permanent barrier to delisting wolves

“This latest ruling came six years after the FWS tried for a third time to delist wolves in the Great Lakes. We call on Congress to approve and pass a legislative fix to halt this non-stop litigation that frustrates successful wildlife management,” said Allen. “These environmental groups continue to use the wolf as a fundraising tool while overlooking and ignoring each state’s approved wildlife management plans.”

As of 2015-16, there is an estimated minimum population of 3,762 wolves in the Great Lakes states. Minnesota’s wolf population is approximately one and a half times above objective. Michigan’s wolf population is more than 200 percent above its state plan and Wisconsin’s wolf population is more than 250 percent above objective.

RMEF recognizes that predators have a proper place on the landscape but that they need to be managed just as elk, deer and other wildlife are managed in accordance with the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.

Share

Court Sides with Sportsmen on Key Issue, but Leaves Wolves Protected for Now

Press Release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance:

On Tuesday, Aug. 1, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in the Western Great Lakes wolf lawsuit appeal. The ruling is a short-term setback, but very likely a win for sportsmen in the long run.

For the immediate future, the Appellate Court’s decision leaves Endangered Species Act listing in place, upholding the lower court’s 2014 ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) erred in delisting wolves in 2011. Very importantly, however, the court laid out a road map for FWS to delist the Western Great Lakes wolves on remand and dismantled many of the dangerous and unsupported holdings in the lower court decision.

Additionally, the appellate court ruled in favor of sportsmen on the most important legal issue in the case regarding the distinct population segment (DPS) definition in the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s DPS Policy. The appellate court sided with the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and our partners that the FWS has the ability to list and, as in this case, delist a species at the distinct population segment level:

“The central dispute in this case is whether the Endangered Species Act permits the Service to carve out of an already-listed species a “distinct population segment” for the purpose of delisting that segment and withdrawing it from the Act’s aegis. We hold that the Act permits such a designation, but only when the Service first makes the proper findings.” (Op. at 15-16).

This ruling means that, if the Fish and Wildlife Service takes the right steps, they are able to delist a recovered species in some places (a distinct population) without having to delist it everywhere. This flexibility will make the ESA more efficient and possibly subject to fewer legal challenges. HSUS and their partners had argued that FWS could never delist a smaller portion of a species unless the entire species had fully recovered and could be removed from the Endangered Species Act protections. HSUS has now lost that point.

“The court’s ruling that regional delisting is legally possible is a victory for sound scientific wildlife management and further upholds DPS policy of the Endangered Species Act as an important tool for conservation moving forward,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “While we clearly would have preferred that wolves be returned to state management today, this ruling provides a path forward for the Fish and Wildlife Service on how to successfully delist wolves once and for all.

“Folks in the animal-rights community would like believe that the Endangered Species Act is a one-way ratchet. In their world, you can only put species on to the Endangered Species List based upon a distinct population segment. However, we know that this is not how the ESA is written,” continued Heusinkveld. “This distorted view of the DPS policy is simply emblematic of their view of the ESA as a whole. They view this as a means to enshrine federal protections in perpetuity, as opposed to a tool to help those in need recover and be returned to state management.”

Additionally, the appellate court dismantled many of the main arguments provided by the HSUS-led coalition and holdings of the unfavorable lower court opinion:

  • The court upheld FWS’s interpretation that the ESA’s definition of “range” refers to “current range” at the time of the listing or delisting decision that is the subject of the case, not “historic range,” as HSUS argued. HSUS’ interpretation would mean that populations may never be delisted if they could not rebound throughout their historic range. However, the court said FWS must consider large losses in historical range in evaluating the continuing viability of the species in its current range. On remand, FWS must decide the “baseline” date from which historical range loss is measured. One likely date could be 1973 – the year Congress enacted the ESA.
  • HSUS argued that FWS failed to explain why the wolf population’s combined mortality from humans and disease is not a continuing threat to the species’ existence. The court found that FWS had thoroughly examined these factors, and that the wolf population had continued to grow despite any disease or human-caused mortality.
  • HSUS attempted to characterize Minnesota as an “unregulated killing zone.” While the lower court decision had agreed, the Circuit Court disagreed and found that Minnesota’s depredation plan did not amount to an “unregulated killing zone,” as it was indeed regulated and unlikely to threaten wolves’ survival.
  • HSUS argued the lack of state regulatory plans to monitor and protect the Western Great Lake wolves outside of their core recovery areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan did not support FWS’s decision to delist those wolves. The court found that the lack of separate state plans in six nearby states was not a concern because wolves are virtually non-existent in those states, and those animals that do occasionally appear there are protected by other measures or they do not significantly contribute to the WGL population.
  • HSUS challenged the 2011 rule on genetics issues concerning whether there are one or two wolf species. The court rejected the HSUS argument that there were two separate species of wolves, and thereby additional protections were warranted.
  • HSUS argued that FWS had inappropriately responded to political pressure from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D, Minnesota) in adopting its wolf-delisting order. The court rejected that argument, stating that HSUS could point to no science “ignored, misused, or manipulated” or to any material change in FWS’ position in response to a letter from Sen. Klobuchar. In particular, the court cites that FWS had acted favorably in response to several delisting petitions (including the Sportsmen’s Alliance petition) before Sen. Klobuchar’s letter.

