June 19, 2019

Combined “Brilliance” at North American Moose Conference

It is most difficult to get reliable and accurate information from just about ANY media source. Here is but one example.

I did not attend this conference on moose. All that I have had a chance to read about it I found in this Bangor Daily News article. As readers, we must understand that information contained in this article is from the perspective of the author…period. If the author is a Climate Change zealot, naturally the article will only provide support for their religious beliefs, perhaps overlooking contrary data or information provided. It matters not the complete outcome of the conference and all thoughts and determinations, the readers are subjected to personal perspectives of the author regardless of the writer’s intentions.

Having said this, this remains an attempt at sharing some thoughts and my own perspective on what I know about the North American Moose Conference, combined with years of knowledge and research about moose and in particular moose ticks and large predator mortality.

According to the article in question, Maine appears to be the only state (region) where the winter tick is killing off the moose herd. (Makes one wonder if that is true and Climate Change is the cause, aren’t these other areas being subjected to the same Climate Change?) I will make a note right now that compared to the other regions where biologists in attendance at the conference said ticks aren’t the problem, Maine has gobs more moose than any of the other regions. Is there a correlation? And why does Maine have gobs more moose? Does the spruce budworm after effects have anything to do with it? Does growing an artificially high number of moose related?

Keeping in line with the unreliability of good and accurate news information, we also read that in Minnesota, one attendee said, “We had a very high neo-nate mortality. And two-thirds of that was wolf predation.”

I will most certainly guarantee that if you were to contact the Minnesota authorities about wolf predation and moose survival, the “official” line would state nothing about wolves killing off the moose herd. Regardless of long-time historical accounts from Minnesota that wolves have always had devastating effects on moose herds, officials there will tell you the problem is…you guessed it – Climate Change. Who let this person out?

The article in question states that the problems with moose herd management throughout North America varies from ticks, to predation by wolves, to disease, to unregulated hunting, etc. but it just seems an irresistible result of brainwashing that Climate Change is the problem. I can’t help but wonder how much good scientific study has been destroyed or wasted due to catechized indoctrination of the false impacts of a man-created religion (politics) of global warming – now generically referred to as Climate Change?

Perhaps there is some hope. It has taken many years for Maine, with a few years of moose study under their belt, to admit that winter ticks might be destroying the moose herd. There has also been some hints that perhaps an artificially inflated herd is responsible for an intensification of the the winter tick.

I have stated in the past that if scientists want to blame the problems of moose management on the winter tick, maybe it’s time to do some studying of the winter tick. There is danger in that these days, as there is danger in any, so-called, scientific research. Scientism rules and most “scientific” research is nothing but useless garbage that mostly better represents a good dose of propaganda – outcome based research – it’s where the money is.

However, there are signs that there needs to be better studies (not influenced by the false demons of Climate Change) about the tick.

In a separate article, also found in the Bangor Daily News, about how this winter tick “quests” and finds a winter home on board a warm, blood-filled moose, we read some comments from attendees at this conference about that winter tick that remains mostly misunderstood and wrongly said to thrive on “Climate Change.” (Whatever conveniently fits the narrative of the day.)

They got it right about how ticks climb vegetation in the Fall and lie in wait for a moose to walk by at such time they jump on the moose for a long winter’s ride participating in the blood letting…if you will.

They also get it partly right when they state that “early snow” will “…knocks that vegetation down and knocks the ticks down on the ground.”

This is a bit misleading though. At the time that the winter tick is questing (late Summer or early Fall – around the same time that the moose is rutting which adds to the enhanced possibility of getting ticks due to increased travel) what are the chances of “early snow?” And what are the chances that this “early snow” is substantial enough to “knocks that vegetation down and knocks the ticks down on the ground?”

Just about never. In regions throughout Maine, rutting and questing happen most often long before “early snow.”

While it may be fun to talk about and wish for “early snow,” none of us have any control over that weather and leaving it to chance (Mother Nature) wishing and wanting will do absolutely nothing to responsibly manage a moose herd.

Also mentioned as a deterrent to the tick population is drought. Once again, this may be an accurate claim, but perhaps the chances of a drought in the Fall being an effective killer of ticks are about as good as “early snow.”

Most often discussed in tick gabbing circles is the need for a lot of snow and cold to “kill the ticks.” This is really what I’ve come to call Romance Biology or Voodoo Science (coined by former USFWS biologist Jim Beers). For winters to be cold enough, long enough you have to approach the Arctic Circle. That’s why ticks aren’t a problem on Alaska moose.

As a side note, a biologist from Alaska made this statement: “Winter ticks aren’t a problem there. They don’t exist.”

Not to lose the point of his perspective of winter ticks in Alaska, but it is not totally accurate to say winter ticks “don’t exist” there. They may exist but negligibly. And the reason they might exist is because irresponsible researchers took winter ticks into that region just to see if they would survive. They did and that’s how you have “some” ticks in that region.

If one spends all their time focusing on how “early snow” and “drought” can have an effect on moose, sensible things are overlooked in exchange for blaming the lack of “early snow” or lack of a drought on Climate Change – a hopeless and irresponsible excuse for doing nothing. You can’t get rid of the winter tick. They are a viable species that can survive in extreme heat and drought as well as moisture and extreme cold temperatures. And we have no control over that. We do have control over the number of moose (food supply) we manage.

What studies that do exist on the winter tick, can tell us that a better deterrent in tick questing is wind. Ticks can’t hang on to vegetation forever and strong winds, which odds are probably better to have than early snow or drought, knock the ticks off vegetation forcing them to begin their quest back up the plants. Persistent winds could be quite effective. Maybe someone needs to make a claim that winds, or lack thereof, is a product of Climate Change.

Completely missing from this one news article is any discussion about reducing the moose population in order to reduce the tick population. Among sensible biologists (mostly those not overwhelmed by Climate Change) the ONLY way to mitigate winter ticks is to mitigate the number of moose….period.

Most of us don’t really know all that was discussed at this moose conference. All we have here is a little bit of information about Maine’s problem in dealing with winter ticks and the toll it is taking on the state’s moose herd.

Perhaps someday, if the Scientismists don’t completely win out, somebody will figure this all out. We could do as some suggest and let Nature do the job of management but I assure all readers, that’s not the ugly, rotten mess we really want to be subjected too.

Seriously, it’s time to can the false claims associated with the politics and religion of global warming and get down to some real, honest scientific research of value.

In case you might not have figured it out yet, I’m not holding my breath waiting.

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

Denial of Bear Behavior

In an article in the Bangor Daily News, a writer tells of how one area of Maine has become a hot spot for Spring bear encounters as the bears search for food after a long winter of prolonged diet.

Unfortunately, ignorance of bear behavior places people in danger of more serious encounters or attacks by hungry bears. The article states: “I don’t feel threatened by him, but I would not go out and try to pet him, no. We both respect him. You have to respect them and keep your distance. I have had so many people tell me that he will come through your door, he will come through your windows, but we use common sense, too. We don’t treat them like pets.”

