October 14, 2019

Lies by Wildlife Experts Repeated by Ignorant Media

The Christian Science Monitor has an article about the 19 elk that were slaughtered by wolves at a feeding ground near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It is full of lies and ignorant repetitions, all void of any sort of journalistic effort to find truth…as they claim is their “responsibility.” (Note: Odd isn’t it that when someone tries to shut the Media up, they scream First Amendment, citing their responsibility to seek out the truth and report it to the people. And yet, they seldom practice anything that resembles the reporting of truth. All they are interested in is protecting their free political platform disguised as The Press.)

Here’s a breakdown of some of the things written in that article:

First, was this: “If you like wolves, you call it surplus killing,” said US Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rockies wolf coordinator Mike Jimenez to the Jackson Hole Daily. “If you don’t like wolves, you call it sport hunting.”

This just simply is not true. I am more inclined that the reason Jimenez opted to recite such nonsense is to perpetuate the divide and hatred between people in what most see as a wolf love/hate relationship. The existence of the false paradigm that people either hate wolves or loves wolves, is one of the reasons nothing constructive can be done, especially with dialogue to resolve negative wolf issues. But isn’t that just the way it is intended to be?

It matters not whether you like wolves, hate wolves, worship wolves or want to kill all wolves, wolves often kill far more prey than they ever intend to eat. For anyone to send up a huge distraction such as giving the event two names and pinning those names on one side of those who “like” wolves and those that “don’t like” wolves, is not only irresponsible but indicates a bent toward other sinister objectives.

Second, we read: “Wolves leaving such a large killing uneaten in a single night is unusual..” No, leaving a large kill scene without eating it is common and is an integral part of the existence, instincts and survival of wolves. It’s what they do. It is more than dishonest to attempt to cover up this reality and is irresponsible to print it in the Media in order to mislead or propagandize the masses.

Third, we observe this contradiction: “Mr. Jimenez said the spring snows may have weakened the elk herd, or perhaps the wolves were hungry at the end of winter and simply didn’t stop.”

If the wolves were “hungry” because it was the “end of winter” then that would be reason to understand that the wolves would have eaten their prey. They didn’t. They only killed! Get it? This is a typical tactic used as a way of convincing the public that the wolves did nothing wrong. Always protect the wolf. Always put down the man.

Fourth: “Since wolves usually kill only what they need to eat, the unusual hunt has spurred debate about wolf management.” 

This is yet another attempt to substantiate the criminal action of protecting a large predator that takes and threatens private property as well as the safety of the people. Wolves don’t “usually” only eat what they kill. That is established scientific evidence. They are opportunistic killers. Then when the Media echos the B.S. calling the wolf hunt “unusual,” followed by the lie that this “unusual hunt” is what spurs on debate about wolf management, we see the effort to protect the wolf. What spurs on debate about wolf management is corruption that existed at the time the wolves were illegally introduced into the Greater Yellowstone region, using money stolen from the excise taxes collected from outdoor sportsmen who thought that money was going to be used to enhance game, habit and opportunities, not on programs designed to end it all.

What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the continued lying, cheating and stealing that goes on with the Federal Government and their NGO partners in crime.

What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the endless onslaught of lawsuits that steals money from taxpayers and exposes the corrupt judicial system that crawls in bed with the environmentalists to carry out their large predator protection programs for the purpose of destroying private property rights and the right of people to grow food, be happy and eke out a living.

There are far, far bigger things that spur on wolf management debate than wanton, wasteful, mass-killing of prey by wolves. Surplus killing by wolves is no more unusual than the amount of disease that they spread and the cross-breeding with coyotes, domestic dogs and other hybrid canine animals.

Fifth, is this misleading statement: “Ranchers are gradually accepting that the wolves are there to stay…”

This is propaganda at its most obvious. If the media repeats this often enough, people actually begin to believe it to be truth. They want to believe. That’s what they have been programmed to want.

Are ranchers really accepting the wolf? I’ve not seen that. As a matter of fact, I see just the opposite. I see more and more ranchers organizing to fight against the protection and perpetuation of the destructive wolf – a creature that is a huge threat to the livestock industry. I see them demanding of their Congressional representatives to do something about controlling the numbers of large predators. I see them calling B.S. on the fake “compensation” programs that the public has been lied to about. Ranchers are NOT willing to accept the wolf and go away defeated by a bunch of perverted animal lovers, so ignorant they can’t recognize that they are destroying themselves.