How We Got Here:

The case stems from a late 2014 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell that ruled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had to return wolves found in the western Great Lakes area to the protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act. At the crux of the case was the delisting of a “distinct population segment” of wolves from the Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit brought by Humane Society of the United States; Born Free, USA; Help Our Wolves Live; and Friends of Animals and Their Environment argued that despite a healthy population of wolves that had surpassed all recovery goals in the western Great Lakes region, since wolf populations haven’t recovered in all 50 states, the animals must remain under federal protection as an endangered species even where they have recovered.

“This 2014 ruling clearly ignored years of Fish and Wildlife Service policy, court rulings and plain common sense,” said Heusinkveld. “The idea that wolves can never be deemed ‘recovered’ in the Great Lakes states until they have recovered across the entire U.S. is a complete fantasy.”

Joining the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation in this case, was the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, the National Rifle Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, Upper Peninsula Bear Houndsmen Association and Michigan Hunting Dog Federation.

Share

Tough Answer to a Tough Question

by James Beers

As I continue boring through a stack of requests after a recent week in Montana, four questions from four readers are essentially the same question.  I have given much thought to an answer but I am afraid that there is no truthful answer other than the one that will disappoint the fine folks that ask the question and probably tick off many that read the answer.  Doing this to colleagues that have done and do so much is hard to do because it may either discourage them or cause them to simply give up and take up crossword puzzles in some 17th floor, urban condominium.  Nonetheless, here is the question and my answer.

Question: “What can we do to make USFWS ‘return wolf management’ to our state as happened recently in Wyoming?”

My Answer:

Dear Reader,

“Returning wolf management” to your state is the sort of thing that the saying, “Be careful what you wish for because it may come true” was referring to when first spoken.

I recently spoke with two Wyoming ranchers attending the Western Governor’s Conference in Whitefish, Montana about this very point and each was adamant that unless and until the federal authority to “List” wolves (and grizzly bears as well) under the ESA is repealed, just like Prohibition or the Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court, nothing will change in the long run.  Each rancher was fully aware that this “return of management” was simply a band aid on a serious wound to American liberties.  They fully expected that if “we” (i.e. the Trump Administration and a yet-to-emerge Congressional coalition of vertebrate politicians) don’t get rid of that federal authority, the next age class of progressive/get-along politicians will simply whisk aside all this “management” (i.e. say-so by State governments and the residents of that state about federal wildlife mandates) by state governments and take right off again from where they were on 7 November 2016, the eve of the recent Presidential election.

Allow me to take a stab about why I agree this is so.

  1. The majority of USFWS, NPS, BLM and USFS employees from the newest to the oldest will fight any attempt to repeal superior federal wildlife authority nationwide for any “species” (or “sub sp.”, or “race” or “population” or “segment???”) they believe they have and should have total authority over all wildlife in every way.  This attitude has been fostered by federal laws of the past 45 years that reinforced their belief that they are on a quasi-religious (taxpayer funded) mission to dictate the presence of wildlife, the abundance of wildlife and ALL aspects of the human/wildlife interface nationally and internationally.  They believe that the ESA, EPA, and an alphabet-soup hodgepodge of federal laws and precedents not only grant them this responsibility but also that the opinions of the elites (much like climate change/warming/cooling) and “experts” confirms their legitimacy to rule others through absolute wildlife authority and jurisdiction.

