October 26, 2020

Making Stuff Up, Shifts the Wildlife Management Paradigm

The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR), formerly known as the Wellington House, is, to put it bluntly so all can understand, a brainwashing institution whose sole purpose is: “…to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” I’m quite certain the majority of readers do not want to believe this and that’s alright. It doesn’t really matter one way or the other what you think about all this. TIHR does believe this and they are going about their business while we dither blindly.

A few years back, I wrote a piece all about the Wellington House, now the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. If interested in learning some of how and why the world has gotten to the point that everything is upside-down and makes little sense, click on the link above and have a good read. I will make a note at this juncture that most all of the information that I wrote about back then is factually true. Some aspects of the piece, I have since gained much knowledge about and would change. However, the concept and the lists of organizations that are readily contributing to the altering of the way you think (or lack thereof) and act, are accurate.

Carl Pope, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, once said, “…environmentalism is part of a broader progressive movement.” The Broader Progressive Movement has many agendas, one of which, goes along with the Tavistock’s stated mission: “…to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” It is no real secret that this movement intends to “gain new understanding and knowledge” (a stated goal of the Left’s Second Nature and the Aspen Institute) and to “shift the paradigm” as to how wildlife management is discussed and perceived. If you don’t understand what all of this means, it’s easy. They intend to “gain new understanding and knowledge,” i.e. make stuff up, and “shift the paradigm,” or force the lies down all of our throats.

To accomplish this, enough people must be duped into believing what they are being told. I often refer to these followers as useful idiots and/or “True Believers.” This task becomes easier the more dumbed down a society becomes; those incapable of independent and critical thinking.

Eric Hoffer, author of “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements,” writes: “All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach, and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and single hearted allegiance.

“All movements however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherence from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of minds. At first they come gently. With power they speak and act boldly.”

A close examination of exactly what Hoffer is describing is enough to blow the minds of the sane and rational, i.e. those with a brain left to think and to see.

If Environmentalism, which goes hand in hand with Animal Rights, is only a part of a broader promotion of the Progressive Movement, then it is only logical to conclude that things like wolf introduction, predator protection, balance of nature, Climate Change, and wildlife management in general are part of that movement in which “new understanding and knowledge” (lies) and a “paradigm shift” (forcing it down our throats) are all a part of the bigger movement.

Why is it necessary to make stuff up and then force everyone to see things differently? Does “truth” then become nothing more than one’s ideological narrative, because that, they have been convinced, is the “new knowledge and understanding?”

This illness is prevalent in everything…I mean EVERYTHING. Climate Change, as sold to the masses of True Believers, is an unprovable theory, and yet those claiming to be scientists, and have paid for a college degree that gives them the right to say so, practice their profession based on an unprovable theory.

Decades have been spent fine tuning the North American Model of Wildlife Management, and the Broader Progressive Movement is intent on destroying it; or in their own words, to promote their “new knowledge and understanding,” regardless of whether it is fact or fiction, and then force all others to accept their new religion.

State fish and wildlife departments are now 100% rife with Environmentalism. Most of what they do, to the few of us remaining, makes no sense as they muddle through confounded acts of what they believe to be science/biology that are strangled by Climate Change.

These departments are controlled by the non scientific strings of Environmentalism now disguised as “social demands.”

I could spend the day giving example after example of how, through the deliberate act of “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America,” Environmentalism, a broader progressive movement, but if you can’t see it and won’t see it, then you are, more than likely, a blind True Believer: one who has at first, “come gently” but now, “speak and act boldly.”

As part of this movement, you have been brainwashed. It began a long time ago, and you cannot see it. That’s all part of the program. I wonder if you are “ready to die” with “a proclivity for united action?”

This is a real pandemic…eventually it will get us all.

Share

Wyoming: Wolf Free Zone and Game Populations Disappearing

Below are some interesting charts, graphs, and data about wolves and the effects they are having on Wyoming’s big game populations of moose, elk, and deer. The data comes from the Wyoming Game and Fish.