The first thing to understand is that a hungry bear doesn’t much care about how you feel about them. Becoming acclimated to a source of food outside your house, means the next step will be to get a taste of some of that savory smelling foods from inside. Bears will easily go through screen windows and break doors and bust up glass if they are intent on the food inside. When they decide to do that, I hope the bears only go after the good smelling food and not the humans in the house.

I guess it’s some sort of human gesture to say you “respect” the bears, use “common sense” and “don’t treat them like pets.” But seriously, do you think a bear has the reasoning powers to understand that you respect them and are using common sense? It might sound like a good explanation for bad behavior but a hungry bear isn’t interested in your feelings toward them.

And on another note, when will writers stop insisting that bear attacks are rare? Rare as compared to what? Feeding bears out your back door causes the risk of a bear attack to go up exponentially and therefore the event is far from rare.

Every time a writer or a wildlife biologist suggests that bear attacks are rare, the signal is sent out that there is little to be concerned with. What should be of concern is someone feeding bears in their backyard, believing the chances of something happening as “rare” while having “respect,” “using common sense,” and “not treating them like pets.” Rare is gone out the window.

To feed bears, as pets, and then state that they don’t treat them as pets, shows the ignorance that will, eventually, land them in trouble. I hope it is not serious when it happens.

Share

Hungry Black Bears in Maine Coming Out of Hibernation

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine – Black bears are emerging from their winter dens, and with natural foods in short supply this time of year, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is receiving calls concerning bears looking for easy meals in backyards around birdfeeders, trash cans, chicken coops and grills.

The department is reminding homeowners to remove potential bear attractants from their yard. You can learn more at http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fish-wildlife/wildlife/wildlife-human-issues/living-with-wildlife/bears.html. Maine has a growing bear population and bears are becoming more common in central and southern Maine.

“With a late spring and continued cool weather, bears are looking for food this time of year as natural foods for bears are scarcest,” says Jen Vashon, IFW’s bear biologist. As a result bears will often seek accessible food in peoples back yards.

Already, the department has received 38 nuisance bear complaints this spring, with the majority coming from the Ellsworth/Blue Hill and the Kennebunkport/Arundel area. Annually, the Department handles approximately 500 nuisance bear complaints, with May, June, and July being the busiest months for complaints. April sees between 20 and 50 nuisance bear complaints annually.

Once bears find an easy food source, they will return and they will cause damage to your property, said Vashon. These are simple steps you can take to avoid problems with black bears in your yard or neighborhood.

Black bears emerge hungry from their dens after losing between 15-40% of their weight during winter and they immediately start looking for food. Bears will often turn to suburban attractants such as bird feeders, pet food, and unsecured garbage bins when natural foods are not available.

It is important for people to be proactive so they dont attract bears to their homes. Dont wait until a bear gets to your birdfeeder or grill. They become accustomed to the location where they find easy access to food and they will return and cause significant damage, said Vashon.

Much of a bears diet is vegetation, and many natural foods such as leaves and grasses are not yet available. This time of year, bears will feed on grasses and sedges near wetlands, as well as the roots, tubes and bulbs of plants such as skunk cabbage and others. Bears are also opportunistic carnivores, and will also feed on moose calves, deer fawns, and small livestock.

In recent years, complaints associated with small livestock such as chickens have increased as backyard farming becomes more popular. To protect your livestock, please keep them behind a fence. At night, keep your animals in a secure building.

Bears that live near people often rely on foods inadvertently provided by people, such as highly nutritional sunflower seeds being fed to birds and garbage stored outside. Birdseed and other attractants should be removed to prevent attracting or creating nuisance bears.

Since bears are active between April and November, each spring and summer take these steps to avoid unwanted black bears in your backyard or neighborhood:

Secure garbage and recycling: Food and food odors attract bears, so dont encourage them with easily available food, liquids or garbage. Store garbage cans inside until the morning of trash pickup. Keep dumpster lids closed at all times and schedule frequent pickup so dumpsters do not overflow creating easy access to food.

Remove and store bird feeders: Birdseed and grains have lots of calories, so theyre very attractive to bears. Removing feeders is the best way to avoid damage to your feeders and property. Rake up any seed from the ground and store bird feeders and bird seed inside. Even an empty bird feeder can be enticing to a bear and they will tear it down, damage or destroy it. You can continue to feed birds in the winter when bears are not active.

Never leave pet food outdoors: Feed pets indoors when possible. If you must feed pets outside, feed in single portions and remove food and bowls after feeding. Store pet food inside where bears cant see or smell it.

Clean and store your grill: Clean grills after each use and make sure that all grease, fat and food particles are removed. Store clean grills and smokers in a secure building to keep bears out.

See bears in the area or evidence of bear activity? Tell your neighbors and share information with them on how to avoid bear conflicts.

By taking these precautions, you can prevent conflicts that could pose a danger to or require corrective action such as moving or killing a bear. Removing these food sources will also limit other backyard visitor (raccoons, skunks, etc.).

If you encounter a bear, do not approach the bear and slowly back away. If the bear approaches you, try to intimidate the bear by waving your arms and making loud noises, such as clapping your hands or banging pots together. A cornered bear may charge. Always back away while giving the bear an escape route. Although bear attacks are extremely rare, if a bear charges you, stand your ground and if necessary fight back.

For more information, visit www.mefishwildlife.com.

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

Gaining Understanding of Deer Habits…And Then Forgetting Them

I would suppose an “attaboy!” is in order for a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologist from Northern Maine who tells some truth about why locations throughout Maine are finding deer in places they don’t “normally” spend their winters.

I put the word “normally” in quotations because it forces (or should) the question of what is normal? I’m not sure I can answer that in any other terms than to say it is what I think it should be. Perhaps none of us live long enough and are “expert” on deer biology to grasp an understanding of normal beyond only the period of time we are interested in the subject and what history books (often better relegated to the Fiction aisles and shelves in libraries) tell us about what is “normal” behavior for deer.

In our short life span, we have been indoctrinated (both citizen and biologist) to believe that it is “normal” behavior for deer to spend winters cooped-up in a classic, ideal, “deer wintering area,” known once to Mainers as a deer yard. This same indoctrination machine tended to cast dishonest claims about how deer, without those ideal deer wintering areas, shrivel up and die.

God only knows that this negative destruction can happen but does it happen at the rate scientismic biologists believe it does?

To believe such scientismic clap-trap is to say that deer, or any other wild creature, is mostly incapable of making adjustments to their habits in order to survive. I would claim that animals are more adept at this action/reaction than most humans.

Throughout Maine this winter, mostly toward the latter stages of a very snowy winter in many regions across the state, reports are surfacing of people finding pockets of deer (some in quite large numbers) hanging out in neighborhoods or right in the midst of down town. Why are the deer doing this?

