September 20, 2020

And Like a Good Neighbor….

ncbillboard

Share

If DOJ Prevails in North Carolina’s HB2 Case, Future Presidents Could Re-Write Federal Laws

*Editor’s Note* – The National Center for Public Policy Research asks if “future presidents” could rewrite Federal Law. The question actually is answered by a simple examination of what has and continues to be a disregard of Federal Law and the authority granted any president to do just as he or she damned well pleases. The intent of “executive actions” is being severely abused, at least as most of us have been led to believe is the purpose of executive privilege. With each successive executive action that goes unchallenged by the public or by Congress, remains as precedence and policy, which drives the laws of this land today. The question here by NCPPR appears as though such a move to declare defining any sex as sexual discrimination, is something an administration can’t do. Since when does such a claim matter anymore?

I think this action was well described earlier today by a contributor to the website, in his article about “Arguing the Premise.”

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Could Barack Obama and His Successor, Presumably Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Re-Write the 1964 Civil Rights Act Anytime They Want?

National Center for Public Policy Research Asks Major Software Company Why It Argues In Court That Assigning the Use of Public Restrooms and Showers by Biological Sex Is Illegal “Sex Discrimination”

U.S. Department of Justice Argues that 1964 Civil Rights Act, 1972 Education Act and 2013 Education Act All Make Traditional Biological Determinations of Sex Illegal Under Federal Law

68 Corporations, Including Red Hat, Claim the DOJ is Right

But When Did Congress Pass a Law Saying the Very Idea of Biological Sex is Illegal Discrimination?

Answer: It Didn’t.

Does Red Hat Believe the DOJ Can Re-Write Federal Law Any Way It Wants? Does It Argue that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton Could, Too?

Raleigh, NC/Washington, D.C.  At today’s annual meeting of Red Hat shareholders held in Raleigh, North Carolina, the National Center for Public Policy Research asked management for the legal rationale behind the company’s argument that assigning sex based on physiology constitutes illegal “sex discrimination” under federal law.

North Carolina passed a law, known as HB2, determining that public restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities, including some in educational settings, should be used by individuals based on their biological sex. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone to federal court to argue the law should be thrown out because assigning sex by biology constitutes illegal “sex discrimination.”

The DOJ is arguing that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1972 Education Act Amendments and the 2013 Violence Against Women Act, assigning a person a sex based on their physiology constitutes illegal sex discrimination.

National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq., asked Red Hat’s management at the meeting just when it became illegal to assign sex by biology.

Danhof asked the Red Hat management:

This case is about much more than diversity. This is a question about law.

Is it the position of Red Hat’s management that Congress, when it voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1972 Education Act Amendments, intended “sex” to be a mental state or belief about one’s sex not necessarily related to biology or physiology?

Or is it the position of Red Hat’s management that Congress, when referring to sex in 1964 and 1972, meant the term to refer to biological males and females, and that the definition of “sex” in federal law has simply changed over the years?

If the definition of “sex” has changed, how did it change in federal law without Congress voting to change it and no federal court ruling redefining it?

Or is it the position of Red Hat that the executive branch can change the core meaning of federal laws all by itself?

In response, Red Hat CEO James Whitehurst largely deferred to the company’s general counsel, Michael Cunningham.

Company executives claimed that they signed the brief based on public policy reasons, fearing that HB2 would lead to discrimination. Cunningham then tried to parse the legal procedure of the case by stating that the company signed onto a brief supporting an injunction on HB2 until the full case on the merits is litigated – and that the company didn’t necessarily back DOJ’s full lawsuit.

“I pressed Red Hat’s executives on the claim that they only signed a brief supporting an injunction. I pointed out that this was a distinction without a difference since the brief that Red Hat signed and the DOJ’s brief on the merits apply the same logic and much of the same legal principles. At that point, Cunningham conceded that the company did support the DOJ’s primary position regarding HB2 and thought the law should be overturned,” noted Danhof.