Somehow, throughout the criminal activities of Government and rogue non governmental groups to illegally force gray wolves onto the landscape of the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Greater Yellowstone Region, Wyoming was able, through legal channels, to designate the majority of the geographic region of the state as “Wolf Free.” This designation means that in these zones wolves can essentially be killed at any time by any means and without a license.

The data that is compiled comes from those areas where controlling of wolves as a predator, is strictly regulated by state and federal governments. These zones where wolves are protected, at least to some degree, regardless of the lies being perpetuated by government agencies, non government agencies, and the media, are experiencing devastating losses to moose, elk, and deer. The insanity persists that people be forced to live in scarcity to protect a large predator that has no good purpose in people-settled lanscapes.

The lies within the rigged Beast System continue…unchecked.

Share

Trump Administration Improves the Implementing Regulations of the Endangered Species Act

Species recovery the ultimate goal

August 12, 2019

Contact(s):

Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov


Washington – In its more than 45-year history, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has catalyzed countless conservation partnerships that have helped recover some of America’s most treasured animals and plants from the bald eagle to the American alligator. Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt unveiled improvements to the implementing regulations of the ESA designed to increase transparency and effectiveness and bring the administration of the Act into the 21st century.

“The best way to uphold the Endangered Species Act is to do everything we can to ensure it remains effective in achieving its ultimate goal—recovery of our rarest species. The Act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation,” said Secretary Bernhardt. “An effectively administered Act ensures more resources can go where they will do the most good: on-the-ground conservation.”

“The revisions finalized with this rulemaking fit squarely within the President’s mandate of easing the regulatory burden on the American public, without sacrificing our species’ protection and recovery goals,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “These changes were subject to a robust, transparent public process, during which we received significant public input that helped us finalize these rules.”

The changes finalized today by Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service apply to ESA sections 4 and 7. Section 4, among other things, deals with adding species to or removing species from the Act’s protections and designating critical habitat; section 7 covers consultations with other federal agencies.

The ESA directs that determinations to add or remove a species from the lists of threatened or endangered species be based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information, and these will remain the only criteria on which listing determinations will be based. The regulations retain language stating, “The Secretary shall make a [listing] determination solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information regarding a species’ status.”

The revisions to the regulations clarify that the standards for delisting and reclassification of a species consider the same five statutory factors as the listing of a species in the first place. This requirement ensures that all species proposed for delisting or reclassification receive the same careful analysis to determine whether or not they meet the statutory definitions of a threatened or endangered species as is done for determining whether to add a species to the list.

While this administration recognizes the value of critical habitat as a conservation tool, in some cases, designation of critical habitat is not prudent. Revisions to the regulations identify a non-exhaustive list of such circumstances, but this will continue to be rare exceptions.

When designating critical habitat, the regulations reinstate the requirement that areas where threatened or endangered species are present at the time of listing be evaluated first before unoccupied areas are considered. This reduces the potential for additional regulatory burden that results from a designation when species are not present in an area. In addition, the regulations impose a heightened standard for unoccupied areas to be designated as critical habitat. On top of the existing standard that the designated unoccupied habitat is essential to the conservation of the species, it must also, at the time of designation, contain one or more of the physical or biological features essential to the species’ conservation.

To ensure federal government actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service under section 7 of the Act. The revisions to the implementing regulations clarify the interagency consultation process and make it more efficient and consistent.

The revisions codify alternative consultation mechanisms that may provide greater efficiency for how ESA consultations are conducted. They also establish a deadline for informal consultations to provide greater certainty for federal agencies and applicants of timely decisions, without compromising conservation of ESA-listed species.

Revisions to the definitions of “destruction or adverse modification,” “effects of the action” and “environmental baseline” further improve the consultation process by providing clarity and consistency.

In addition to the final joint regulations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a separate revision rescinding its “blanket rule” under section 4(d) of the ESA. The rule had automatically given threatened species the same protections as endangered species unless otherwise specified.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has never employed such a blanket rule, so the new regulations bring the two agencies into alignment. The change impacts only future threatened species’ listings or reclassifications from endangered to threatened status and does not apply to species already listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will craft species-specific 4(d) rules for each future threatened species determination as deemed necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species, as has been common practice for many species listed as threatened in recent years.