I have written for years that I was finding deer in the throes of winter in places deemed as not “normal.” I guess normal is changing. Are the biologists though?

I doubt they are or at least not quickly enough to adjust their own habits to meet the management needs of the down town deer herds.

In Northern Maine, one biologist recognizes the reality – something that appears to have taken many years to admit: “Wildlife Biologist Shawn Haskell says between starvation, predators like coyotes and an occasional lynx, as well as competing with moose for food, it’s a struggle for deer in the wild. That’s why over time they’ve transitioned to more residential areas in colder months.”

Let’s point out the admissions often never spoken of in certain circles. First there’s the admission that coyotes kill deer; in winter; in deer yards. Aside from an “occasional lynx” perhaps the “occasional” bobcat was overlooked. And, lo and behold, the first time I’ve seen in writing that a Maine wildlife biologist is admitting that moose and deer compete for the same winter food. Thus, as honest logic would dictate, more moose hogging the food has a negative and detrimental affect on the deer herd. Too many moose, less deer. Too many moose, more winter ticks, fewer moose, more deer.

But the biggest admission of all is that the deer are adjusting and finding winter comfort (relative term) in places that, due to a more shy behavior of coyotes, Canada lynx, and bobcats, these predators might fear to tread. This is, as explained by the MDIFW biologist, one of the reasons we are seeing deer in places that are considered not “normal.”

So, “normal” is changing…it has changed. It isn’t “normal” anymore. Or, normal is not consistent. While it may be ideal in our brainwashing of “normal” things to see deer in those Hotel Hilton sort of deer yards, it ain’t gonna happen anymore. Things they are a changin’!

And they will continue to change. Yes, we should do what is reasonable to protect those “normal” deer yards. No, I’m not suggesting we “take em by force.” That’s not reasonable in my book, nor is it “normal.”

The Maine biologist alludes to a couple things we should take note of and I think there might be a lesson to be learned as well. The biologist says that the deer that are wintering in down town, “…have not forgotten where they came from.” Or, maybe they have. If “normal” is not their “normal” anymore, even if that “normal” disappeared forever due to forest management practices, a new normal will be achieved and lagging behind will be the education (indoctrination, if and when it fits another agenda) of citizens and wildlife biologists that deer ain’t where they used to be. (This is currently being blamed on Global Warming.)

Also alluded to about the changing habits of deer was, “…a situation that just works for them now.” I’m glad that the biologist recognizes the “for now” aspect of this event. Perhaps one day the deer will return to the Hotel Hilton’s winter resort of ideal “old growth” dense forests for protection from the elements. Or maybe they won’t. It’s what works. The deer will adjust but will the biologist?

Another issue not mentioned here which is mandatory in any honest conversation about deer management and predator control. We finally have the admission that coyotes kill deer. We are witnessing the deer making adjustments for their own survival by going places the coyotes, lynx, and bobcats might shy away from…FOR NOW!

If you know anything about wild canine behavior, you’ll have to admit that if deer decide that “normal” is in your back yard, the predators will overcome their fear and will dare tread on the winter habitats regardless of where they are. Predators are mostly driven by hunger. Fear of humans and our habitat is but a temporary roadblock.

How long will it be before bringing the wildlife into our towns, mostly due to predator protection, sets off a firestorm about public safety and that something needs to be done about it?

If things don’t change from current perverse perspectives on animal idolatry, when this day arrives, look for the call to go out to kill the deer (and waste the food) so that the wild dogs can have their way.

Share

When Too Much Management is a Problem

A talk by Jim Beers at the Big Game Management SYMPOSIUM

Cranbrook, British Columbia

13 April 2019

Comments and Observations Concerning Predators, Prey & Modernity A Solution

This is a talk I would like to give in the following locations.

–       Scotland (where a proposal to introduce wolves into a massive land enclosure is under consideration);

–       Finland (where Finns are forced to confront and control Russian wolves using EU rules and restrictions);

–       France, Germany, Spain and Italy (where growing wolf densities are causing increasing livestock losses, game and hunting declines, and human safety concerns, all ignored by EU rulers in Brussels);

–       Each of The Lower 48 States of the US (where wolves are or will eventually occur and those similarly enduring federal grizzly bears or excessive and unmanaged cougar populations and their effects):

–       The Provinces of Canada (where wolves, grizzly bears, black bears and/or cougars are always seen as “too few” by urban voters, and “too many” by rural residents living with these large predators and their effects)

There are also other places where I would like to share what I am about to say such as Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, India, and Africa where their problems with the death, carnage and economic losses wrought by uncontrolled large predator populations from Nile crocodiles to wolves in settled landscapes.  There are 2 reasons that explain why I refer to these locations as “other places”.

1.    The remedies I want to suggest are unrealistic where local rural people cannot be authorized year after year to control large predators and their impacts due to autocratic rulers, weapon restrictions, limited hunting and other animal control programs, United Nations’ rules concerning trophy shipping and restrictions on animal parts that make non-resident hunting problematic, and particularly governments that are vulnerable to anti-hunting and anti-wildlife management foreign political money-lobbying such as Kenya..

2.    Disarmed rural residents, although they have other means of control, cannot have serious annual, much less persistent, impacts on large predator densities nor can they long be exposed to these predators unarmed when attempting controls without incurring serious injuries and deaths.

The Problem

Large Predators chase, attack, wound, kill, and eat Big Game animals, cattle, sheep, dogs, humans and any other live meat they encounter and find to be vulnerable.  Most Large Predators range over wide areas.  They eat and probe dead, dying and often infected animals. They are exposed to and spread a litany of diseases and infections that kill and disable humans, Big Game animals, other wildlife, cattle, sheep, dogs, and other animals.

When large predators attack or kill humans, Local Communities (and not far-off politicians, bureaucrats or environmentalists) know what the problem is and take every allowable solution, and some that are not allowed, to solve “The Problem”.  In effect, far-away rulers are both physically and responsibility-wise, as well as unaccountable for the long list of abuses, dangers and costs of both equating and raising the political priority of such Large Predators above the status and needs of the rural people forced to live with and amongst increasingly dense and widespread Large Predators.

When Large Predators kill cows, calves, sheep, lambs, dogs, and other domestic animals; their rural owners are simply victims and depending on the location and mood of officials, there may or may not be an effective but temporary solution offered to the victimized owner.  Otherwise, those harmed are told to suck it up or go elsewhere (something hoped for by radical organizations and government agencies eager to purchase (at reduced prices), ease or otherwise control rural lands and people.

When Large Predators kill Big Game the situation changes dramatically.  First, there is no owner to note the kill, nor is there anyone to demand retribution, compensation or a solution to avoid this in the future. 

