August 20, 2019

Coyote Behavior: When All You Know is Farley Mowat’s Book of Mythology

Yesterday I was reading an article of utter nonsense published in a small Maine town newspaper about coyote behavior. Of course the article was all about the love of the nasty, diseased animal and the call for its protection “because it is an important necessity for a healthy ecosystem.” Unfortunately the writer appears to have gotten 100% of their education from the proven and admitted make believe of Farley Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf.

Mowat laced his book of fiction with make believe nonsense about how wolves and coyotes only eat mice and other small rodents. The author of the Maine piece tells the same fairy tale about Maine’s coyotes: “To clarify, coyotes primarily feed on mice and other rodents…” The myth if further perpetuated by stating: “While coyotes do occasionally eat fawns and sick deer…”

Coyotes are basically garbage collectors that will eat anything…and by that I mean anything. When hungry enough, they will eat mud in order to stop the hunger in their guts. But this author obviously doesn’t get around much. Coyotes in Maine are a mixed hybrid animal, a cross breeding of an invasive coyote, wolf, and domestic dog. Because of this, the wild canine in the Maine woods is not like a typical coyote. Maine’s coyotes feed on deer, yes, adult deer too, in regular fashion. To state that coyotes feed primarily on mice and other small rodents is patently false.

The purpose of the author making this statement is to claim that because coyotes eat mice, we need to protect them because mice are what carry the ticks that cause and spread Lyme disease.

There’s a problem with that scenario. If anyone does any honest and complete research on the behavior of coyotes and the results of their behavior, they would know that the meal of the Maine coyote hybrid includes such animals as foxes and other canines and felines that truly do feed on the mice that perpetuate Lyme. The more coyotes, the fewer foxes and thus, because honestly coyotes don’t primarily feed on mice and small rodents, having more coyotes results in fewer animals that do kill the mice and thus the possibility exists that the prevalence of Lyme grows.

It should also be noted that while some choose to believe that the coyote makes for a healthier ecosystem, the reality is far from healthy. It has been proven that coyotes carry as many as 50 different diseases and viruses. Maine also has detected the presence of “lung worm” in moose. Lung worm, in this case Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) is the result of the presence of wild canines. E.g. can be contracted by humans and can be deadly. Wild ungulates, such as deer and moose, pick up the disease by grazing around coyote scat where the tiny infectious spores are found. These spores are highly viable and thus the increase in the spread of the disease. In short, the more coyotes roaming the countryside, the higher the threat of disease. E.g. is not a direct killer of deer and moose (livestock also) but restricts their ability to escape large predators because of cysts that can grow on lungs and other internal organs.

The author points an accusatory finger at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for lying about its “responsible and science-based stewardship” when it comes to the management and control of coyotes. I find is amazing that simply because a person does not agree with the “responsible and science-based stewardship” of the MDIFW (in other words the department may not be all in with complete animal protection and natural wildlife management), they are labeled irresponsible and that their practices aren’t science-based. In fact, regardless of the fact that MDIFW spends far too much time trying to appease the social demands of lunatics who think coyotes will stop Lyme disease, the department’s efforts in selective coyote control and the allowing of coyote hunting derbies, while perhaps not a favorite tool for this necessary control, it is something that must be done in order to be “responsible and science-based” in the care and management of other wildlife species.

No matter how much anyone wants to read and believe Farley Mowat’s nonsense, it doesn’t change reality. Nature does not regulate itself in the Nirvanic way the uninformed want to believe. The author states that if we would leave the coyote along it would regulate itself. Obviously, the author has never seen the predator pits of death, destruction, and scarcity that predator protection causes.

If we want to enjoy the wildlife and its abundance, real responsible and science-based management and control is necessary.

Share

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

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

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

Share

False Historical Claims About Deer and Predators

Just the other day, I wrote a rebuttal piece attempting to correct terrible information that was published in a Maine newspaper about how, according to the author, “coyote control doesn’t work.”

In the mythical nonsense written about why coyote control doesn’t work, the author quotes work from someone she believes to be a “carnivore conservation biologist” (therefore an expert on predator prey relationships?). This “expert,” in regards to historical deer populations in Northern Maine, was quoted as saying, “They were never there historically. It’s not a place for deer to thrive because the winters are too cold and the snow is too deep for them to move easily. Deer like edge habitat, not forests. They only moved north after the forests were cut down.”

This substantiates the point that “experts” lose any credibility as an authority on predator/prey relationships because they expose their true agenda by making biased and completely false statements to promote their agendas. We see in this statement that this “expert” claims that deer never existed in Northern Maine because deer can’t survive there because “winters are too cold and the snow is too deep for them.” In addition, this same “expert” gets her hateful digs in by making a false claim that deer migrated north into Maine “after the forests were cut down.”

What absolute nonsense! Actual historic documents, not idealistic coyote worship doctrine, show that when wolves and mountain lions were part of the Maine landscape in Northern Maine (that’s where the moose and caribou were found, thus a good meal selection for the wolves and pumas) the deer all lived on the coast of Maine and even crammed onto the islands to escape predator harassment. When the caribou vacated the state, moving into the Canadian Provinces (for whatever reason) the wolves went with them. All of this had nothing to do with the forests being cut down.

To continue the historic timeline of predator/prey relationships, after the wolves left, the deer began moving back north and the population grew significantly.

Beginning the the late 1960’s and early 1970s, the coyote moved into the state and began to flourish. With it, especially in Northern Maine, the deer numbers came crashing down and have never recovered to historic highs and never will so long as predators are protected.

In information I was sent yesterday that originated with Deer Friendly website, provides us with data that makes it extremely difficult to honestly claim that deer in Northern Maine historically were never there. (Refer to the chart below.)

This data shows that in the 1950s and 1960s, before the coyote arrived and flourished, the deer harvests in Aroostook, Washington, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties, all of which comprise the majority of what we would consider to be Northern Maine, attributed to nearly 40% of the total deer harvest. This might be considered a pretty good indicator that in just 4 counties (of 16), 40% of the deer harvest meant Northern Maine historically DID have more deer than they do today.

Let’s compare. In the 2010s, at a time when the coyote population in the state as well as the bear population, are at historic highs, those same four countries struggle to comprise 20%, or about half, of what used to be the Maine deer harvest.

Claiming that deer were never in Northern Maine is a false statement intended only to justify the allowance of the wanton waste and destruction of coyotes and other large predators. The way these predator protectors present their myths, I wonder if they have ever asked why, if Northern Maine never had any deer, why our neighbors to the north, in Canada, have deer enough to offer their residents an opportunity to stock up venison for the winter?

There are very few, if any, legitimate reasons to not control large predators and manage deer numbers to levels conducive to protect and promote a useful, renewable resource. Presenting false information is intended only to place hunting in a negative light in hopes of ending it, while promoting the status of predators above that of people.

Share

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