“I left the meeting with the sense that the company is fully supporting the Obama Administration’s effort to rewrite federal law and that it somehow thinks the DOJ is justified in this extra-Constitutional action,” said Danhof. “So I warned Red Hat’s executives that they are supporting a potentially precedent-setting case with ramifications far beyond North Carolina’s HB2 law – and that in the future they should take a much more earnest look at all the issues before getting involved in legal cases that have almost nothing to do with the company’s operations.”

The core of the Department of Justice’s case is that the DOJ can re-define the meaning of “sex discrimination” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and in Title IX of the 1972 Education Act, two of the most influential civil rights laws ever adopted by Congress. By endorsing the DOJ’s position in the case, Red Hat and the other corporations have explicitly endorsed allowing the executive branch to re-write federal law.

“Does corporate America really believe the executive branch can re-write federal law anytime it wants?” asked Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Because the companies are arguing either that Members of Congress in 1964 and 1972 intended the word ‘sex’ to refer not to biological men and women but to a fluid definition individuals can change, even repeatedly, or that Congress changed the definition since those laws were passed. But if Congress changed those laws, when did it do so?”

“Red Hat and 67 other major corporations, including Nike, General Electric, American Airlines and United Airlines, IBM, Dow Chemical, Capital One and many others are arguing that the executive branch – that means Barack Obama and soon, presumably, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton – can change laws anytime he or she wants,” added Ridenour. “All these corporations should be explaining to their shareholders why they have gone to court arguing that the separation of powers laid out in the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress passes the laws and the executive branch enforces them, is no longer in effect, and when and how that change took place.”

“If these 68 corporations and the DOJ prevail in their case and the executive branch does get the power to re-write federal law by itself,” Ridenour concluded, “they had better hope no anti-business politician ever gets elected President of the United States.”

On March 23rd, North Carolina’s legislature passed HB2, formally titled the “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act,” often called North Carolina’s restroom and shower law. Among other things, the law states that individuals must use public restrooms corresponding with the sex on their birth certificate (transgender individuals can change the sex on their birth certificate after gender reassignment surgery). On May 9th, the Justice Department filed suit seeking to halt the law’s implementation. On July 8th, 68 major corporations, in conjunction with the Human Rights Campaign, filed a legal brief supporting the Justice Department’s position. The trial is tentatively scheduled to start November 14.

“Who uses which public restroom, locker room or public shower facility in the Tar Heel state has nothing to do with Red Hat’s international software business,” added Danhof. “Yet, Red Hat and 67 other major corporations are actively involved in litigation supporting the federal government’s attempt to block North Carolina’s common sense public accommodation law. Unfortunately, many of these corporations probably have no idea what they are really doing is supporting the U.S. Justice Department’s efforts to upend the rule of law and separation of powers.”

“Also, where is all this supposed discrimination? To hear these corporate executives talk or read the words in their legal brief, one would expect widespread news coverage of constant discrimination of transgender individuals across North Carolina. The dearth of such stories speaks truth to these lies of discrimination,” Danhof concluded.

In July, the National Center issued a press release criticizing the 68 companies, including Red Hat, that are working with the Obama Administration to give the executive branch more power in rewriting federal laws. In that release, Danhof noted:

Besides offending the sensibilities of millions of Americans and North Carolinians who don’t wish to have grown men and young girls in states of undress in the same public facility, the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeks to fundamentally alter the rule of law. Obama’s Justice Department has long sought to include self-identified transgender individuals as a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Act Amendments of 1972. Since the DOJ doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to rewrite laws, it is trying to seek the same result by establishing precedent with this court case. Such a result would irreparably damage America’s unique separation of powers and open the floodgates for increased executive branch control over state and local matters.

If the government is going to extend the Civil Rights Act to cover individuals who merely identify as transgender – but choose not to actually change their gender medically or legally – than that’s up to the U.S. Congress. Members of Congress are elected and accountable to the American people. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her lackeys at the Department of Justice are not. However, publicly-held companies are accountable to their investors and customers. Corporations that want to undermine the American people need to hear from these stakeholders. Every time a corporation even hints at taking a perceived conservative action or position, the liberal activist machine kicks into high gear and attacks that corporation. Conservative and free enterprise-minded folks need to start using the same tactics to go after companies that limit freedom.