 

  1. The radical Non-Government Organizations from the NWF and DU to the extremists like DoW, NRDC, CBD, PETA, AWI, etc. are, and will remain, supported by rich elites as these NGO’s maintain all their young volunteers, their lawyers and their “connections” (i.e. money) with the federal agencies, federal politicians, Native American governments, key state politicians, certain judges in certain courts, University staffs, and foreign connections with their mirror images in the UN and EU bureaucracies.  They are lying low as I write to fight Trump clandestinely but they will rise quickly like the Phoenix when conditions are again favorable.

 

  1. Congress, no matter how many drain tiles (to “Drain the Swamp”) President Trump and his allies lay in Washington will steadily be “re-watered” by new and drainage-surviving politicians and bureaucrats.  Many cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami et al, and many states like California, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota will still send an army of progressive, urban-oriented federal politicians into Washington, DC to eradicate any rural accommodations that Trump achieves while reaffirming all of the environmental/animal rights extremism of the past four decades since they only affect those bumpkins “out there” and not (they think) the smart and rich elites living in the cities that believe they should run the country and the world.

 

  1. State wildlife agencies, with but very few exceptions, have proven in the past 20 years (from their failure to request or demand the replacement of the $45 to 60 Million documented as stolen by USFWS bureaucrats from State PR funds to release Canadian wolves into Yellowstone under President Clinton, to their shameful acquiescence in cooperating with all those mentioned in 1 through 3 above in covering up wolf incidents and damages, lying about the numbers and declines of big game due to wolves, failing to pay compensation for the majority of wolf complaints, and lying about diseases spread by wolves and the documented history of living with wolves since the time of Plato to the settlement of North America and in Asia/Europe today) that they cannot stand up to federal demands or represent their residents.  As a consequence of decades under their desks hoping for eventual federal employment, they have become wolf and grizzly lap dogs to federal bureaucrats, from taking orders from progressive  politicians and activists that they believe (naively) will supplant hunting and fishing  financing and spark a Brave New World of federal tax funding in a make-believe world run by the folks mentioned in 1 through 3 above.

I hear you wondering what all this has to do with “returning management” to the States?  Isn’t “returning management to the States the answer in the “real” political world of the “possible”?

“Actually” (to quote my 11 year-old grandson) the folks in 1 through 4 are prepared to and will do whatever it takes to keep and restore all federal power and the status quo.  As long as the ESA is the source of that power, they have all the advantages (law, regulation, court precedents, media, University “experts” and schoolteachers) on their side.

Consider, what “returning” Management – not Authority or Jurisdiction – means.  It means the federal bureaucrats and the courts will allow the states to maintain X number of wolves throughout each state.  “Management” is simply the steps necessary to accomplish pre-determined ends.  “Authority” and “Jurisdiction” are the final word in determining the ends that are a federal mandate in this case.  State “management” is simply the privilege to pay for what the folks in 1 through 4 say is the way things will be.  Think of Poland conquered by the Soviets in 1945 and then told that henceforth they are the Soviet Republic of Poland and henceforth they will do and pay for what the Politburo dictates.  Who would consider that a victory worth pursuing?

Poland didn’t celebrate until June of 1989 when Soviet tyranny was voted out in a free election and the Polish Republic was founded.  To this date, Poland has had to constantly fend off both Russian bullying and EU immigration policies that threaten Poland’s very identity.  If there was a lingering key to Soviet or Russian reclamation of  authority or jurisdiction over Poland; who doubts that the Polish Republic  would exist today?  It is exactly the same thing with this “out-of-sight-out-of-mind” ESA AUTHORITY to “save the world’s wildlife” and rural America.  As long as this ESA authority exists, wolf or grizzly to name but two, future federal politicians, judges and bureaucrats can reactivate it like Dr. Frankenstein in his lab on a stormy night.

How is this so?  Consider:

–       Two months ago I asked a lady USFWS employee on the phone if the recent “return of wolf management to the State of Wyoming” meant that “they could kill all the wolves in Wyoming?”  Since I had identified myself as a Minnesotan, I guess she was thinking of me as some sort of fellow traveler and/or lover of “the ecosystem”.  Her lowered voice told me to talk to my friends and write letters to USFWS about our “concerns” and they will try to do something when they can.

–       All of the “Return” agreements mention a base number of wolves, BUT you can’t count wolves so how does that work?  The State agency may have counts or trends or estimates or WAG’s but what happens when Dr. Love the predator “expert” for Wolf/Grizzly International appears before Senator Snodgrass’ Committee on the Environment and refutes that above “data” and pontificates on “alpha males”, pup and cub mortality, climate change, ticks, disease, poaching and a certain questionable attitude by certain state employees about the value of predators?  Who could leave “management” in the hands of such barbarians?