Second, there is no running documentation about how many or what kind (calf, pregnant cow, fawn, old male, young male, etc.) was killed: therefore there is no estimate of what percent of the herd or its reproductive capacity was killed last year, the year before or how reproduction is and has been affected. Pro-Predator experts and bureaucrats can blame climate change or claim that there is some sort of new disease (how does the layman dispute this?)  but you can bet it is almost certainly wolf or grizzly/black or cougar predation, or all four if their numbers have been increasing and you increasingly see them pursuing game animals into towns where Big Game seeks safety, or simply encounter them prowling about residences or towns in search of food, or hunters no longer reporting finding game animals.  Like other wildlife, the more often you see large predators as you drive about, the more abundant large predators are becoming and the more Big Game it takes to support the larger predator populations. Wolves are the most likely perpetrators of the majority of Big Game declines in North America and other places like Russia and Europe. Big Game reductions are invariably accompanied by domestic livestock depredation and dog deaths because wolves are usually the most broadly impactful and effective predators due to their pack behavior, large roaming habits, and adaptability that makes them constant evaders of controls and, collectively, they have a larger demand for meat than either cougars or grizzly or black bears due to their size, numbers and their opportunistic habit of killing more than they eat as they do with sheep and cattle when they are unprotected much like the behavior of domestic free-roaming dogs.

Third, there is nothing you can document or resolve about big game predation unlike human or domestic animal predation where you can take some intermittently effective precautions like keeping domestic prey of family members under increased protection and scaring off predators when seen.  Killing many of the large predators and reducing their densities locally to first recover the Big Game populations and then to maintain the animals on which they prey is the only answer to recovering declining or disappearing Big Game populations.  Dense or increasing wolf populations invariably mean more depredation and fewer of the prey animals.  Wolf impacts on Big Game are directly proportional to their numbers and the availability of Big Game animals where they cohabit.  When large predators reach certain densities, especially as in the settled landscapes they are now re-invading under government force and protection, anyone maintaining that Big Game animals are not the #1 source of protein for uncontrolled large predators, especially wolves, is simply lying to you.  Further, in settled landscapes, large predators will, when uncontrolled amongst abundant food sources, increase their densities until the total food supply dwindles as it did on Isle Royale island in Lake Superior where as I speak government bureaucrats are releasing wolves that all but became extinct after they caused the moose population (their only food source on the island) to crash.  The difference on the mainland (of North America and Europe et al) is that when the wolves kill nearly all the moose (or elk or caribou) hunting seasons are reduced and then closed down (forever?) as happened with moose in Minnesota.  This eliminates a major component of rural economies and rural lifestyles without any relief because when, for instance, the moose are made rare or exterminated the wolves and cougars and bears shift to deer, cows, elk, sheep, fawns, caribou, bucks, does, remaining moose, kids (human) and other fallback food sources like garbage cans and dogs (when not in heat) to both maintain and increase their numbers. They then maintain and increase their numbers and their ancillary effects on man, the economy and “the environment” proliferate accordingly.

You should beware of anyone concluding that any of this is the result of too little management of wildlife.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Worldwide, wildlife has been bombarded with “more” management with more hidden agendas and government abuse being steered by private and anonymous organizations and wealthy donors, than at any time in human history.

The last hundred years have seen wildlife management on a Power “Escalator” throughout the world. Beginning in the 1960’s, Local communities saw their ability to control  their “ecosystem” for their own benefit no longer protected by State, Provincial or national (in Europe) governments.  Increasingly central governments, government alliances and international authorities began to assume all authority and jurisdiction over all subsidiary jurisdictions and communities below them. State, Provincial, and other secondary (to national) government political authorities submitted to this takeover with a promise of central government funding and a “holistic” approach to a worldwide “ecosystem” in which all species were treated “equally” in a one-world governmental approach.  Not mentioned was the inarguable opposition these emerging superpowers had toward the use and management of renewable natural resources such as forestry, grazing and hunting that they were simultaneously assuming.  For instance, as forcibly-imposed Large Predators populations were being justified as “necessary” and “harmless”; the accumulation of fire-fuel for catastrophic forest fires and the closure of access to public lands to create a “native ecosystem” of “wilderness” was dismissed as  a “natural” “wilderness”-type habitat so imagined by urban voters, rich radical organizations, wealthy individuals, lobbyists and politicians influenced by votes and contributions.

In the 1960’s, in the US and elsewhere, national governments began seizing the authority and jurisdiction over wildlife held by State, Provincial and secondary national political entities.  They did this not only because they and their new laws said they could but, more importantly, they did this to curry favor with an emerging (in Western Nations) faction of radical organizations that wanted to “save” wildlife, forests and grasslands; to stop the “killing” (i.e. hunting and eating) of animals; to do away with guns and gun usage worldwide; to make rural precincts little more than central-government-controlled nature areas with minimal and strictly dictated human occupancy and activity.  The “mother’s milk” for all this was money-making environmental organizations contributing money and votes to agreeable politicians as the public began to be propagandized through the schools and the media. For instance, “studies” popped up everywhere that “proved” grazing should be eliminated, tree-cutting was immoral; livestock should be banned, meat eating “destroyed the environment”, animal ownership was akin to slavery, former concepts of property and freedom must be replaced; and – of interest to us – predators don’t limit other wildlife and animals, and no matter their offense or impacts predators should not be hurt because, like so many social theories extant today, the offending animal is the “real” victim and the human or property or community that suffered is the “real” perpetrator and must either change or be forced to change what he, she or it did (if still alive) to cause the incident.

By 1970, the radical agendas and (now) wealthy and influential organizations had enlisted many “scientists”, wealthy supporters, and an assortment of fellow travelers in the broad “environmental”/animal “rights” movement. Hidden agendas emerged in an explosion of new wildlife laws that were ultimately anti-gun, anti-tradition, and anti-Lower-Level-government movements identifying themselves with the wildlife concepts of “Native” Species and “Native” Ecosystems as morally imperative and the animals = human philosophy began ascending throughout Western civilization.  The combined monetary and political clout with the many hidden agendas outgrew the ability of national governments to speedily fulfill their dreams so they lobbied and even bribed many national representatives to the United Nations to offer Conventions and Treaties (not in the US sense of a Treaty being Ratified by the Senate and signed by the President but in the sense of a sort of “high-end” International Agreement between any signatory nation and anywhere from a few to over a hundred countries, some that no more intended to or were capable of enforcing them to others like the US that jails, fines, demeans and takes rights away for lifetimes to enforce them.  Some national governments like Kenya were bribed to be used as misleading propaganda of how untouched predator and prey populations would self-regulate satisfactorily in settled landscapes without human intervention. 