“Even if this case was purely about the public restroom, locker room and shower provisions in HB2, Red Hat is making a poor strategic decision. Opinion polls show a plurality of Americans support the law’s commonsense approach requiring men and boys to use the men’s facilities and women and girls to use the women’s facilities when in public places,” noted Danhof. “If Red Hat wants an example of what public backlash can look like for supporting perverse restroom and accommodation policies, it should look to Target Corporation. After announcing that its restrooms and changing rooms were open to anyone based on their subjective identification, the retailer’s stock price and foot traffic to its stores plummeted.”

National Center President David Ridenour is a Red Hat shareholder.

In May, Danhof confronted Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi after she called for North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal HB2. While Nooyi defended Pepsi’s position, the company did not join in the Human Rights Campaign legal brief that Red Hat endorsed.

* * *

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Red Hat meeting marks its 19th shareholder meeting of 2016.

Just this year, the Free Enterprise Project has been featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Fox News’ “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, the Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune among many others.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is also prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s new book, “The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech,” published by the Hachette Book Group.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

 

Share

U.S. Department of Justice is Attempting to Rewrite Federal Law

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Corporate Efforts to Overturn North Carolina’s Commonsense Public Accommodation Law Criticized by Legal Expert

Obama Administration Dupes Left-Leaning Corporations into Supporting the Executive Branch’s Attempted Rewrite of the Civil Rights Act

This is About the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

68 Major Corporations Sign Legal Brief that Threatens Public Safety and Offends Common Decency


Washington, D.C.  A top lawyer with the National Center for Public Policy Research is calling out 68 corporations that have joined with the Obama Administration in its effort to halt implementation of North Carolina’s so-called bathroom law, warning that the case is about much more than restroom policy.

In fact, he says, the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to rewrite federal law.

“I am appalled – but not shocked – that so many major corporations have teamed up with the federal government to try to advance a liberal social agenda,” said National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “From promoting ObamaCare to denouncing religious freedom, whenever the Obama Administration needs a corporate ally, the line of business dupes seems limitless. This time, however, the issue at stake is much more than bathroom laws and gender identification. It is about the rule of law and separation of powers.”

On March 23rd, North Carolina’s legislature passed HB2, formally titled the “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act,” which has been colloquially referred to as North Carolina’s bathroom law. Among other things, the law states that transgender individuals who have not taken surgical or legal steps to change their gender must use public restrooms that correspond with the gender on their birth certificate. OnMay 9th, the Justice Department filed suit seeking to halt the law’s implementation. On July 8th, 68 major corporations, in conjunction with the Human Rights Campaign, filed a legal brief supporting the Justice Department’s position.

“Besides offending the sensibilities of millions of Americans and North Carolinians who don’t wish to have grown men and young girls in states of undress in the same public facility, the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeks to fundamentally alter the rule of law. Obama’s Justice Department has long sought to include self-identified transgender individuals as a protected class under Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Since the DOJ doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to rewrite laws, it is trying to seek the same result by establishing precedent with this court case. Such a result would irreparably damage America’s unique separation of powers and open the floodgates for increased executive branch control over state and local matters,” said Danhof.

The list of corporations that are working to undermine Congress and subvert the rule of law include Apple, Salesforce, Marriott, American Airlines, PayPal, Red Hat, Nike, Capital One and IBM.

“If the government is going to extend the Civil Rights Act to cover individuals who merely identify as transgender – but choose not to actually change their gender medically or legally – than that’s up to the U.S Congress. Members of Congress are elected and accountable to the American people. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and her lackeys at the Department of Justice are not,” added Danhof. “However, publicly-held companies are accountable to their investors and customers. Corporations that want to undermine the American people need to hear from these stakeholders. Every time a corporation even hints at taking a perceived conservative action or position, the liberal activist machine kicks into high gear and attacks that corporation. Conservative and free enterprise-minded folks need to start using the same tactics to go after companies that limit freedom.”

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, established in 2007, is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In just the last two years, National Center representatives have participated in 87 shareholder meetings, advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.