–       State agencies will have to begin (due to lawsuit fears) picking up the tab (from where?) for more:

  1. Babysitting, trapping and transplanting of wolves.
  2. Compensation for damages by wolves.
  3. Investigations of wolf carcasses, poaching, etc.
  4. Explaining wolf impacts on game animals.
  5. Investigating and follow-up on human attacks.
  6. Resolving and preventing dog deaths.
  7. Researching Disease, Infections and Parasite threats from wolves.
  8. Answering lawsuits and other challenges to any “management”.
  9. More diversion of license money and Excise Taxes for training, meetings, lawyers, administrative support, vehicles, fuel, office space, storage, retirement costs, health insurance, planning, etc. for wolves.

–       Speaking of license money, there is a certain euphoria in the air from all the Montana, Idaho and Wyoming residents buying a wolf tag, just as there is a similar whispering about “Delisting” (another MacGuffin intended to divert your attention with no real consequence) Grizzly Bears resulting in a few high cost licenses eventually – the implication being to fleece the rich, another socialist/communist policy favorite.  Wolves are not only hard to hunt, they learn quicker than a Jack Russel Terrier in Obedience School.  As all those license buyers are learning  this and understanding how few can be shot.  This will result in wolf license money becoming a minor factor, just as a few rich cats killing a few of those “sacred” grizzly bears will provide better media fodder to kill such hunts and hunting than that Minnesota Dentist that shot that Lion with a name in Zimbabwe recently.

–       Methods of taking wolves, much less grizzlies, will have to be non-lethal and cause them to put on weight to avoid lawsuits.  Trapping?  Definitely not.  Poisons?  Are you kidding?  Denning (i.e. killing pups)?  Yeah right.  Aerial shooting as Alaska and Russians know is the only effective and affordable means with a chance of real results?  Nope.  Gun calibers, bullet materials, etc. will be set so high that new guns and non-available ammunition will be the norm.  Federal land (USFS, BLM, USFWS, et al) requirements (they are landowners don’t you know) will further restrict all of these things and probably many we haven’t even thought about yet.

–       Speaking of aerial shooting to “manage” wolf numbers and distributions; 100 years ago men formed posses and rode down and killed the last wolves in Counties much like Irish and English landowners came up with wolfhounds – not for sport but to kill the last wolves in Ireland and thereby end the scourge, death and destruction wrought by wolves.  None of these are conceivable today in the Lower 48 states.  Private property and federal ownerships require Permission to fly over and shoot into, or to ride posses through or to run killer dogs in.  The federal estate behemoth and the private property owners with wolves will, for a multitude of reasons make any of that all but impossible.  I have written for years that County Wolf Boards in Counties desiring wolf control are the answer like County Weed Boards authorized to control wolves in various ways and any property owner (including federal properties In The County either allow access for wolf control, accomplish County-directed wolf control, or the County bills the landowner and places a lien or sues to pay for County-financed wolf control.  But, this requires delegated State Authority and a state with merely “management” delegation from federal authority cannot delegate that which it does not first possess.

If you still think “management return” is worth pursuing I will mention one last factor.  If you live in rural Minnesota you will always have the Twin Cities/Duluth political dominance (like Illinois has with Chicago) to contend with about wolves.  Rural Wisconsin has the same issue with Madison and Milwaukee.  Similarly rural Oregon has the same issue with Portland/Eugene that rural Washington has with Seattle.  Why allow them and all their compatriots in 1 through 4 above to utilize lawsuits and blackmail revolving around  withdrawing wolf management they so magnanimously granted.  You have to fight them anyway so level the field as best you can, for you will have no federal backers when push comes to shove.  Eliminate the federal tool just like Poland eliminated Soviet hegemony and tyranny  when the chance presented itself.

Now folks smarter than me might recommend achievable incremental change over time but I say that if Poland had followed that advice Pope John Paul, Reagan, and Thatcher would have died and the Bushes, Clinton, Obama and the current Pope would come and go and Poland would still evoke our pity and “tsk, tsks” as they were brought up at Brie parties on the Chicago North Shore (or maybe we would be speaking and reading Russian today?)