Thus was born, to the great enthusiasm of UN advocates, the road from the UN as arbiter of international disputes (to avoid wars), to the UN as the up and coming “World Government” so loved by the organizations and agendas calved by the successful wildlife power take-over.  Treaties and Conventions sprouted like poppies after a rain.  Suddenly the UN (and its biggest supporter, the US government) was protecting (i.e. “saving” as in no use) “Endangered Species”, Marine Mammals, High Seas Fisheries, Polar Bears, Birds “in Danger”, Whales, “Nature Protection, the “Human Environment”, and Heritage Areas et al.  Nations, like the US, followed the lead and passed laws setting aside land areas, proposing wildlife “corridors” (to be expanded later), claims to “all waters”, rules to block pipelines and destroy dams, claims to disgorge the National Treasury of billions to manage the fish and non-game resources in states and to employ scientists and bureaucrats to justify their new rules using draconian measures and punishments. 

This period (1970’s & 80’s) was to the environmental enthusiasts, their lawyers and cooperating bureaucrats and scientists like what the wolves must have felt like when released on Isle Royale island in Lake Superior amidst a dense moose herd that they must have thought (which they are incapable of but humor me) would last forever.  Somewhat, also, like the circumstances the first U-Boat commanders encountered in unprotected US coastal waters at the beginning of WWII that caused them to call them “The Happy Time”. All three such periods made their human perpetrators giddy with what they imagined would last forever.  It wasn’t the wolves’ new home, or the new laws protecting animals, or the shipping destruction of the U-Boats: it was unfettered POWER they expected to grow over more and more things.  One of those things was centralized regulatory Power over rural people and rural communities. There was no better social weapon up to that point to subdue rural people than protecting the predators and making wildlife and livestock and dogs merely governmental items allowed only if the government needed anything from rural people, otherwise the “protection of predators”, the existence of any use of any renewable natural resource, and the very fate of rural people and rural economies was to be a political fantasy plaything for urban voters.

All of which has brought us here, today in Cranbrook, British Columbia.  Like thousands of Europeans living with and struggling with wolves; millions of Americans perplexed about the wolf dilemma foisted on them; and Canadians asking, “why must we endure all these Large Predators”,  “what recourse have we?” and “how can we restore robust Big Game populations and Big Game Hunting?”: we are in search of a workable soulution.

The Problem common to all is too many conflicting agendas controlling too many government (UN, Brussels, Ottawa, Washington, Provincial, State, European capitals) powers, while employing manufactured science, half-truths and all too-willing politicians doing their bidding for money and votes.

The common justification for attaining or preserving a “balanced” or “natural” ecosystem is a chimera in this modern world of massive transportation; comprehensive development; and the worldwide spread of plants, animals and dangerous diseases and infections.  “Balance” lies in the eye of the beholder, and “natural” is a human construct be it uncontrolled wolves in Asia due to government neglect and citizen powerlessness or American, Canadian and European government faux “feelings” for predators and use of jail and fines to enforce intolerable conditions on Local communities with little political power in order to please urban supporters.  In fact “Too Much Management” leads to “No Management” because the underlying agenda(s) are not “scientific” but social constructs and impositions, all on different timetables as a result of diverse political powers.

The question then becomes, “How do you get around or manage all these political constructs to achieve a tolerable Local ecosystem in its broadest sense?”  The immediate subject before us is: 1.) How can we reduce Large Predator densities to levels that allow Big Game numbers to recover to levels desired by those living with them; and 2.) How can we maintain levels of prey and predators into the future for the benefit of Local communities recognizing the innate and laudable human concern to maintain both human and wild communities.  At no time in the history of the world was the challenge greater or the ability of modern society to solve it more available.  It is ironic that simultaneously, world governments and an abundance of hidden agendas have never been more determined and powerful to make wildlife merely a pawn in their struggle to dominate and control all persons, everywhere.

It is with this in mind that I have formulated a rationale and solution for your consideration.

Three States

I would like to tell you about three States in the United States; two have no wolves and one is the only one of the Lower 48 States that had a persistent wolf population when, in the 1970’s, the US federal government declared The Lower 48 States as the object of restoring wolves by the federal government that would release and protect them at all costs.  Why they were so designated when they were and still are ubiquitous throughout the Northern Hemisphere, I leave to your imagination but it is a fair subject for another examination.

South Dakota (Cougars)

When I retired to Minnesota in 2008, there was a controversy in South Dakota about an exploding cougar population.  Between wandering cougars from Montana and Wyoming, plus four large Indian Reservations and a major National Park (where hunting and control were problematic at best), plus a high cougar birthrate in an environment without competition and lots of food; combined with a State Wildlife Agency (like nearly every modern such agency) manned by wildlife “savers” and protectors that despise predator control; the cattle ranchers, residents and hunters.  Ranchers “West of The (i.e. Missouri) River” were being opposed at every turn by the wildlife agency opposed to “control” and “reduction” of the expanding cougar population that was creating a growing depredation problem.

The modern bureaucrats objected because cougars were, they said, only “returning Native species” and they were “Keystone” species that were “necessary” for a “balanced” ecosystem.  In short the ranchers were told to go away and leave it to the “professionals”.

I was invited to speak about this at a Conference sponsored by the ranchers in Rapid City. I told them it wasn’t a biology problem; it was a political problem.  Either they must control their bureaucrats and government or somebody else would and at that point the state bureaucrats were agents of radical agendas disguised as “science” and the good of the current precious species du jour.

The ranchers eventually exercised raw power in the South Dakota legislature and with the Governor who directed a reluctant agency to issue X number of permits annually to take cougars “West of the River”.  A couple of years went by and when it was clear that they were not reducing the cougar population to THE LEVELS AND IMPACTS DEEMED TOLERABLE TO THE “LOCAL” (I.E. WEST OF THE RIVER) COMMUNITIES, they requested an increase in permits and were rebuffed again so they went back to the legislature and both increased the number of permits available and established a system wherein ranchers can request so many permits for their ranch and then cat hunters pay the state for the permit and get it from the ranch they hunt.  The increase was necessary because overcoming the refuge-like-status on Indian Reservations and two Large National Parks, that were reservoirs and breeding locations for the cats, called for innovations, increased take authority and raw political power.

*Today the cougars and the ranchers are maintaining themselves harmoniously, so far as I know.

Minnesota (Wolves)

I am no fan of modern Minnesota wildlife management.  About 6 or 7 years ago on a farm in SW Minnesota in winter when there is nothing but a few farmsteads and a town or two for miles and miles in an endless ocean of fall-plowed (i.e. barren) soil; one of those (young male) South Dakota cougars ran into a culvert on the road into a Minnesota farmer’s home.  He saw it and in addition to his several children, he had some horses and probably the last time anyone had seen a cougar in that part of Minnesota was when William Howard Taft (1909 -1913) was in the White House.  So, not taking any chances with his horses or his kids he shot the cougar and called the State wildlife agency.

He was treated like John Dillinger.  The urban majority screamed and the papers dutifully called for the maximum penalty.  Professors warbled for weeks about the importance of “Native Species” and urban walkers in the Twin Cities began relating their joy at sightings of cougars in urban River Bottoms crisscrossed with asphalt walkways.  It was a disgraceful circus and somehow the farmer got off with a stiff fine, suspended jail time and a warning that if he ever violated these new laws protecting everything again he would be locked up and the key thrown away.

