February 3, 2023

Obama Says Kill Wolves?

The 2016 presidential election, which also combines with elections in Congress, is not that far away… that is if you watch the array of idiots vying for a hand-up on the others for the nomination. For this reason it is probably why the Obama Administration, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is saying that they are in agreement with Michigan and Wisconsin that hunters should be able to “sport hunt” wolves. Sport hunt, eh?

A citified and Obama-appointed federal district judge in the District of Columbia, created her own interpretation of the Endangered Species Act(ESA) (nothing new here) and ordered that wolves in the Great Lakes Region (Distinct Population Segment) be returned to protection under the ESA. The USFWS is contemplating whether to appeal that decision, but don’t hold your breath. They won’t appeal it. They don’t WANT to appeal it. Their buddies in the several environmental regimes, which are nothing more a branch of their own corrupt form of totalitarian rule, accomplished what the USFWS and thus, the Obama Administration, really wanted. With those assurances in place, frees up the Obama Administration to make statements that they support the hunters. Absolute BS! BUT DON’T GO LOOK! (This tactic is as old as the hills. It is much like the Vatican stating they oppose abortion and yet behind the scenes they are responsible for the perpetuation of the act.)

While this dog and pony show goes on, Kabuki Theater is being staged somewhere in the halls of Congress to vote on a bill that would force the USFWS to reinstate the Final Rule for wolf delisting, while at the same time prohibiting Howell and others from “judicial review”. (Do you have a definition for that?)

TIME OUT: Judicial Rule – The principle by which courts can declare acts of either the executive branch or the legislative branch unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has exercised this power, for example, to revoke state laws that denied civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Rep. Ribble’s bill, H.R. 884, states that the Final Rule will be reissued and “Such reissuance shall not be subject to judicial review.”

So, does that mean environmental groups cannot file suit to stop the delisting? Or is this meaning to prevent environmental groups from challenging the constitutionality of H.R. 884?


However, the Obama Administration, according to the article linked to above, thinks that, “The science clearly shows that wolves are recovered in the Great Lakes region.” Technically, this isn’t exactly what Howell said in her ruling. So pay attention.

Howell’s ruling stated that the reason she couldn’t let the Final Rule stand was because it is her belief that wolves must be recovered throughout all the Lower 48 States. That makes it easier for Obama to state that hunters ought to be able to “sport hunt” wolves but does NOTHING to address Howell’s ruling.

And this brings me back to “sport hunting” wolves. Please, Mr. Obama, define sport hunting. Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t his government just get the hell out of the way and let the state governments decide what’s best. Isn’t this allowed in the Corporation and/or the corporation? Obama once made an effort to define “Significant Portion of it’s Range” and that amounted to nothing and never will. The Courts are in command and they will do as they are instructed to do in their rulings, mostly because nobody understands the real laws and powers that govern them.

In short, this is a work of smoke and mirrors and more than likely is driven by deception aimed at swaying public opinion and thus padding the ballot box in 2016. Don’t fall for any of it. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.


Historic Range: All Or Nothing? Intellectual Bankruptcy?

CognitiveDissonanceIt is more and more obvious with each passing day that the United States has eagerly, and yet unknowingly, moved into a Totalitarian socialist government and existence of servitude. Much of this occurred the result of intellectual bankruptcy at all levels. If you at all get it, this might appear to you as obvious in Court rulings about endangered species…and then again, maybe not.

The latest in this seeming Kabuki theater is one ruling and explanation of a Washington, D.C. judge, Beryl Howell, who essentially ruled that the United States, under the Obama-administrated Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cannot remove any species from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) unless that species is fully recovered throughout all of its historic range. In other words, the USFWS does not have authority because of the ESA to manage species through the confines of the ESA by declaring a species recovered within a designated region, most often called a Distinct Population Segment (DPS).

In Judge Howell’s Memorandum of Opinion in the Humane Society of the United States v. Sally Jewell, Judge Howell states, “The FWS’s interpretation is unreasonable on two levels. First, the structure, history, and purpose of the ESA do not permit the designation of a DPS for the purpose of delisting the vertebrates that are members of the DPS. Second, the ESA does not allow the designation of a DPS made up of vertebrates already protected under the ESA at a more general taxonomic level.”