From comments received during the public comment period in making these regulatory changes, concerns were raised regarding the lack of transparency in making listing decisions and the economic impact associated with determinations. Public transparency is critical in all government decision making, and the preamble to the regulation clarifies that the ESA does not prohibit agencies from collecting data that determine this cost and making that information available, as long as doing so does not influence the listing determination.

The final regulations submitted to the Federal Register can be found here: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/regulation-revisions.html

Share

Grizzly Bears, The Courts, The Government, The RIGGED SYSTEM

Reinstatement of ESA Listing for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Compliance With Court Order

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that had the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Thus, this final rule is required to reflect the change effected by that order to the GYE grizzly bear population’s status on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. DATES: This action is effective July 31, 2019. However, the court order had legal effect immediately upon being filed on September 24, 2018.<<<Read More>>>

Share

FINALLY Conclusive Evidence Backing Environmentalism

Share

The Wolf Farce Delisting Continues After Extension of Comment Period

Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), recently published a proposal to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and we announced the opening of a 60-day public comment period on the proposed action, ending May 14, 2019. We then extended the comment period by 60 days, ending July, 15, 2019, to allow all interested parties additional time to comment on the proposed rule. We now announce a public information open house and public hearing on our proposed rule. We also notify the public of the availability of the final peer review report containing the individual peer reviews of our proposal and information on the peer review process.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Destroying a Species Makes Little Sense

But then again, little that is done in this insane, post normal society makes sense; a well-intended and fantastically designed intervention.

H.L. Mencken, a long-ago journalist and editor of the Chicago Daily Tribune, is often credited with caustic quotes he made over the years and some he didn’t make.

One of his most quoted passages, I have read, is actually a paraphrasing of a longer piece he wrote nearly 100 years ago. Today’s quote goes like this: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

In his same piece, addressing what he called “near-illiterates,” he also wrote about the publics’ choices in what they read, what they understand, and the politicians they opt to blindly follow: “The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.”

These acerbic descriptions of the general public can be applied to any topic of interest in the world today – Climate Change, wildlife management, animals in general, name any politician, politics, media, etc.

The planned design of the ignorant True Believer of today consists of mostly non thinking, contradictory, and emotional people incapable of the realization that they are actively seeking their own destructions most often by wrecking what’s around them for what they have been indoctrinated into believing is a bigger and better cause.

A quick example of this might be pointed out when examining wind power. “Near Illiterates,” cleverly manipulated, have been blinded to the fact that in order to erect windmills more of the environment is destroyed in order to “save the planet.,” i.e. to destroy more of the environment than the proposed solution can salvage.

We can also see the same thing when it comes to Wildlife Management. As part of the “Environmental Movement,” which saw its foundation in the 1970s, it was determined that the American Society needed to “change the way we talked about wildlife management.” What this actually meant was that it became the agenda of Environmentalism to systematically destroy the existing tried and true model of wildlife management and replace it with something far more destructive. In order to be able to successfully carry this out, Environmentalism had to falsely promote another narrative rooted in dogma contrary to what was a highly successful and working model of management.

Environmentalism recognized the emotional power and destruction that exists within a society, spoon fed perverse nonsense about animals, their rights, and the need to protect all animals at any cost. The idea that game animals are considered a renewable resource, has been auspiciously deleted from “the way we talk about wildlife management.” As such, large predators have conveniently become a tool of destruction, not only among a designed society of emotionalists and “near-illiterates,” but the annihilation/extirpation of a species, and perhaps at an even greater demise in a complete makeover of the “ecosystems” so many have come to believe in.

Which history of the existence of flora and fauna that “near-illiterates” choose to accept, matters little in the grand scheme of things. If one wants to believe that wolves (or any and all large predators) existed in abundance and their habitats encompassed the entire North American Continent, doesn’t take into consideration that things have drastically changed that have brought us to the present time where it is impossible for both man and predator beasts to coexist in close proximity.