Today, Minnesota’s once-excellent walleye fishing is declining mainly due to uncontrolled Indian netting in all of the top walleye lakes.  The walleyes are sold to dealers in a quasi-legal “traditional” native take/commercial manner after a court refused to prosecute involved natives and then was forced to drop their case against non-native co-perpetrators.

When a young Minnesota camper was sleeping just outside his tent in a federal campground one summer night a wolf grabbed him by the head and then was scared off.  Our erstwhile state wildlife bureaucrats claimed to have then killed that particular wolf and that an autopsy revealed that – are you ready for this – the wolf only attacked him because it had a “deformed brain”.  No other controls or precautions were taken.  Similar nonsense was used when two elderly ladies disappeared in an Idaho National Park and their bodies found far apart and reportedly chewed up by wolves.  On the Upper Peninsula of Michigan an elderly Wisconsin lady disappeared about 5 years ago behind her cabin one night and was found the next morning in pieces: no investigation was conducted, the bodies removed, autopsies were made remotely, results were sealed, and no one involved ever offered any explanation.  Quicker than you can say “Jack Robin”, everyone forgot.

About 4 years ago when a radio-collared wolf was shot on a Minnesota Indian Reservation, the federal and state officers descended to “recover the collar” and find the “killer”.  It turned out the killer was an Indian teenager, HHMMM!  The young man was not prosecuted.  If you or I had “vaccinated” that wolf we would have lost a lot of money and probably be hoping right now to see our family on Visiting Day next month.

That is Minnesota today; but it is revealing to wonder why Minnesota was the only one of The Lower 48 States to have an established resident wolf population when the federal government declared wolves “Endangered” in The Lower 48 States almost 50 years ago.  It is a story worth knowing when an urban relative or some young person home from college begins hyperventilating about how any wolf controls or any discussion of tolerable wolf population levels are as unacceptable as killing wolves “for sport” or with traps or from airplanes, etc. etc.

When Minnesota was first seen by European settlers bent on farming, logging, exploring and mining; wolves occurred statewide but sparsely in the Southern hills with wooded wetlands and stream edges or on the prairies in the western edges of the State.  The majority of wolves were in the Northern 1/3 of the state where thick woods, lakes and abundant Big Game animals supported a robust wolf population.  This area was and remains contiguous with the extensive woodlands bogs, muskeg and lakes of even more sparsely settled Eastern Ontario.  In fact they remain one big wolf habitat up to the waters of Hudson Bay.

By the early 1900’s Big Game (moose, caribou and deer) were getting harder to find in Minnesota.  One must assume that wolves (that were pretty much shot on sight or for their fur in those days of no regulation) were also not finding as much unprotected food or Big Game anymore and were similarly in decline.  State Game Laws were enacted through the early years of the 20th century to protect animals that were hunted or trapped in order to ensure their survival in perpetuity. Minnesota wolves were gradually protected and for many decades there was a season that was longer than Big Game Seasons but always overlapped Big Game hunting so that Big Game hunters killed wolves when they saw them in that thick Northern forest.  Additionally, wolves were known to cause problems like livestock depredation, reduce moose and other Big Game, and hang around homes and towns in the winter where human safety and dog safety were problems. Thus killing a wolf in a pasture or attacking your dog outside the “season” was either ignored or legitimized by broadly-written regulations and understanding Local law enforcement officers.  Up until the 1970’s and going back thousands of years, rural people understood that the more wolves in any neighborhood, meant more killed and eaten (by wolves) game animals, cows, calves, sheep, and lambs.  This, in turn meant less meat available for human consumption.  So the Minnesota wolf take seemed to be OK locally since they could kill dangerous or offending animals annually and when hunting.  What local communities in wolf country wanted and what “their” State provided in those days was a tolerable wolf presence and available moose hunting (that was closed recently due to too few moose coincidental with total wolf protection). Today the State ignores the local communities needs, caters to the federal government who caters to and supports UN meddling in wildlife, guns and other things while promising, dishonestly, what was already here in Minnesota.  The result roday is too many wolves, no more moose hunting, dead dogs, large cattle and sheep depredations, increased rural stress and rural economic stagnation.

Between Ontario wolves historically expanding into Minnesota and thick, wet forests that made Minnesota wolves less vulnerable to mounted hunters and technology like scopes, more accurate ammunition, and binoculars that enabled residents of other Lower 48 wolf states to exterminate wolves over the past century; wolves and men co-existed.  For over half a century a hit-or-miss control of Minnesota wolf harvests and depredation minimization kept wolves at levels tolerable to Local people and maintained a modest wolf population, something all the government programs claim to want but never seem to define oraccomplish.  It is a paradox of modern society that all these “save” this and that critter, when successful, transform the object of government might (like resident Canada geese and “Free-Roaming” buffalo) from “icons” into dangerous and infectious pests wherever they live.  Today wolves are very numerous pests that have eliminated moose hunting, kill high numbers of livestock, hybridize dogs and are hybridized by dogs, and make hunting with a dog (grouse, ducks) a dangerous affair for dogs and hunter.

Yet, the lesson from the first 2/3 of the last century wherein Local and loosely controlled harvests maintained a wolf population tolerable to Locals and a source of pride and awe to urban dwellers; is forgotten, ignored and dismissed as “cruel” and not “scientific”.

* In truth it (pre-ESA wolf management in Minnesota) was good for the Local communities, good for Big Game and Big Game hunting, good for livestock, and good for the rural Minnesota economy.

Virginia (Deer)

I was a Virginian for over 30 years of my long life.  When I first went deer hunting there I was stunned and perplexed by the apparent blizzard of deer hunting regulations.  The last thing I wanted as a wildlife worker was to get caught shooting or transporting an illegal deer.

I have copies of the current regulations here for anyone wanting to see them after the talk.  The length of seasons, the numbers and kinds of deer allowed, the guns allowed or prohibited, the use of dogs, the ammunition allowed were apparently set by the Counties and enforced by the State.  Once I caught on, I was amazed at how efficiently for both hunters and deer, the system worked.

Western Virginia (mostly wooded hills, valleys and less dense deer populations had more similar seasons, harvest periods, rifle areas, bag limits, and no deer hunting with dogs.  N to S Central Virginia had more differences between Counties in guns (rifles, black powder, balls, shot, slugs; seasons, bag limits on certain days, and make-up of the bag (young bucks, does, and on certain days) and hunting with dogs was more common..  Eastern Virginia with its thick forests, wetlands and farms had the most variety and changed the most regarding dogs, guns, ammunition, season lengths, and bag limits. Regulations could be adjusted annually as  more homes were built or crop damage increased or the majority of hunters in the County wanted to shift from all the venison they could get to bigger bucks or shorter seasons or only certain days of the week. NOTE to readers – it worked.  Deer numbers persisted, farm damage was minimized, Local deer herds were managed for big bucks or lots of deer or were reduced or grown in ac cord with the wishes of the Local Counties (i.e. communities).  Counties where wealthy government retirees were building retirement homes shifted to buckshot or eliminated dog packs for hunting. Other Counties that were growing more soybeans were pressured (by residents) to reduce the deer herd.  