Just this year, the Free Enterprise Project has been featured in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, Fox’s “Cavuto,” the Drudge Report, the Financial Times, Crain’s Chicago Business, Hollywood Reporter, the Los Angeles Times, Fortune, Newsmax, Daily Caller, Lifezette, the Seattle Times, the Quad City Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Chicago Tribune among many others.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is also prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s new book, “The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech,” published by the Hachette Book Group.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

It Does Matter Who is Doing The Hating

CourtRulesBakery

Similarities

Moore

Share

Government Fascists Flood Red Wolf Habitat Causing Removal of All Breeding Pairs

*Editor’s Note* – Below is the content of an email I received about a formal complaint filed with the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Interior and the Special Agent in Charge, Professional Responsibility Unit of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The complaint essentially claims an animal that government labeled a red wolf was released into the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (PLNWR) and was to be managed there under the Endangered Species Act, including the PLNWR habit.

The formal complaint alleges that Refuge managers decided to flood the habitat used by red wolves to make way for protection of migrating water fowl. Since the flooding was done, all red wolves have evidently vacated the Refuge at the same time red wolves were showing up on other Public Lands as well as private lands. Some of those wolves were shot and killed.

The complaint charges the actions of the red wolf recovery agents and managers of the PLNWR violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by deliberately causing harm and death to an endangered species.

I understand the complainants expose that appears to show deliberate disregard for the ESA – a Federal Law that private citizens are expected to adhere to. However, perhaps we should thank these agents for what they have done, even though they may have violated federal law.

In the first place the animal government fascists dumped in the woods, was not a red wolf – if the species even ever existed. At best it was a cross-bred, hybrid that resulted in a semi-wild canine that is of no use to anybody or anything.

But what should rise to the surface in all of this is the fact that fascist government agents are above the laws the rest of us are required to follow or we suffer ridiculous, draconian consequences the like of which was never intended by the ESA….or were they. In other words, Government does as it wishes and always will because there is no accountability or consequences for anyone’s actions. American fascist Government has morphed into an ends is justified by means form of power.

One has to wonder what is expected to be accomplished in filing such complaints when the leaders of this government are the biggest crooks in the world. Presently we have a president who disregards the rule of law, dictating his own ideals onto the servitude, while our elected officials go along with it out of fear of many things, money is not the least of them. We have a candidate for president that lies and cheats regularly, is a murderer and has been caught red-handed breaking laws in this country geared to protecting national security, and yet, nothing is being done about it. Yes, there’s a lot of lip service but WE continue to allow it to be.

Having pointed this all out, should we really believe complaining about two-faced, fascist government actions concerning fake red wolves is going to even be looked into? The only actions that will be taken will be those to save one’s ass.

Here is the content of the email:

K. A. Toomey, #640
Special Agent in Charge
Professional Responsibility Unit
US Fish & Wildlife Service
698 Conservation Way, G-13

Shepherdstown, WV 25443

Special Agent John Hast
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street NW – Mail Stop 4428
Washington, D.C. 20240

Mr. Hast and Mr. Toomey,

I would like to report the “take” of multiple endangered Red Wolves by USFWS as a direct result of USFWS significantly altering (flooding/saturating) the wolves’ habitat on the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.  As maps I present here clearly document, breeding pairs of wolves were once prevalent on PLNWR, the Refuge is now completely devoid of any pairs of wolves.

THE LAW

Section 3(18) of the ESA defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

FWS regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/rules-and-regulations.html

See also:

Under §7(a)(2), no federal agency may authorize, fund or carry out any action likely to threaten or harm the existence of an endangered / threatened species (or harm their habitat).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/endangered_species_act_esa

Harm in the definition of “take” in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/17.3

*This is very important.  It should be noted the nonessential experimental population of Red Wolves in North Carolina receives the full protection of endangered species status as long as it remains on the Federal refuges.

THE VIOLATIONS
In September of 2007, USFWS Refuge Manager Howard Phillips and USFWS Project Leader/Refuge Manager Mike Bryant submitted the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan stating:

“All refuge management actions would be directed toward achieving the refuge’s primary purposes (i.e., conserving wintering habitat for waterfowl, providing production habitat for wood ducks, and helping meet the habitat goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), while contributing to other national, regional, and State goals to protect and restore migratory bird populations.”
Page 270

*Please note the Red Wolves were promised this in 1993 by the USFWS Refuge Manager Jim Savery:

#1
#2
?