We need to push for real reform in federal law while this period of real change is underway.  Say and think what you will about President Trump, his voters have created a tumultuous atmosphere in Washington where momentum might favor achieving what everyone says is impossible.  If the folks in 1 through 4 above ever get back in power, we must make it so that they have to try and reauthorize this travesty in a law passed by the Congress and signed by the President that does what millions of rural Americans KNOW should never be re-instituted.  We could defeat that after what we now know is afoot.

When we ask for and get “management” returned to states we only quiet things down while real change is possible, thereby make a quick return to the status quo and where it has been leading us inevitable when Washington is again a problem.  Additionally, if we get “management” returns; how many rural Americans will believe that is the best we can do and then go into hibernation and let this reform of the law opportunity pass us by only to waken us with a bang when those in 1 through 4 re-seize federal power.

Those folks in 1 through 4 represent ideologies and a future that should be repugnant to all Americans but it is mainly rural Americans up until now that they are harming openly (the diversion of tax dollars and foregone work diverted to their peccadilloes are topics for future articles).  Their habits and notions cannot be “reformed”; we must defeat their programs by repealing them.

“Returning Management to the State” is merely a placebo we take to fool ourselves into believing we have taken something real.  Anything short of eliminating this Constitutional insult at this time is a real defeat and anyone telling you different should be listened to at your (and our) own peril.

Jim Beers

11 July2017

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Idaho Draft Wolf Plan

It’s been nearly 30 years since wolves were illegally and maliciously released into the woods of the Northern Rocky Mountains including Central Idaho. Evidently, in that 30 years, Idaho wolf managers have learned nothing and will likely continue with the proliferation of mostly uncontrolled numbers of wolves believing they can offer “recreational opportunities” and magically mitigate any problems with livestock depredations.

Idaho has reached a benchmark time in which, after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) illegally forced wolves onto Idaho against their wills, they are basically finishing up turning over the cost of that management to the citizens of Idaho. They must devise a plan satisfactory to the USFWS. Even though the USFWS has set minimum numbers of wolves the state must maintain – or else the fascist government will place wolves back on the Endangered Species Act list – Idaho appears to have no plan but to not only keep the 800-850 wolves (wink, wink) but to continue to grow the numbers.

Below is an outline of the draft for a new wolf management plan. I have been told that not included in this draft plan is a set number of wolves in which the department intends to target as a maximum number. As was pointed out, how can an honest plan be legitimate without specific target goals?

The person sending this email has suggested that all residents contact their fish and game commissioner and tell them what they expect.

IdahoWolfPlan

 

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Are We Good Stewards of Our Environment?

During a radio interview with my friends at Shake, Rattle and Troll, I was asked a few questions, some of which I don’t think I answered succinctly or expressed myself to the specifics of what was on my mind at the time of the interview. It is one of the difficulties one might face when doing radio interviews, live and without foreknowledge of what questions would be asked. Any problems that might have happened were not the fault of anyone at Shake, Rattle and Troll.

One specific question I was asked, I would like to clear up any misconceptions and better explain my answer. I was asked if I thought that in this country man has been a good steward of our environment. I answered yes, which might have caught some off guard. Not to make excuses but my mind was focused on wolves…after all, my book about wolves was what I was asked to talk about and answer questions.

I did answer the question as it might pertain to whether or not man has been a good steward concerning our attempts to sustain populations of wildlife. Over all, I think we have. There are exceptions, as always, and what is never honestly considered in such discussions is how much natural occurrences contribute to loss of wildlife. The finger is always and quickly pointed to the evils of man.

We are only kidding ourselves to think it’s an easy task to find some kind of equilibrium of happiness and satisfaction between consumptive users of our natural resources and the environmentalists who want nothing touched.

I stated that I believe people want clean water and clean air but that I didn’t think they knew how to achieve that. I didn’t have time to further explain. It’s easy to talk about having clean water and clean air, but what are those? Who gets to define clean air and clean water and by what standards do they go by. Leaving it up to governments is a huge mistake, however, too many trust their government. Yikes!

We may all be convinced that we have clean water, land and air, but in many cases we have been lied to. We talk about “clean” drinking water only to find out it may be clean by someone’s standards while the water is laced with harmful chemicals. But, we don’t talk about that. We see pretty parks and pretty flowers and plants and to our uneducated eye, it must all be clean. We briefly look to the sky and if we see haze, we are conditioned to believe it is pollution and yet if we see chemical trails from aerosol spraying, we are told it is condensation even though the trail lingers for the duration of the day and into the night.