Whether we like it or not, the population growth of people has swallowed up a good chunk of habitat that once was home to these animals. Environmentalists somehow want to create a model of wildlife management that excludes the existence of man. I’m not sure how that is possible unless there exist deliberate plans to seriously reduce the population of mankind.

It appears our post-normal society, the “near-illiterates,” have an answer to this problem; that we should force large predators onto the landscape and to hell with the result.

Not only are we witnessing the return of the conflicts between man and beast that caused the drastic reduction in populations of large predators when settlers moved West, another unplanned catastrophe is upon the landscape.

Attempting to force large predators, including wolves, onto man-settled landscapes, not only causes public safety conflicts, livestock destruction, and the potential for the spread of unwanted diseases to man and livestock, it is a formula for the destruction of the wolf/coyote species.

Wolves, coyotes, your pet dog, jackals, hyenas, etc. are capable of interbreeding and delivering a viable offspring – meaning an offspring capable of reproducing. The wild animals are intended to exist in the wild. Wild is not in everyones’ backyard. When wild canines are forced to expand, through over-protection, this pressures the animals onto man-settled landscapes, which, in return, causes myriad conflicts.

The “near-illiterates” are failing to comprehend that this forced existence is destroying the “pure” wolf/coyote. When wild canines interbreed with domestic canines, the hybrid outcome becomes a different animal with characteristics, both physical and behavioral, that not only changes the animal into a breed that should be not wanted in the wild, but along with this change, the resulting “Trophic Cascade” has the potential to change the entire make-up of an ecosystem.

The question then becomes do we protect the real wolf and the real coyote or do we simply protect a population of wild dogs? With several countries around the globe faced with finding ways to destroy the thousands of feral dogs, in time, the United States can expect to do the same unless something better isn’t done to protect these large predators in a more feasible and responsible way.

Large predators, like the wolf and coyote, belong in the wilderness where they can be wild canines. Forcing, through over-protection, the hybridization of these animals is much like destroying the environment to erect windmills thought to be the answer to save the environment.

It has become quite clear that the goal here is not the protection of a “pure” wolf or a “pure” coyote, but rather several other sinister agendas at work. First, would be the planned perverse love-affair our society has for any animal…well, only the ones they choose that fits their lifestyle. Second, is the planned hatred that has been constructed against hunting and trapping – events that control our animal populations. Third, is the programmed destruction of rural life, i.e. ranching, which includes the elimination of a valuable and needed food source that comes from ranching. This is part of the plan to rid the planet of useless eaters, or in this case “near-illiterates,” in order to save and protect the resources for the Global Power Structure.

On the surface, some can only see the nonsense about how too many wild dogs and too many tame dogs are going to cause a destruction of a species. Few can see the bigger picture. Ignorant, True Believers, under the guise of predator protection, are carrying out the plans for their own destruction and they cannot see it.

They can’t even see their promotion of predators is actually destroying them. How do you fix that?

Share

“Fishy” Wolves?

The TRAVEL section of today’s Sunday newspaper’s feature article is about a recent tourist’s visit to Chernobyl.  This site of the 1986 explosion of a Soviet nuclear reactor encompasses a 1,000 square mile “Exclusion” Zone around the ghost town of Pripyat, Ukraine.

Three items concerning Canids in the article caught my eye.

1.    A photograph looking down at an angle from 20 to 30’ away of a canid walking toward the photographer on a snowy woodland trail showed what I took to be a +/- 60 lb. wolf at first glance.  The sharp protruding muzzle, the brownish-gray to light gray pelage, the long legs and the very alert attention forward were all offset by a bushy tail curled around 360 degrees much like a chow or Norwegian elkhound.  The caption read, “One of the estimated 300 stray dogs in Chernobyl that are descendants of pets left behind by the evacuees.”

2.    Mid-article contained the following paragraph:

“As we passed through various checkpoints and entered the Exclusion Zone, some students were nervous. Then they met a pack of Chernobyl puppies, mainly descendants of dogs left behind by evacuees, and their anxiousness about radioactivity subsided.  Many of the estimated 300 stray dogs are tagged and tracked by scientists.  At night, outside our hotel, packs of dogs yelped and howled.”