This statement must be understood in its entirety in order that one can see the intellectual bankruptcy of such a statement. This statement says that the USFWS’s interpretation of the ESA is unreasonable because that department cannot create or designate a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species. Let me better explain for those who might not be able to fully understand. In the specific case in discussion, Judge Howell contends that gray wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973 throughout all of the Lower 48 states – with the exception of Minnesota, where the wolf was listed as threatened.

The USFWS, after determining that wolves in a broad area of the Western Great Lakes had fully recovered, drew some boundaries and declared wolves within that boundary as no longer protected by the ESA.

Howell is not the first judge to rule this way. I have written about it before. Another Washington, D.C. based, intellectually bankrupt judge ruled pretty much identically as Howell did. My explanatory response to Judge Howell’s ruling can be found at this link.

At this link location you’ll be provided links to responses by the USFWS to Judge Friedman’s demand for an explanation as to why the USFWS has authority to create DPSs.

What Judge Howell is driving at is that because the USFWS cannot designate a segment as an area of recovered species, the only way that such a designation can be done is once wolves (or any other species) are fully recovered throughout its entire historic range. Howell reinforces this claim by saying, “The FWS’s interpretation of the ESA as authorizing the simultaneous designation and delisting of DPSs—or the designation of a DPS solely for the purpose of delisting—directly conflicts with the structure of the ESA and, consequently, this interpretation is entitled to no deference …. The ESA is remarkably clear: the FWS must identify “species” that are “threatened” or “endangered,” afford them the protections necessary to help them “recover,” and then re-evaluate the listed entities once such “species” are recovered.

Hopefully you have come to understand exactly what both Judges, Friedman and Howell, are saying, because I’m going to spoil their party. There are two things to consider but the major one is this: After the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was signed into law by the crooked Richard Nixon, wolves were designated as “Endangered” under the authority of the ESA. I know of nobody who disputes that event. My logical, and I think rational (sorry if you don’t see it that way) question is this: If, according to Friedman and Howell, the United States Government, under its own created law (ESA), cannot designate an area to delist a portion of a species’ historic range as recovered, then how did the United State Government have authority to designate the listing initially in the Lower 48 states?

Supposedly under this brand new law, the U.S. carved out an area, defined by the borders of the United States, and designated wolves endangered within those borders. How could they do this? In addition, at the same time, they carved out another area, separated by the borders defining the State of Minnesota, and declared wolves there “Threatened”. How could they do that?

But it gets worse. Because a group of people, which included not only the USFWS but also some of the very same activist, animal protectionist groups suing the U.S. Government to stop delisting wolves, wanted wolves introduced into the Greater Yellowstone National Park region, the U.S. Government carved out three areas where wolves would be introduced and protected with different protections than the rest of the country. How in God’s name, according to Friedman and Howell, could the USFWS do that?

Then the same USFWS and the same animal rights, environmental, totalitarians, headed for the Southwest. Once again they carved out and set boundaries and protected a fake hybrid species of wild dog they wished to call a Mexican wolf. Why was the USFWS able to do this? Friedman and Howell say that the ESA doesn’t provide authority to do that.

These hypocritical wolf lovers, carved out borders in the Southeast and created a Frankenstein wolf – red wolf- and introduced it into the landscape. How could the USFWS do that if the ESA doesn’t provide authority?

This same thing happened in the Western Great Lakes and all we hear about everyday are more and more environmental groups seeking to carve out borders and introduce wolves…wolves in everybody’s back yard.

And on and on it goes but only now, now that wolves are a damned menace, destroying wildlife wherever it goes and posing threats to humans for safety and health, do these people want an end to carving out populations for delisting. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. What was acceptable to get their damned wolves infesting this nation is no longer acceptable to bring them under control.

The second issue, which I will touch on only briefly, has to do with the determination of historic range and significant portion of a species range. Historic range and currently feasible range should be determined as different. Whether we like it or not, what once was historic range can no longer be acceptable to support a species that may have once roamed that area.

Once that has been determined, because the ESA uses as criteria in determining if a species deserves ESA protection, we must decide if the species under question is “threatened” or “endangered” throughout a significant portion of that range.

Section 3 – (6) of the Endangered Species Act defines “Endangered Species” as: “(6) The term “endangered species” means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range…

The Obama-administered USFWS placed into the Federal Register what it deemed to be the definition of “significant portion of its range.” This determination attempts to separate the differences between historic range and range.

Determination of “significant” is not so cut and dry and leaves far too much wiggle room. “…we determine that a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion’s contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.”