During the process that led up to the illegal introduction of wolves, Ed Bangs, the government puppet who undertook the sales job of convincing the people wolves would be good and were necessary, said that the future of the wolves depended on the social acceptance of the nasty animal. If that is true, then why have the environmentalists done everything in their power to ensure and perpetuate a great divide between the wolf worshipers and everybody else?

When wolves, or any large predator, moves in and destroys livestock, there’s little good that can be said about the assailants. Nothing being done to stop the attacks (don’t be fooled to think that any stock grower is equitably compensated for any losses) is not a formula that will foment good public relations with the wolf.

The short of it is that for the environmentalist, it is never enough. If there were 100,000 wolves in the Lower 48, that wouldn’t be enough. If every livestock item was destroyed by wolves, that wouldn’t be enough. The bastards lied to us right from the beginning…and that includes the government liars. There was never any intention to stop protecting wolves when they reached 300. There is no intention to ever stop growing wolves, as there is never enough for them. Man must go. Wolves must grow. Wolves are one tool that destroys American heritage.

Share

The Cover-Up of Wolves and What They DO!

By James Beers

Please note the picture below.  It is a late-March of 2016 picture from Wyoming and you will probably never see it again nor even hear of it.  You see:

–       Wolves don’t do such things.

–       Elk, like Minnesota moose, are disappearing due to global warming and ticks and definitely not wolf predation.

–       It is a Myth (like the time Kermit the Frog yelled, “it’s a Myth, Myth” and Miss Piggy comes on stage saying, “Yeth, Yeth”) that wolves eradicate game animals and hunting.

–       Protecting livestock like sheep and cattle from wolves means simply exerting a Little Effort like 24/27 shepherds and guard dogs and electric fences and fladry and noise makers and taste aversion and tank traps (I just made that one up) –none of which work more than temporarily.

–       Wolves are good for “the ecosystem” (which is whatever you want to make of “it” from the ecosystem in your yard to the North American Continent).

–       Wolves are wonderful to hear howling, it is a sign of “wilderness”.  (Please note, everywhere wolves now occur in the Lower 48 States, coyotes were or are present.  Coyotes once howled and yipped in the evenings but in the presence of wolves they quickly learn to remain silent because when wolves hear them they zero in on them and kill them at every opportunity.)

All of the above are lies believed by an urban general public that: A.) Does not live with nor is not affected by wolves, B.) Feels guilty about European settlement of North America or the presence of plants and animals not present here before 1492 when Columbus set foot on a Caribbean beach, or C.) Desires to eliminate all human use or ownership of animals from hunting and animal husbandry to animal control and the right to bear arms.

Organizations that raise millions from such folks will do whatever they must to keep reporting of and especially such pictures of wolf carnage from being published or circulated.

Federal politicians that passed the unjust laws that began the wolf introductions and protections do not want such publicity to unmask the perfidy of what they have done.

Current federal politicians that ignore this issue and refuse to give any more than lip service (tsk, tsk, etc.) to solving what their predecessors wrought do not want such publicity about their ongoing cowardly betrayal of rural Americans.

Federal bureaucrats utilizing the wolf carnage and the un-Constitutional laws that give them powers superior to states and the Constitution simply lie, shrug and blame others like a professional boxer jokingly “sparring” with amateurs.  The increased power and salary and retirement this gives them; makes them ruthless in suppressing photos and reporting about such carnage.

State bureaucrats, likewise bob and weave with a “me-too” alibi that mimics their federal “partners” malarkey about “wolves never”, “wolves always”, “global warming”, phony “counts”, etc.  Like the drivers of the “getaway car” they are complicit up to their ears in the whole scam for their own benefit camouflaged as “ecosystem beneficence”.

The media (TV News, Newspapers, Documentaries, Magazines, etc.) have all bought in to the kindly wolf myths for reasons as diverse as; “it sells”, “we get money to do so”, “our staffs are all urban ideologues”, “our political ideology/Party supports this for votes”, to “our teachers filled our heads with so much mush in school that we are incapable of seeing the truth of the matter.”

A few facts you won’t hear elsewhere:

–       Wolves frequently kill wintering deer or elk in large numbers without eating them just like a pack of domestic dogs that get loose will kill chickens or sheep they encounter for what we mistakenly call “fun” but is in reality the same thing Indians did when they drove buffalo over cliffs in numbers far exceeding what they could or ever eat or otherwise utilize.

–       A couple of years ago on the Wyoming/Idaho border a wolf pack killed a hundred and some sheep for “fun” one dark night.

–       Wolves have destroyed Minnesota moose hunting by depleting Minnesota moose.

–       Wolves have all but destroyed the once 20,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd just as they are doing to moose, elk and deer in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and will do in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Texas if the federal government forces them into those states.