3.    The paragraph mentioned under #2 concluded with:

“About 2/3’s of the Exclusion Zone is a wildlife reserve, populated by increasing numbers of wolves, foxes, lynx, wild pigs, deer and moose.”

The article offers no clue as to whether the “Chernobyl” stray dogs were fenced off with a wolf-crossing proof fence from the “wildlife reserve, populated by increasing numbers of wolves” or if the dogs and wolves are separated merely by the dogs occupying the ghost town ruins of abandoned Soviet living areas and the wolves frequenting the long-uninhabited areas where “wild pigs, deer and moose” are “increasing”.

This question comes to mind as one wonders about just what is a wolf or a dog, not only In Chernobyl but, in the US and Europe where “increasing” wolf populations are coexisting with dogs in settled landscapes.  The answer to that question is not only arguable, it is something that should have been clearly defined before the European Union and United States government ever began spreading and protecting wolves through very strict laws and enforcement. 

European wolves are not only hybridizing with and being hybridized by dogs and “stray” (wolf/dog?) “dogs”: they are hybridizing with and being hybridized by golden jackals.  All three – wolves, dogs and jackals – interbreed and can produce viable, i.e. fertile offspring.

In the USA, wolves are hybridizing with and being hybridized by not only dogs but with coyotes as well.  Like their European cousins, all three – wolves, dogs and coyotes – interbreed and can produce viable, i.e. fertile offspring.

At what point does a “wolf” become a hybrid or a dog or a coyote or a jackal?  Unless this is established in a clearly definable and understandable (to those that read and are expected to comply with laws and regulations) way; how does a shepherd protecting his flock, or a rifleman hunting unprotected vermin, or a policeman shooting a “dog” threatening children in a park, know if he has killed a protected wolf, an unprotected predator like a coyote or a rogue dog?

There is an even more earth-shattering implication at work here.  If, as appears likely, Chernobyl “stray dogs” have significant wolf DNA, and the Chernobyl “increasing wolves” have significant dog DNA: does anyone ask the question of just what are we “saving” or “doing” making all this government fuss over wolves? 

1.    We spend millions forcing wolves on rural people that do not want them.

2.    We ignore the losses to shepherds and livestock producers.

3.    We deny the negative impacts to big game populations.

4.    We hide human attacks by wolves as much as possible.

5.    We ignore the losses of domestic dogs to wolves.

6.    We tolerate a cottage industry of wolf-apologetics’ “science” financed by government.

7.    We deny and ignore over 2,000 years of reports and writings about the dangers and destruction of wolves in settled landscapes that have caused generation after generation of humans, where possible, to take every possible means to periodically reduce or exterminate wolves at great expense and bother.

WHY are we protecting and spreading wolves?  We are told new and Draconian laws are necessary to be enforced at great expense and harm to rural people because:

A.   Wolves are a “Native Species” and “belong on the land”.

If this is so, is a hybrid (wolf/dog/jackal) a “Native Species”?  Were hybrids present 100, 1,000 or 10,000 years ago?  Is a hybrid making a living killing Irish Moose 5,000 years ago appropriate “on the land” in 2019?  What does this sacred (the correct word) hybrid look like, big/small, loner/pack animal, strong/crafty/fast/sly/rodent-eater/migrant/sedentary: Why does any Canid (wolf, dog, jackal, coyote or dingo) “belong on the land” other than at the sufferance and magnanimity of those living with them?

B.   Wolves complete or “balance” something called a “Native Ecosystem”.

If “wolves belong” somewhere to perform some valuable service: does a hybrid behave the same or “serve” the “ecosystem” in the same way?  Those Chernobyl “dogs” certainly behave differently than the “wolves” and one does not need an advanced degree in Ecology to grasp the fact that a country or Nation full of “wolves” would be a very different place (human safety-wise, livestock-wise, and economically) than one awash in “stray dogs”.  The desire for and the perception of settled human landscapes as “Native Ecosystem” petri dishes for Native Species is an imaginary human construct held as some sort of a religious (the correct word) construct by a hodgepodge of urban voters, environmental organizations and bureaucrats with an assortment of hidden agendas from fund raising to career enhancement and political incumbency.  The only thing they have in common is the fact that they, unlike rural residents forced to live with wolves, are unaffected by their self-serving weapon of choice, i.e. the villain in all those cautionary tales from Norse Mythology and Aesop’s Fables to Grimm’s Fairy Tales and Peter and the Wolf.