Making determinations would be easier if definitions actually meant something. To many, the use of “endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range” has not at all been followed in listing of species for protection. The gray wolf is a prime example. Wolves live by the thousands all over the globe and only an idiot would think of them as being in danger of extinction. But that doesn’t bode well for those eager for other people to be forced to live with the animals.

It is my contention that the USFWS was wrong when it initially declared wolves endangered throughout all of the Lower 48 states because the determination was made utilizing historic range, with absolutely no determination as to whether wolves could conceivably exist in all of the Lower 48 States or that we would want them too.

According to statements made in the past by Ed Bangs and others, bent on protecting the wolves, they said that circumstances and “best available science” changes all the time and that the USFWS is forced, under the ESA, to recover wolves and they must make changes according to those influences. Perhaps then, it is time for these same ESA administrators to practice what they preach and begin making changes.

But this will be impossible to do provided this country gives jobs to judges that are clueless, intellectually deprived, make interpretations far outside anything historic or reasonable and to make statements like, “[The Courts] must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough.”

That door swings both ways.


Legal Options for U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance and WGL Wolves

Columbus, OH –(Ammoland.com)-On Dec. 20, a federal district court judge in Washington D.C. struck down the delisting of wolves in the western Great Lakes region, and returned them to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

This move was not based upon the population of wolves—which have clearly recovered in the area—but instead, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell ruled that until wolves are re-established in their historical range (which would apparently include New York City, Washington D.C., Seattle, etc.) they cannot be considered recovered in Michigan, Minnesota or Wisconsin, no matter how large the wolf populations in those three states.<<<Read More>>>



Finding Humor in Tragedy

The following is an editorial/Letter to the Editor sent to the Green Bay (Wisconsin) Press-Gazette in response to a “fawning” article about the recent decision by a lady, federal judge in Washington, DC to place all Great Lakes wolves back under federal jurisdiction, thereby precluding even a modest, “fig-leaf” illusion of states (i.e. those living with the wolves)managing wolves or having any say about how many, where, and to what extent wolf damage and destruction will be tolerated as enforced by draconian federal law enforcement. ..Jim

Finding Humor in Tragedy

The recent decision by an activist federal judge in far-off Washington, DC utilizing (not really enforcing) what is arguably the most recklessly un-Constitutional law in American history to abolish all State and Local authority over the presence of wolves in their midst is a Tragedy of a magnitude worthy of a Shakespearean Play. It would not be out of order to compare it to some individual cleric in W. Iraq issuing a Fatwa based on his interpretation of Sharia Law.

Your paper lauds how the lady judge has confronted “hostile state management” (i.e. of wolves). Hostile state management by State politicians and bureaucrats would have first and foremost been to follow state and federal law and forbid the expenditure of any state hunting license revenue or and Pittman-Robertson excise taxes derived from arms and ammunition sales on any wolves that were forced into the state by federal bureaucrats and that have caused great harm to rural life, livestock, game animals, and the “domestic Tranquility” of Wisconsin residents being forced to endure the harms spreading wherever wolves become established.

State government has become a handmaiden to federal overreach and Local government revenue, jurisdictions and authority have been severely restricted, for what?

What is “management” of any wild animal population other than achieving and maintaining numbers and distributions of the animals as desired by those that live with or utilize those animals?

How can anyone right-thinking person (the judge in question and your writer are as right-thinking as St. Louis demonstrators shown a Coroner/Police Report) describe a wolf season with stated number goals as “unregulated killing?

If Killing wolves is “barbaric”, what pray tell is wolves killing and eating an Alaskan schoolteacher or a Canadian college student?

What is “recovery”? As many wolves as can be shoehorned into 48 states (when there are millions worldwide)? What were all those early ESA “goals” for wolves other than lies?

Even the miniscule annual harvest quotas in our states are merely tiny efforts meant only to quiet critics. The 10-15% harvest quotas of the (asserted) wolf population (since wolves cannot be accurately counted we may be sure DNR numbers are as reliable as national jobless and inflation numbers) are even lower than annual harvest quotas of desirable game animals. These tiny harvest quotas do only 2 things, 1) they reduce winter competition for food guaranteeing more and healthier reproducing females next spring and 2) they encourage larger litters and therefore MORE wolves next fall. That nonsense about “pack structure” and “alpha males” is no more that romantic biological propaganda. To reduce however many wolves are out there, a harvest of 50-70% for at least 5 years and then a 35-50% reduction annually thereafter would be required.