–       It is not at all uncommon that wolves hamstring (tear the tendons in the rear legs thus causing the animal to collapse helplessly) pregnant elk, moose, cows, ewes, does, etc. with developed fetuses and then immediately while the adult female lives to begin tearing out the anal area to make a big enough hole to pull out and devour the fetus and then leave the cow, doe, ewe, etc. to die a horrible, lingering and painful (for all you animal rights/wolf advocates) death.

–       As big game goes in the West, so goes ranching and rural communities.

–       Wolves are spreading down through Illinois and Indiana and Missouri to infest Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee from which they are expected to “hook up with” (to coin a modern expression) government wolves and coyotes and dogs (making puppies along the way) in the Carolinas and in Oklahoma and Texas rolling Eastward from New Mexico.

The same things are happening in Europe.  As Europeans do their minuets with Islamic terrorists, wolves are all over now for the first time in a few hundred years and they are increasing in numbers and densities.  Formerly efficient use of suburban/rural forage by sheep and shepherds has been and is being violently and terminally (?) ended as wolf predation, mostly unarmed shepherds, and insane wolf protections combines to kill thousands of sheep annually and put many shepherds “on the dole”.  Rural life is, as in US “wolf country”, less profitable and more dangerous for unarmed citizens, children and the elderly.  When the Lufthansa pilot flew his airplane into the Alps, one of the policemen guarding the site for several days opined, “Our biggest worry was ALL THE WOLVES scavenging the site and consuming human body parts!”  Ask yourself; where else have you heard or will you hear any of this?

Jim Beers

25 March 2016

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. 

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

18DeadElk

Share

Beware of the Big Bad Wolf

From the year 1800 until present there have been at least 36 fatal attacks by wolves in North America. Two of these fatalities occurred in this century.

Source: Beware of the Big Bad Wolf – Jackson Hole News&Guide: Cowboy Common Sense

Share

Senate Panel Backs Bill to End ESA Protection of Wolves in 4 States, and Prohibit Court Interference

A Senate committee has approved a Republican amendment to strip federal protection from gray wolves in three Great Lakes states and Wyoming. The measure also prohibits courts from intervening in those states on behalf of the embattled predator.

Source: Senate panel backs bill to drop wolf protections in 4 states, including Michigan

FingerinDyke

Share

Chronic Wasting Disease vaccine fails elk test | WyoFile

*Editor’s Note* – Take notice in this article that the Sierra Club says this reinforces their belief that there needs to be more wolves because they would kill off the sick elk. Yessiree Mistah! The brains of a slug.

The state wildlife veterinarian told Wyoming Game and Fish commissioners that a vaccine to fight Chronic Wasting Disease appears to have failed in a test among live elk.

Dr. Mary Wood cautioned that her findings are preliminary, that they haven’t been peer-reviewed or published, and that there is a hiccup in the study. Nevertheless, she said the live tests revealed a statistically significant difference showing the vaccine to be ineffective.

Source: Chronic Wasting Disease vaccine fails elk test | WyoFile

Share

GRAY WOLF DAMAGE AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN WYOMING

Wolf Damage and Conflict Management in Wyoming

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

There are many positive ecological, ethical and aesthetic benefits associated with maintaining healthy wolf populations in native ecosystems (Weiss et al. 2007). Unfortunately, there are also circumstances when wolves can come in conflict with human interests. In Wyoming, these conflicts may include predation on livestock and pets and threats to human health and safety associated with habituated wolves. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of alternatives for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) program involvement in wolf conflict management in Wyoming.

In 1994, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperators reintroduced gray wolves (Canis lupus) as a Nonessential Experimental (XN) Population (50 CFR 17.84 (i)) in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and Central Idaho (59 FR 60252)1 . The Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) wolf population grew steadily and expanded in number and distribution. The population recovery criterion of ? 10 breeding pairs2 per state (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming) for at least 3 consecutive years was reached by 2002, and has been exceeded every year thereafter (USFWS et al. 2010). The current NRM wolf population is at least 1,691 wolves in 320 packs, and 78 breeding pairs (USFWS et al. 2015); in addition, packs have been confirmed in eastern Washington and Oregon. WS, the USFWS and cooperating federal, state and tribal partners have worked collaboratively on research and monitoring of the wolf population and on wolf conflict management. These efforts have included radio-collaring and monitoring more than 1,200 wolves in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve wolf conflicts.