C.   Wolves are “Endangered”.

Wolves have been, and continue to be, ubiquitous throughout the Northern Hemisphere (i.e. the land mass from the North Pole to the Equator) as far back and beyond as any written records of man have been found.  Anyone claiming they are in short supply, much less on the precipice of extinctions is either a liar or ignorant.  In the 1970’s when the US and the UN experienced a wave of hysterical claims about the end of the world being just around the corner for species after species much like climate change claims as I write, there was an explosion of laws, regulations, Treaties and bureaucracy addressing, among other things, Endangered Species.  We were told that while certain species were decreasing in numbers, numbers alone were not to be the sole criterion for experts telling us which were to benefit from the full force of all the new laws and bureaucracy being formed to “save” (fill-in-the-blank).  Certain populations and segments of some Species would have to be listed because their rarity might presage their extinction and then their DNA (which may hold the cure for cancer or some other secret of the Universe) might then be lost forever to humankind.  All of which takes us back to Chernobyl and the question, “what is a wolf?”  Does 60% wolf DNA constitute a wolf?  Does 35% jackal DNA and 25% Dog DNA constitute a wolf?  Why does any of this matter if wolves are everywhere they ever were?  Why are “we” (i.e. government, radical organizations and “experts”) causing this chaos in rural precincts?

You know and I know who is doing this and why.  It must be undone the same way it was done and that is politically.  Just as wildlife authority and jurisdiction was elevated from US States to Washington and the UN halls of their HQ in New York and similar authority and jurisdiction was elevated from European Countries to EU HQ in Brussels and the UN; so must it be returned to rural governments and rural people under the protection of their own country.

It seems we have only three options to regain robust and people-friendly settled landscapes:

1.    Repeal existing laws and Treaties that establish these elevated and remote points of wildlife authority so easily controlled and manipulated by politically powerful interests for their own hidden agendas.

2.    Amend existing laws and Treaties that allow for vast bureaucracies to control, based on “science” they pay for, untethered government force over wildlife for their own agendas.

3.    Through Legislation or Referendum return the authority and jurisdiction over wildlife back to State (or Nation as in Europe) authorities who then make it optional for lesser State of National governments to delegate the optional authority and jurisdiction over wildlife into the hands of governmental sub-units (US Counties/European Nation States or such jurisdiction) to manage the fish and wildlife in their Local “ecosystem”.  A Locally-Elected official in each such sub-unit could submit an annual fish and wildlife management scheme to the Nation or State by a certain date based on the desires of the Local community to be enforced and managed by the State or Nation.  States or Nations simply maintain their law enforcers and specialists and the County or European State annual plan reflects the will of those residents living, voting and paying taxes in that locale.  If the residents simply want to leave it to the State or Nation, they simply do not submit their annual plan for that year on the required date at which time the state or Nation simply does what it thinks best.  The costs to the Local community should be nil as the concerned residents simply give the elected official what they want for next year.  Any uncooperative elected official simply faces the voter’s wrath in the next election.  It is not rocket science and it is certainly better than what we have today.

You then determine “what” a wolf is, how they will be managed and then you create the sort of ecosystem that you and your neighbors want to live in.  Not only is there nothing wrong with this, it is the system that all men deserve and strive for where they raise their families and live their lives!

Jim Beers

28 April 2019

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

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Wake Up Colorado Wake Up! The Wolf Be Coming If’n Ya All Don’t Wake Up!

Colorado’s population is 5.76 million.
Approximately 575,000{of which 86,000 are non residents} hunters hunt large and small game in Colorado..
Colorado in 2017 totaled 33,800 ranches and farms..
The Population of Denver, roughly 700,000
So if the state does a pole or vote on wolf introduction….
Democrats control the three vital centers of state political power—the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate, a political trifecta…
Oh you better wake up there in Colorado..
Wolves be coming to Colorado..
But go ahead and keep pissing in the wind…

Idaho has been a political trifecta since Idaho got slammed with wolves..