One morning at O400 I stopped at a Burger King on the Eastern Shore of Virginia with two friends for breakfast.  We were hunting snow geese and ducks in picked cornfields and had to set out several hundred decoys by a half hour before sunrise. Three pickups with North Carolina plates pulled in with six guys in camouflage and dog kennels in the back of their trucks.  When I asked them what they were doing, they smiled and said a Local farmer was paying them to run their dogs in his woodlands and reduce the number of deer there to reduce the damage to his crops from too many deer that even the Local hunters were unable to reduce.  The farmer had gotten a handful of permits for them to cover just about any deer they could kill.  This was truly wildlife management by Local residents for the good of both wildlife and people. Had this option not been available, how soon would it be before Local residents would have taken action to kill all the deer; or have stopped agriculture and agriculture business had disappeared?  How soon before another section of the US would have been a dark shadow on a nighttime satellite photo like Venezuela or North Korea?

*The last I heard the rural folks of Virginia and their deer were doing just fine!

The Solution

If these three examples tell us anything; it is that wildlife management has become a human political constructregulating wildlife primarily on behalf of political and conflicting agendas.  This is done by governments that “manage” wildlife 1) on behalf of Local communities (i.e. Virginia & deer); 2) in response to political pressure (i.e. South Dakota and Cougars); or 3) whichever way the political winds are blowing (i.e. Minnesota’ successful historic approach to wolves before the federal seizure of States Rights over wolves and then its Quisling-like cooperation with federal overseers excusing the wolf debacle that has evolved from that fateful moment.  Conclusion; he that controls the government authority over wildlife, controls rural people.

I suggest an approach that leads to returning control of certain resident wildlife (not migratory birds covered by Treaties or fish or marine mammals covered by international agreements et al) to Local governments under the umbrella of Provincial, State or National governments. “Control” and management, meaning the setting of hunting and trapping seasons; the setting of annual bag or season limits; the methods of taking wildlife; and the conditions under which depredations and human safety are to be avoided and how handled when they occur.  For instance, reducing the numbers and densities of certain Large Predators for a certain period to encourage population increases in prey species like ungulates that provide meat and sport plus sightings for tourist appeal; and then maintaining sustainable populations of both for the foreseeable future by providing regulations that maintain a reasonable balance between predators and prey AS DESIRED AND DETERMINED BY LOCAL RESIDENTS.

This means that States, Provinces and National governments make available the authority over harvest and control of certain wildlife to Local jurisdictions that choose to exercise it.  This would be the Counties (in the US and certain Canadian Provinces) and Districts, Counties, or Regional governments in parts of Canada and the National Sub-units like “States” within the Nations of the European Union. The degree to which First People or Native Americans and their land in North America might be included or otherwise treated in such an approach would vary by area and by Treaty provisions.  Other anomalies such as “Endangered” Declarations and UN “Mandates” would involve Local governments, hopefully, as full partners in deliberations with the State, Provincial and National governments as Local governments request to be heard.  In other words, State, Provincial and National governments in Europe would allow and implement the will of Local communities to live with, enjoy and utilize wildlife in harmony with all members and activities of those communities.  There is no better guarantor of the value and sustainability of wildlife than that those living with it value and enjoy it.  Wildlife is neither a religious requirement nor a toy to be tinkered with from afar by people and entities that neither respect nor show concern for the rural people their mandates affect.

When State, Provincial, Federal or International experts like bureaucrats, “scientists” and environmental ideologues protest that the Local people, i.e. you that are “uneducated” in the subtle nuances of “ecosystems” remember the words of one of my favorite philosophers G. K. Chesterton.  He once wrote in the New Witness, “Without education, we are in grave danger of taking the educated seriously.”  Taking too much nonsense seriously has helped get us into this mess we are in today.

How It Would Work

In the US, Counties are the Local governments that oversee all of the land and represents the Local communities within the State. There are only a few exceptions like a handful of federal enclaves such as defense installations and one or two National Parks that were set aside before statehood and therefore are outside State and County government wildlife authority.  All the rest of the land area’s resident wildlife that are hunted, trapped or that cause certain kinds of depredations and trouble for humans comes under State wildlife management authority.  County or District management of certain wildlife programs in their County, like deer in Virginia works like certain necessary weed control under County authority, works.  County or Local governments can and should notify landowners when weeds must be controlled and if they refuse to act, the County simply hires a contractor to control the weeds and then bills the landowner and if they do not pay the County, a lien is placed on the property and the owner goes into court to pay the bill, plus court costs and a fine.  Similarly Counties could direct predator control on private properties where owners intend to make predator “refuges” while respecting Native Treaty Land and central government enclaves like South Dakota ranchers and hunters did.  Local insights and the protection of their desires by the State or Provincial governments can and has preserved Predators (like the wolves of Minnesota pre-Endangered Species Act) and Prey (like Minnesota moose hunting, until protected and more numerous wolves decimated the moose herd while the State and federal government wildlife agencies looked away, “scientists” and radicals told Mother Goose stories about what was happening, and the anti-hunting crowd cheered).

Rural people of any State could band together politically and enlist suburban and urban support where possible to pass State legislation that regarding all resident and non-resident hunting and trapping seasons, limits, annual limits, methods of take, justified circumstances for preventing depredations, protecting property or avoiding human danger within the Local jurisdiction shall be established by the lead elected official in each County wishing to exercise that option.  This is done by having the top elected official submit to the Wildlife Agency Director, the new regulations by a certain date like 3 months before state regulations are published and distributed in writing for the upcoming year.  If the proposed wildlife management regime is not received by the State Wildlife Director by say, March 1, it shall be established that the State agency will set and promulgate the wildlife management regime for that County for the upcoming year. The State government shall enforce and promulgate the wildlife regime of each County equally.

Bargaining this approach into reality might only call for Counties to have such power over say; wolves, cougars, coyotes, moose, elk, caribou and deer.  Leaving the birds like grouse, the management-sensitive trophy animals like mountain sheep, and the rabbits to State authority.

It might involve explaining to urban cousins how now they can finally establish their own wildlife ecosystem where bears, wolves and cougars can live with and “control” the moose, elk and deer in their urban or suburban areas as one big ecosystem.

A Referendum may be a more appropriate path to establishing such a system.  Simply demonstrating how an overwhelming majority of committed rural voting precincts vote for it may itself be worth trying and as on official display of the confidence and satisfaction among rural people with the status quo.  Lobbying suburban, urban and certain distinct groups could make a victory surprisingly likely.