We want clean air and clean water but we are not getting it. We are told of the strides we have made to “scrub” our smoke stacks and clean up exhaust emissions, while at the same time corporate America is given a free pass and Americans foot the bill.

I could go on and on. If I were to answer the question posed in a more general fashion, then I would have to say that man has not been good stewards of our environment because those who take charge of that mission are lying, stealing, cheating thieves. If a problem surfaces it’s blamed on “man,” that is the common man, i.e. you and I. And we are forced to pay because we are citizen slaves to a corporate constitution that says we will pay all the debt….period.

A second question I was asked was about whether I thought wolf (re)introduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Desert Southwest and the Southeast were good things. I answered no and further stated that it was a criminal enterprise. If we had had the entire day on the radio we could have discussed this issue and would still have only scratched the surface. That’s why you should by my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?”

Beyond the criminal enterprise, what makes the (re)introduction bad can be assessed in two simple observations. 1.) The opportunity for citizens to hunt for game and food has been seriously reduced in many places, due to wolves tearing hell out of the elk, deer and moose herds. This should be unacceptable. 2.) The unnecessary loss of livestock (private property) and a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Yehwah’s given right not man’s). It is a testimony to the direction this country has gone that shows that any animal should be given priority over the well-being of man.

Another point I wished I had the time to discuss was the section in my book all about how the process of devising the Environmental Impact Statement was rooted in fraud and ignorance. Every item listed for consideration in the drafting of the EIS that was of concern to the people and property was blatantly disregarded. As a matter of fact, officials who wrote the EIS came right out and said it was only considering those things that positively benefited the wolf or placed the wolf in a positive light. In other words, man did not matter.

One blatant example of this can be seen when it was asked of the Government’s wolf officials, if they intended to vaccinate the wolf to prevent the spread of disease (to humans), etc. the answer went directly to their point: They would do everything necessary to protect the wolf from any harm or illness.

Since the drafting of the EIS, every item disregarded because the Government said it was not worthy of consideration, are the only issues that remain unsolved and pose the biggest challenges to the public’s health and safety and the protection of game herds.

The last thing I wanted to better explain had to do with my comments about the perverse nature Americans have been manipulated into when it comes to animals. It was agreed upon by those conducting the interview, and myself, that it is a serious problem in this country when people place any animal, wild or domestic, on a plain of existence equal to or greater than man. I tried to explain that doing such was in contradiction to the Scriptures and our Creators intention for the role that animals would play in consideration of His creation of Man.

I went so far as to state that these actions were an abomination to the Creator. And it is. It is because playing gOD and attempting to change His order of Existence is making a mockery of Yehwah and His work. That is an abomination. Abominations directed at Yehwah will never go unpunished.

If your basic belief system is not focused on the Scriptures and the Creation of the Almighty, I would not expect you to agree with or even understand this position.

But now you better understand mine.

Share

Dear Montana Wolf Hunter: Do You Have a Strong Emotional Bond With Wolves?

Think about this one…if you are at all capable. It appears the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department sent out a wolf management survey to some of the residents. What’s not clear to me is exactly who the survey was mailed to. I wonder because the letter (shown below) that accompanied the survey, is addressed this way: “Dear Resident Wolf Hunter.” If the survey was only sent to Montana resident wolf hunters, then the question needs to be asked why did the survey include Questions 12 and 25? (Shown below)

Question 12 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think “the rights of wolves” are more important than the interests of humans. Doesn’t that tell us a lot of where the perspective on wildlife and animals is and where it is going? I need to ask, why you would ask a Montana Resident Wolf Hunter, whose goal, I am to assume, is to kill a wolf….or five, would be interested in “the rights of wolves” or other socially retarded, emotional, clap-trap, insane issues as wolf rights and emotional bonds, among others?

But it gets worse. Question 25 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think wolves should have the same rights as people, hunting is disrespectful to animals, have a “strong emotional bond,” and the list is nauseating to read. Only a mentally ill quack would think up such questions.

Yesterday in a radio interview I talked of how our society has become so perverse toward animals, placing them at an existence level higher than man, that it was an abomination unto Yehwah.

The idea that any managers of wildlife would ask such insane and perverse questions says a lot about the status of our mentally deranged society and drives home the reality that hunting, trapping and fishing are rapidly headed toward its end. Don’t kid yourself. There is no hope.