Wake up Colorado Wake Up….

Excuse me while I go giggle at the hysteria of the willfully ignorant playing their parts in a politically controlled charade…

Share

Night, Night Hunters

I have just read an article on one of my favorite outdoor sites, Sporting Classics Daily.  The article was titled, “Conservation Funding and Firearms” by Craig Springer, External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region.

I first read this article when I was in high school (over 60 years ago) when I was memorizing articles by Robert Ruark, and every item and its cost in the Herter’s Catalog.  Today, it has been perverted into propaganda meant to seduce any awareness in hunters, state wildlife agencies and hunter’s organizations about what is happening to hunting and this once-proud program, the Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax on Arms and Ammunition.  Whether you think this article to be a simple oversight, ignorance, a bid for a bonus or a bona fide deception: I leave to you.

While the article was true those many years ago and properly whetted a young man’s imagination and energy toward hunting, shooting and possibly a job one day: today the article is a stale clip of a bygone era and a glimpse of how it is being used by that herd called “The Swamp” with their Hidden Agendas running amok.  It details all the money collected and disbursed to State wildlife programs (the only beneficiaries, supposedly, of the funds) by law.  It chirps about putting “gas in a biologist’s truck” and “bobwhite quail traps in Oklahoma” giving the impression that the increased funding does as much or more than it did for Dad or Grandpa – nothing could be farther from the truth.  The funding source itself, the use of the funds and the goals of the modern wildlife bureaucrats, both state and federal, being paid by the Excise Tax dollars are such today that a good case could be made that hunters and Rural America would be better off without the program entirely.  Other than serving as one more good reason (of many) why the 2ndAmendment must be protected and preserved; the wildlife benefits to hunters and Rural America are, to quote Ross Perot describing the loss of jobs to NAFTA, “a giant sucking sound” off in the distance.

Let me describe some of the ways this once great program has been savaged and distorted:

1.    In the early 1990’s, Congress refused a Request from US Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize and fund the capture of Canadian wolves to release in the Rocky Mountains.  When Congress refused, USFWS clandestinely “took” (stole is a better word) $45 to 60 Million from the funds and released wolves into Yellowstone National Park (from which they spread in every direction).  Leftover funds were used to open a USFWS Office in California that Congress had also refused to fund; and to give bonuses to USFWS managers involved in the illicit funding uses.  When a GAO Audit revealed the misuse of the funds to a US House of Representatives Committee, after a flurry of activity ala Lois Lerner et al, the responsible USFWS managers went on to be Directors and high-paid Executives of environmental lobby groups.  The state wildlife agency Directors that along with you, me and the state wildlife programs never asked for the money to be replaced.  I suggest that not only was this a visible flame 20 years ago of the advanced degree of corruption corroding the state/federal/radical groups “Complex” to use Ike’s term: it was a clear signal to others like ATF in Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner in IRS, and the FBI/Federal Intelligence network in the past three years to, “do what you want, nobody gets in trouble anymore”.

2.    The program has been diverted into a quasi-preservation effort of government force on behalf of animal communities that while not in any trouble should get as much attention as game animals according to New Age wildlife “professionals”.  Think of it as a sort of socialism for critters wherein Excise tax (and license revenue) is forcibly taken from the management of those animals that “have” and given to those animals that “have not”, somewhat like a progressive tax scheme that will ostensibly make everyone “equal”.  To say that game animals and hunting have not suffered greatly in this “Robin Hood-like redirection of the Excise taxes generated by Arms and Ammunition Sales” is simply an ideological rejection of truth and facts. This was made possible by some federal/state wordsmithing of regulations almost 30 years ago that no one, not even the NRA saw fit to oppose.  Words like “game” were simply transformed to “wildlife” which in a legal sense covers a multitude of sins.  When I read Mr. Springer’s piece I looked to see how he would handle or avoid this fact.  At the end of his long list (first written 60 years ago) about mule deer, bobwhite, et al; the last phrase was, and “habitats restored benefiting multitudes of organisms”.  Yo, anyone awake out there?