So what is the primary focus of the PLNWR?  Is it to be managed for ducks as Refuge Managers Bryant and Phillips state in their 2007 “Conservation” plan?  Or is endangered species management the number one objective as declared by USFWS Refuge manager Jim Slavery when the wolves were to be released on the refuge?

As I have learned, USFWS biologists say whatever suits their purpose at the time, whether it is to their neighbors or even the wildlife they are charged to protect.  I guess it was beneficial to be an endangered wolf in 1993, but better to be a duck in 2007.

To be clear, in the 2007 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan it is stated:Under HABITAT MANAGEMENT for 61,288 acres of pocosin.

Successful maintenance or management of the pocosin will require restoration of hydrology to hold the water table at the surface of the soil.
Page 76
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/PocosinLakesFinalCCP/PocosinLakes%20FINAL%20CCP%20Edited.pdf

From the 10/26/2007 Section 7 Biological Evaluation by USFWS Biologist Wendy Stanton for Watersheds 2 and 3:
“The hydrology restoration project would involve two steps; The first is to raise refuge roads two to three feet in elevation to maintain road accessibility and allow flooding adjacent blocks of land to surface levels or slightly higher to allow sheet flow.” “The second step is to install new and/or replace old leaking water control structures and culverts at every one foot change in elevation to manage water levels in the adjacent land blocks.”  Stanton further designated these actions relative to the red wolf to “not likely adversely affect species or habitat”

Now let’s look at the 2005 Section 7 Biological Evaluation signed by USFWS Refuge Manager Howard Phillips found on pages 159 – 161 of the USFWS 2007 Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan:

#3#4

?http://www.fws.gov/southeast/planning/PDFdocuments/PocosinLakesFinalCCP/PocosinLakes%20FINAL%20CCP%20Edited.pdf

Yes, you are reading this correctly, USFWS is going to fully saturate (flood) 61,288 acres of the previously “ideal” red wolf habitat but this action will “not likely adversely affect the species”.  How is it even conceivable that saturation of 61,288 acres of the wolves’ habitat to soil surface level or above will not likely adversely impact this species?  I have learned that there is no room for common sense when it comes to this Red Wolf Program and its management or lack thereof.

Let’s see what this new saturated habitat looks like.  This is the western edge of PLNWR.  The western edge is the highest elevation of the refuge at approximately 18 ft above sea level.  In the mid 90s, I would often quail hunt this exact piece of land.  We referred to it as the old cow pasture tract. The previous vast pond pine savannas with broom straw and myrtle bushes held some of the largest quail and rabbit populations I have ever seen. Not any more.  Here is that land now:
#5
?
The pond pine forests have long been drowned by USFWS “management and conservation actions”.
#6?

Keep in mind the significant modification of habitat “take” violation described in the ESA:  FWS regulations (50 CFR 17.3) define “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.

I assure you a wolf does not and can not den and rear young under water or even on land that is saturated to soil surface levels or above.  I further assure you the rodents, rabbits and upland game that once flourished on this refuge and served as a prey base for the Red Wolf are no longer here. This I can tell you and I am not even a red wolf biologist or refuge manager charged with the responsibility of protecting this species and determining the affects of this action on the endangered Red Wolf.

EFFECTS ON THE RED WOLF
I know USFWS Refuge Managers Howard Phillips and Mike Bryant promised to monitor and coordinate with the Red Wolf Recovery Team any adverse impacts of all this on their endangered Red Wolf.  But let me do it for them, since they obviously have not and will not.  I took USFWS 2003 and 2014 Red Wolf Pair maps and overlaid them onto the PLNWR map.  My findings are rather significant.

Here is a USFWS 2003 map of Red Wolf breeding pairs located on the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.  The green area is the PLNWR. Red Wolf pair territories appear in red,  coyotes in blue, and mixed pairs in black.

2003 Pocosin Lake Wildlife Refuge Red Wolf Map

#7?