State or Provincial wildlife agencies would remain at current levels but would recognize their new responsibility and role to nurture, protect and cooperate with their new partners (rural jurisdictions) within their purview by enforcing, attaining and protecting the wildlife presence and mix desired by the Local communities.

Local governments should not see an increased workload or the need for money.  If the way things are going is satisfactory to any rural County (or other appropriate Sun-Unit) simply let the State or Province continue to do as they are doing.  Whether you call it a “delegation” of authority or a “transfer” of certain powers or some other term appropriate to your situation, the result should be the same. If Local constituents are clamoring for change as to predators or prey presence, or the level of livestock and dog losses to predators, or there has been an attack or fear of an attack in the community and therefore wishes to reduce certain population levels of certain species:

1.    Let the concerned citizens meet and recommend what they want the wildlife regulations to look like.

2.    Listen to and encourage innovation (thinking “outside the box” about remedies) that might even spur business, the economy of the County, or even concoct methods of management heretofore untried or unknown.

3.    If there are concerns in your County, you will not have any trouble finding volunteers eager to write up suggestions, draft regulations and submissions or serve as contacts with State or Provincial wildlife employees.

4.    It is important that the lead County official is an Elected official, because if he won’t stand up when needed, you can replace him at the next election, as opposed some appointed and therefore unelected bureaucrat answerable to others but not some wildlife “expert” that believes he knows what’s best for the voters in the subject Local jurisdiction,

5.    If Districts (or Counties) are small, consider an informal arrangement with or amongst them where concerned rural residents agree on a common regulatory approach to shared issues that is simply copied and signed and submitted by the elected official in each unit of the compact.

6.    Considering the “buggered up” current state of wildlife “management”, recognizing things to be avoided and things that will likely work have been amply demonstrated.  Bold strokes like reducing predator densities for a period of years to encourage an ungulate increase and then maintaining the desired balance between the two in accord with Local wishes is possible.  The days of far-off “experts” and urban organizations telling you what you cannot do or what you must do would be minimized.  Only you know what wildlife costs and benefits fit your communities.

Wildlife management for desired human ends is not rocket science, especially after watching and comparing the swirl of agendas and catastrophes of the past century.  Unless you can regain authority over these matters you will continue to see rural precincts continue to decline in many ways as far-off politicians, bureaucrats, faux “scientists” and wealthy radical organizations impose all manner of agendas and requirements on you from afar through their hold on the oversight and management of the wild animals in YOUR midst.

Substitute “Province” for “State” (in Canada); and “National Government” for “State” in Europe.  Where Counties do not exist; substitute “District” or “Regional” or newly contrived units where appropriate or needed.  Where neither appropriate County, District, or Regional elected entities exist; consider establishing several to a dozen wildlife and habitat sections of the total area and having an appropriate elected Local official in one fulfill a collateral duty as the person named in the authorizing or establishing legislation devolving all or certain wildlife management to the lowest level where the decisions and the impacts serve the desires and need of those directly affected.

It should be clear to everyone by now that wildlife management and sustainable use is basically people management.  If rural people desire to take back control of the wildlife they live with, they must first retrieve the authority over setting the parameters governing the interface between the rural people and wildlife.  What I am suggesting is the only way I can see a possibility of doing that.

Thank you for listening and giving me the opportunity to make a suggestion that took me over twenty years to understand.  I am available for any questions either here or online.  I invite you to see the regulations for Virginia deer management I have with me and I have left a copy of this talk for copies and I have business cards with my email address for those that might like to receive a copy of this talk.

Jim Beers

Given @ the Cranbrook, British Columbia Big Game Symposium

13 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

Too Many Bears, Too Little Effort, Too Much Fear

Rome may be burning to the ground and those charged with the authority to stop it dither and doddle. Maine is swimming in bears and even though the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) expresses their “concerns” over a bear population that needs to be reduced, one effort that would have given the commission of the MDIFW authority to make adjustments to bear hunting, trapping seasons, and bag limits, was set aside until next year’s legislative session. I wonder if these clowns on the left and clowns on the right will feel any guilt when someone gets killed by a hungry bear?

Not likely, you might say. And last evening I glimpsed a video someone took while riding up the chair lift at Sunday River Ski Resort in Newry, Maine. On the ski trail that ran under their lift, a mother bear and her two cubs meandered about the packed trail, I suppose fresh out of hibernation and looking for a quick meal. Anyone interested in testing that hypothesis? I didn’t think so.

Perhaps it’s time for education courses on how to “Look Big” in case you are attacked by a hungry bear. And now we must add to that instruction now to “Look Big” while schussing down the ski trails. What next?

According to George Smith, Maine outdoor writer, discussion on the proposed bill that would have given the commissioner authority to manipulate seasons and bag limits, was lengthy but ended in tabling any decisions until next year.

MDIFW’s new commissioner said, “…the agency is concerned about the growing population of bears, and their goal would be to stabilize that population.” We can only assume that means it’s time to do something besides talk about it…or maybe not. If there is “concern” does that mean the bear population hasn’t risen to levels that threaten public safety…like bears running around the middle of a ski resort?

And here’s the chicken, environmentalist answer to the problem when Maine Rep. John Martin said, “…if the committee gave the department this authority, including the possibility that bear trapping would be expanded, it would provoke another ballot measure to ban bear trapping.”

With comments such as this one, I have to ask myself a few questions and I hope you do too. I want to know if members of the Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are there to do the bidding for the environmentalists and their cohort animal rights activists? I also want to know if there is more value put on the threatening of lawsuits than on the welfare of a human life? There is no intelligent thought that remains anymore.

By now any politician, voter, or commissioner of the MDIFW should know and understand that because they exist is reason enough for radical animal rights groups and environmentalists to bring a lawsuit in order to force the rest of us to cave in and follow their perverse lifestyle. Here we see members of the Committee giving them what they want and it’s cheaper than a lawsuit or another referendum vote. It is for reasons of comments such as this one that the MDIFW has resorted to making wildlife management decisions based on social demands…which include the threat of lawsuits.

In the meantime, what are we to tell the families of those who get injured or killed from marauding bears, driven by hunger and emboldened by loss of fear of humans? Sorry, but we were afraid of a lawsuit from environmentalists. It’s not my fault.

Now the Maine Legislature must concern themselves with lawsuits from families of injured and dead members due to malpractice and negligence. I suppose that’s better than pissing off an environmentalist who wants to stop the world from doing most things the rest of us enjoy doing. It’s no wonder interest in hunting, fishing, and trapping is dwindling away to nothing.

Maybe it’s time that these mostly useless politicians made decisions based on science (not scientism), or social demands and threats of lawsuits, and did what was RIGHT for a change. And while they are at it, how about making those RIGHT decisions based upon something other than the demands of guides and outfitters.

There is little hope.

Share