In my opinion, this survey was either sent to a random sampling of Montana residents, disguised as a survey for Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, whose objective is to be able to publish results of this survey that contain mostly or all non hunting residents to manipulate public opinion. Or, they are sending this survey only to Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, and as a reflection of the positions, policies and values of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, are attempting to continue the brainwashing of as many hunters as they can to effect the gradual, perverse changes that they intend for all the rest of us.

Psalm 36: Wickedness saith to the wicked man,even in mine heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, while his iniquity is found worthy to be hated.

The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to understand and to do good.

He imagineth mischief upon his bed: he setteth himself upon a way, that is not good, and doth not abhor evil.

Thy mercy, O Lord, reacheth unto the heavens, and thy faithfulness unto the clouds.

Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains: thy judgments are like a great deep: thou Lord, dost save man and beast.

How excellent is thy mercy, O God! therefore the children of men trust under the shadow of thy wings.

They shall be satisfied with the fatness of thine house, and thou shalt give them drink out of the river of thy pleasures.

For with thee is the well of life, and in thy light shall we see light.

10 Extend thy loving-kindness unto them that know thee, and thy righteousness unto them that are upright in heart.

11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked men move me.

12 There they are fallen that work iniquity: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise.

Share

Wolves Don’t Change Rivers

“Yes, you heard that right. The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 have not restored the landscape. They have not brought back the aspens and willows. They have not brought back the beavers or the songbirds. And no, the rivers have not changed, either.

Then why does “How Wolves Change Rivers” (HWCR) claim otherwise? Because the creators of the four-minute long viral video (now approaching 20 million hits just via YouTube) “are adherents to romance biology,” according to former USFWS biologist Jim Beers. Plus, the whole notion of Yellowstone as wilderness is “inherently racist,” argues wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Kay. I spoke with both Jim Beers and Dr. Kay in preparing this article. Dr. Kay was especially put out by the video’s claims.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

“Genetic Evidence” Suggests Nothing – Man Does All the Suggesting and it’s Always Biased

Maine media sources seem to have some kind of attraction right now with the hybrid wild canine inhabiting the Maine woods. They like to call it a hybrid, I suppose because in their minds, lacking any real scientific knowledge of anything, a wild canine sounds more authentic or maybe even worthy of man’s affections and protections. Would the event be worthy if it involved a mutt or a mongrel?

Technically, it’s really nothing but a cross breed of dog – canine. It’s also a travesty that did not need to happen, could be mitigated, but won’t be due to perverse and ignorant notions about animals.

An article that ran in the Portland Press Herald recently rightfully stated that the “coyotes” that are found in Maine, are not native. This is true. They are an invasive dog that has a mixture of genetics; some breed of wolf, some breed of coyotes, some breeds of wild dogs and some breeds of domestic dogs. In short they are a nasty nuisance. However nobody wants to discuss the realities of the disease-carrying creature, a creature that is a threat to so many things, including a threat to the actual species of wolves and coyotes. Some claim they are protecting every living canine, wild, semi-wild or domestic by letting them grow out of control. They know not what they do.

But I’ve written about this so much that the ends of my fingers are worn to stubs.

What I intended to point out is what is written in this article. The author shares comments from a leading researcher of coyote DNA at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. The researcher explains how he thinks the “hybrid” canines got to Maine and much of the East Coast. He is quoted as saying, “Genetic evidence suggests it happened when the wolf population in the Great Lakes was at its lowest point when they were heavily persecuted. So basically some wolf female came into heat and couldn’t find a wolf so bred with the next best thing: a coyote.”

Genetic evidence doesn’t suggest anything. Genetic evidence tells us what the DNA composition is of the wild canines found in the East. How they arrived there is the suggestion of people like this researcher.

If you were to take the time and approach the above statement without bias, fed to us by ignorant media echo chambers, one can quickly see how this researcher approaches his research and forms his “evidence suggests” statements.

He says when the Great Lakes wolf population was at its lowest point (he doesn’t tell us when that was or how that lowest point compares to any other time period, but is very quick to simply state “when they were heavily persecuted”) a female wolf came into heat and the nearest solution happened to be a Western coyote.

Consider the obvious. If the population of wolves in the Great Lakes was at its lowest, unless there is proof that the reduction was something other than an equal reduction of both male and female wolves, the idea that there wasn’t enough male wolves to go around to breed all the females that came into heat, is dishonest at the very best.