The WGFD and USFWS have requested that WS continue its role as an agent of the State for managing wolf conflicts (WGFC 2011, USFWS 2014). Any WS wolf conflict management actions would be subject to USFWS and WGFD decisions and authorizations (Letter to R. Krischke, WS, from M. Jimenez, USFWS, Wyoming Wolf Recovery Project Leader, October 22, 2014; contract with WGFD 2012) and applicable federal, state local and tribal laws and regulations and court rulings. WS wolf conflict management assistance could be provided on private or public property when: 1) authorized or approved by the USFWS and/or WGFD as appropriate, 2) resource owners/managers request assistance to alleviate wolf conflicts, 3) wolf conflict or threats are verified, and 4) agreements or work plans have been completed specifying the details of the conflict management actions to be conducted. Depending upon the regulatory status of wolves and applicable management plans and regulations, the types of verified wolf conflicts that could be addressed include: 1) depredation/injury of domestic animals, 2) harassment/threats to domestic animals, 3) property damage, and 4) injury and/or potential threats to human safety (e.g., habituated/bold wolves)1,.

Three alternatives for WS involvement in wolf conflict management are analyzed in this EA, including the Current Program Alternative (the No Action/Proposed Alternative) which continues the current adaptive wolf conflict management program, with nonlethal methods preferred before lethal actions are taken3 (WS Directives 2.101, 2.105). This alternative includes limits on wolf conflict management effective while wolves are federally protected under the ESA and managed under the special 10j rules (e.g., 1994, 2005 and 2008 10j rules) under which the nonessential experimental (XN) populations were reintroduced [50 CFR 17.84 (i)4 ], and authorizations from the USFWS or WGFD (Letter to R. Krischke, WS, from M. Jimenez, USFWS, Wyoming Wolf Recovery Project Leader, March 1, 2009; Letter to R. Krischke, WS, from B. Nesvik, Chief Wildlife Division, WGFD October 4, 2011). Under this alternative, WS would use and/or recommend the full range of legal, practical and effective nonlethal and lethal methods for preventing or reducing wolf conflicts while minimizing any potentially harmful effects of conflict management on humans, wolves, other species and the environment. This Alternative would serve as the environmental base line against which the potential impacts of the other Alternatives are compared (CEQ 1981).

Under a second alternative, WS would only use and provide advice on nonlethal methods for wolf conflict management. Under the third alternative considered, WS would not be involved in wolf conflict management in Wyoming. The limitations on WS actions under these two alternatives would not prevent the USFWS or WGFD, as appropriate, or property owners from using lethal methods in accordance with applicable federal, state and tribal laws, policies and plans.

The analysis evaluates the ability of each of the management alternatives to meet the established management objectives including the efficacy of the alternatives in reducing conflicts with wolves in Wyoming. Issues considered in detail for each alternative include: 1) impacts on the wolf population, 2) Effects on public and pet health and safety, 3) animal welfare and humaneness concerns, 4) impacts to stakeholders including aesthetic impacts, 5) impacts on non-target species including threatened and endangered species.

1 This rule established regulations allowing management of wolves by government agencies and the public to minimize conflicts with livestock. The USFWS authorized WS to investigate reported wolf predation on livestock and to implement corrective measures, including nonlethal and lethal actions, to reduce further predation. 2 A breeding pair is defined as a pack containing > one adult male > one adult female and two or more pups on December 31. 3 Nonlethal methods are generally implemented by the resource owner and usually WS is called after nonlethal methods have failed to stop the damage.

<<<Read Full Assessment>>>

Share

UW BSL-3 laboratory re-design underway

*Editor’s Note* – This lab will be able to study Brucellosis, which is carried and transmitted by wolves.

After more than three years of stagnation, the University of Wyoming’s BSL-3 laboratory is being re-designed and on its way toward completion.

Source: UW BSL-3 laboratory re-design underway – Laramie Boomerang: Local News

Share

Grizzly bears, wolves killing cattle in western Wyoming

JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) — It hasn’t taken long for grizzly bears and wolves to start taking a toll on livestock this summer in the Upper Green River drainage in western

Source: Grizzly bears, wolves killing cattle in western Wyoming

Share

Hunters blame wolves for elk herd changes 

Big game hunting outfitters who take clients afield in northern Jackson Hole each fall say they see no silver bullet to reversing a long-term decline in the migratory portion of the Jackson Elk Herd.

Source: Hunters blame wolves for elk herd changes – Jackson Hole News&Guide: Environmental

Share

Hunters blame wolves for elk herd changes

Big game hunting outfitters who take clients afield in northern Jackson Hole each fall say they see no silver bullet to reversing a long-term decline in the migratory portion of the Jackson Elk Herd.

Source: Hunters blame wolves for elk herd changes – Jackson Hole News&Guide: Environmental

Share