If leghold traps (that by the way allow for release of non-target animals), snares, electronic calls and baiting are “cruel” and “unsportsman-like”; this latter term from organizations that would eradicate all “sporting” hunting, trapping and fishing activities tomorrow; are to be banished what is left? Evening classes for predators? A domestic Jane Goodall Corps?

Please spare us the use of the term “science”. Wolf/predator “science” over the past 30 years has become little more than propaganda purchased by government bureaucrats and radical environmental/animal rights organizations from University professors seeking funding, tenure, recognition and graduate students.

Wolves kill people, livestock, game animals, dogs and other predators like coyotes and foxes. Wolves spread, carry, and contract over thirty diseases and infections that kill and disable humans, domestic animals and other wild animals. Wolves cause great stress to rural families, rural communities and rural life. To call this “decision” a Tragedy is actually being kind. So what is so funny? Where is the “Humor” in this Tragedy?

The “Humor” lies in how your paper and all those wolf-lovers you serve in all those places distant from where the wolves and rural people are doing their “Danse Macabre”, (i.e. Dance of Death) can say with a straight face that it is “barbaric” to kill wolves with “packs of dogs – with hounding of wolves so out of the realm of responsible action that it’s drawn condemnation around the nation”.

Jim Beers

1 January 2015

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.



The Great Lakes Wolf Decision

BerylHowell(Judge Beryl A. Howell. Howell was nominated to the position in 2010 by President Obama, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She is married to Michael Rosenfeld, who served as an executive producer at National Geographic for decades.)

Cat Urbigkit has a fairly in depth article published on Pinedale Online about the ins and outs of the court ruling that placed wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (WGLDPS) back under federal control and the strong arm of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the scrutiny of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

In reading over the court ruling and Urbigkit’s summary of events, seemingly absent from both is the court ordered explanation from the USFWS as to why they have authority, under the Endangered Species Act, to create Distinct Population Segments.

On September 29, 2008, Judge Paul Friedman, in Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorn, vacated a portion in his rule demanding that the USFWS return to his court with an explanation as to why the USFWS had authority of create Distinct Population Segments (DPS). The bulk of Judge Friedman’s ruling is based on his belief that that the USFWS cannot carve out population segments of any species for the purpose of removing that segment from federal protection under the ESA.

It also appears to me that Judge Beryl Howell traveled down the same path as Friedman did in 2008.

On December 12, 2008, just over two months after Judge Friedman vacated his ruling, the Department of Interior, Solicitor’s Office sent to Friedman’s court a 19-page explanation as to why the USFWS has authority, under the ESA, to create DPSs. This 19-page explanation must have satisfied the Courts because a subsequent attempt by the USFWS to “delist” gray wolves in the WGLDPS was successful. However, now, another hand-picked activist judge, evidently refusing to use the same explanation as Judge Friedman, has declared that the USFWS cannot delist wolves, or any other species I’m assuming, unless said species is removed from ESA protection throughout the entirety of the United States, i.e. the USFWS cannot create a DPS.

Odd isn’t it that two courts have ruled in this manner, that it’s all or nothing and that the USFWS cannot create DPSs for the purpose of removing federal protection but evidently the same USFWS is authorized to create as many DPSs in order place a species on the ESA list. Is there no sanity?

If we go back in history to the establishment of the Endangered Species Act, and to that time when the USFWS declared that gray wolves were an endangered species in all Lower 48 states, with the exception of Minnesota (which was listed as “threatened”), according to Friedman and now Howell, the USFWS did not have authority to do that. Evidently this left the USFWS with the only option of declaring the entire planet gray wolf habitat. But then again, why stop with Earth? Perhaps a Papal Bull would do the trick?

None of this makes much sense and to those whose aim is the protection of wolves at all costs, don’t really care about making sense or implementing previous court rulings in formulating their cases; at least when it doesn’t fit the narrative.

What is probably most unfortunate is that eventually there will be enough people sick and tired of this utter nonsense and they will do as was done in Montana and Idaho and craft Congressional legislation that will remove wolves in the Western Great Lakes from federal protection and block any further lawsuits. This is liable to create a domino effect for many other ESA listed species, i.e. Delta Smelt, Canada lynx, grizzly bears, polar bears, etc. And, eventually this action will come back and bite all of us on the ass.

The utter nonsense of it all.