As any honest person who knows a lick about dogs, wild or domestic, when any bitch comes into heat, any male dog within nose shot is hot on the track. No dog looks over his possible mating partner to determine whether it is wild or domestic and of what “species” or “breed” it might be. It doesn’t work that way. It really wouldn’t matter whether wolves in the Great Lakes were at the “lowest point” or highest point, if a female wolf comes into heat whoever gets there first gets first dibs.

It appears that the researcher is very quick to blame the cross-breeding on the “heavily persecuted” reduction of wolves. Are we correct to assume that the researcher sees that wolf persecution as being that of man?

What he fails to point out, and probably never will because it may be uncomfortable to speak of as it might pertain to his narrative of wild canine protection, is to ask or point out why the “WESTERN” coyotes had taken up residence or where simply passing through the Great Lakes, as seems to be the conclusion a reader might make.

Even in the writings of Teddy Roosevelt as he traveled the West, hunting and recording his observations of wildlife, he noted that the wild canines he encountered essentially remained separated geographically because, comparatively, there weren’t that many of them. It is believed that all dogs, wild and domestic of today, originated from one species of dog. The rest are more or less mutations and more cross breeding by man, i.e. hybridizing.

When any wild canine species’ or subspecies’ population gets too large – in other words when things get crowded and the habitat will not support more coyotes – they disperse. The dispersing coyotes are generally the males. During this dispersal, they seek territory and a mate. If during that dispersal, the male catches wind of any canine in heat, action begins. So, what happens when man practices to protect every wild canine that exists? Simple, there is more dispersal, driving coyotes and wolves further and further from their points of origin, forcing more and more cross breeding. And we end up with more and more mongrels.

If, as the researcher points out, “some wolf female came into heat” and “bred with a coyote,” the other side of the coin that perhaps the researcher does not want to examine, is that it happened because of too many coyotes. That fact is what caused the dispersal of the coyote to cross paths with the female wolf. It is also possible that a female coyote got bred with a male wolf. This most often occurs with crossing over of territories between wolves and coyotes.

If it is the intention of people to protect the wolf (that is the genetically distinct wolf) then the worse thing that we can do is to insist on protecting those wolves in human-settled landscapes where those wolves have just about a zero percent chance of ever maintaining its genetic makeup. As I pointed out, when any female canine comes into heat, any male canine would be happy to solve the problem. Genetics are ruined. It’s all senseless.

As this phenomenon continues, perpetuated by man’s insistence that wolves and coyotes of any breed or mixture be forced onto the landscapes also occupied by man, there will and is nothing left by a mongrel wild or semi-wild dog spreading disease, killing our pets and livestock and destroying the ecosystems that man has spent hundreds of million dollars to be what might benefit the most of us.

So, please! The next time you read that someone said, “genetics suggest,” just remember that genetics is a science that can only tell a scientist what is the DNA makeup of any living object. That makeup doesn’t “suggest” anything. Only a man can suggest things and in this case, one man is suggesting how a coyote in the West became a mixed breed of wild canine in Maine by breeding with a female wolf in the Great Lakes region that was part of a diminished wolf population due to “persecution.” He might “suggest” that event but could never prove that’s what happened.

Share

Isle Royale’s Reversal of Global Warming

If we listen to those who assume the high ground and are the only bearers of “Best Available Science” we are told that moose are struggling to survive in several places across the country and it’s all, directly or indirectly, being caused by global warming.

We learn that the wolf population on Isle Royale has, for all intent and purposes, killed itself off for various reasons. Because the wolves are gone, the moose population is “undergoing a population explosion.”

But don’t think for a moment it is exploding because there’s only two wolves left alive. No, no! It must be that somehow, the two remaining wolves have “magically,” as their magic has no bounds, reversed the effects of global warming and thus are growing more moose to kill and eat. According to the same “High-Grounders” because there are now more moose, the result of the wolves’ magic, more magic will take place in that wolves will rebound because there is more food. Seeing all those moose causes their reproductive organs to go bonkers. Let’s hope the wolves aren’t too busy moving rivers to save the birds. And even though disease and inbreeding killed the wolves, we know the moose have no diseases and there are no “weak and sickly” ones left because the moose magically took care of that.

Maybe it’s time that we look very closely at these magical moose such that Al Gore can spread them across the entire planet to spare us all from the devastation of global warming. Maybe they will even magically kill the sickly and weak among the people. Think of the money we could save.

Share