3.    The Excise Tax funding and the License Revenue have been increasingly diverted in almost half the states and growing in recent years into Lawsuits, depredation Complaints, propagandizing incidences, denying the reason moose and elk (and their hunting) are disappearing, teaching kids prevarications about predators and generally concocting nonsense for public consumption like, “the wolf that attacked the young man had a ‘deformed brain’” and “the moose season is closed forever because of climate change” (as though moose failed to adapt to eating coconuts and mangoes) because of forcibly imposed federal wolves laughingly called “Endangered” or “Threatened”.  This all costs millions of Excise Tax and License Revenue dollars that are purposely under-reported by unaudited state and federal agencies.  My estimate of the under-reporting (as a former National Wildlife Refuge Operations Chief, Program Coordinator, Program Analysts and wildlife biologist) is that the state and federal agencies only report 25-30% of the costs and thereby minimize any signs of hunters and Rural Americans waking up to what is going on like Rip Van Winkle.

4.    The current scam to further drain Excise Tax funding and dwindling hunting License Revenue is for the federal government to “Return Wolf Management” to the States.  This is a comedy skit in more ways than one.  Forcing wolves back into states where they were purposely and at great expense exterminated over a century ago and calling it “Returning Management” is reminiscent of the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.  In other words it takes a certain amount of chutzpah.  States will now be expected to “Maintain Wolves”; answer depredation calls; pay (?) compensation; explain why game is disappearing without using the words “predator” or “wolf”; tell dog owners to keep their dogs in or on a leash or expect a wolf to kill or (in certain cases) to mate with them; fight lawsuits; and pay for pre-determined research to explain why neither they nor the wolves are responsible for the ensuing chaos and safety concerns of Rural Americans from hunters to hikers, campers, birdwatchers, kids at school bus stops and older ladies walking to rural mailboxes or outbuildings.  This means MORE Excise Tax Revenue and MORE of the dwindling (for reasons of human safety and disappearing game) Hunting License Revenue diverted not only away from game but to expand an agenda meant to do away with game, guns, hunting, ranching and a vibrant Rural America.

5.    How many of these USFWS do-gooders are explaining that more gun controls and ammunition quotas will seriously defund state wildlife programs?  Where are the state wildlife agencies and their political overlords spreading the same truths?  Where have you seen any explanation of what all this diversion of funds is doing?  Or what wolf management or non-game handouts are taking from hunting and game?  What is the alternative after most game hunting Revenue is gone?  When gun and ammunition purchase, importation and use is all but obliterated.  Will we just close down the state agencies and simply have a federal wildlife authority funded from General revenue?  For what purpose?  Will states just start paying for the “biologist” and His/Her “truck and gas”?  Why would anyone spend anything on deer or ducks or grouse? Why would anyone spend money on frogs or snakes?  Where would any money come from year after year after year?  When the wolf kills the dog or the grizzly bear kills the camper who does what in an unarmed Rural America?  How?  Who is responsible?  Who has the answer?

This could be longer but my fingers are getting tired.  I just opened my window onto a fine spring day to hear the reporters working on the Excise Tax/Hunting License Revenue issue; the future of state and federal wildlife programs; and the role of predators in our brave new world. I listened for the Hunting, Dog and Livestock organizations fighting gun and ammunition controls, wolves and federal grizzlies.  I cupped my hands over my ears to hear the bureaucrats speaking out for the 2nd Amendment and what needs to be done about dwindling game animal populations.  I leaned out to hear the state and federal politicians fighting for hunters, ranchers, dog owners and Rural America (what’s that, they sound like their cheering for the environmental extremists and animal rights radicals?)  I tried to hear the honest scientists advocating sensible predator management, game animal use and management, and the establishment of compatible wildlife communities that enhance human rural communities rather than discouraging and diminishing them.

But, all I heard were crickets and besides, I am tired of reading 60 year-old articles about how good things are going out there so I might as well take a nap too.

Jim Beers

26 March 2019

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

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share