In 2003, at least six Red Wolf pairs used PLNWR as part of their home territory.  If you assume many of these pairs had offspring in their family unit, you arrive at the previously contemplated carrying capacity of 15 – 25 wolves on the refuge.Now, let’s fast forward to 2014 after USFWS Refuge Management decided to manage the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge for waterfowl and not the endangered Red Wolf. Remember USFWS Refuge Management was charged with the responsibility to monitor any impact on the endangered Red Wolf and also to coordinate efforts with the USFWS Red Wolf Recovery Team to protect the wolf.

#8?

Yes that is correct, not a single pair of Red Wolves located anywhere on the PLNWR.

It should be noted that during this time period, the USFWS Red Wolf Coordinator reported directly to USFWS Project Leader/Refuge Manager Mike Bryant.  I want to understand why, as required under the Section 7 rules of the ESA, this adverse impact was not reported and acted upon.

IMPACT AND TAKE OF THE SPECIES
60 out of 64 gun shot wolves have occurred on private land as USFWS flooded the wolves’ protected Federal land and sought out dry land where they did not have the full protection of the ESA.  To add insult to injury, USFWS also adopted an internal policy to not remove wolves from private land as mandated by their 1995 Federal Rules governing this nonessential experimental population.

In a text book violation of the take provision of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, USFWS knowingly and willingly significantly altered and modified the protective Federal Refuge habitat (saturation/flooding) of the Red Wolf forcing it onto private land. The USFWS Red Wolf Recovery Team then refused to remove the wolves from private land, as legally required, knowing the mortality rate was far greater off the protected refuge.  Now as a direct result of these USFWS actions, the USFWS Red Wolf Recovery Program seems destined to fail as its population numbers have now precipitously dropped to the same number of breeding pairs (4) that the program started with almost 30 years ago.

Special Agents Toomey and Hast, please accept this as a formal complaint alleging take violations of the endangered Red Wolf as defined by the 1973 Endangered Species Act by USFWS.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

 

Share

Using VooDoo to Justify Screw-ups With Illegal “Wolf” Introduction

*Editor’s Note* – This is mostly just nonsense…BS actually. Even the concept is foolishness and the lack of intelligent reasoning is void. The idea that there could actually be any kind of “control” over an experiment, even of this size, to have any concept of what is taking is place, is bunk.

First, there is no such thing as a “pure” red wolf. (As a matter of fact, by scientific definition, there is no such thing as a “pure” wolf, or coyote. We just dumb down the requirements for the money.) Most scientists believe the red wolf is nothing more than a cross-bred wild dog. Even the canine animals the Feds “introduced” were half-tame, mixed-bred, dogs. The nonsense is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is spending millions and millions of dollars attempting to illegally dump mongrel, semi-wild dogs into North Carolina, calling them red wolves and hiding behind the dysfunctional Endangered Species Act claiming they (USFWS) is required by law to “recover” the red wolf.

The latest science on coyotes, wolves, cross-breeds and hybridization shows the impossibility to protect separate species (if in fact any of them are) from cross breeding because there are too many of the beasts to begin with. With millions of coyotes/cross-breeds and tens of thousands of “wolves” (cross-breeds) the more they grow and are protected the more it is impossible to separate species regardless of how many thousands of “placeholder” coyotes are introduced. (Notice the misleading title placed on sterilized coyotes.) One would think that the Environmentalist would be fighting to actually ensure fewer canines in order to preserve the gene, but they are not. Instead, they are hinting toward continued protection and dealing with the result, naming it a new species. Is that science or politics?

Presenting some fanciful, non-workable, ridiculous notion that cross breeding can be prevented by sterilizing coyotes and placing them between packs of viable wolves and coyotes is about as smart as putting up a fence on the Mexican border thinking it will stop illegal immigration.

It is my opinion that this experiment is nothing more than a means of distracting and somehow substantiating the disaster the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created in North Carolina. Now that they have screwed everything up in a really bad way – bad for the people/property owners and bad for the wildlife – the USFWS is going to attempt to legitimize their incompetency.

In response to this announcement, Dr. Valerius Geist commented, “Grasping for straws! And what a muddle to begin with. How much manpower will be required to keep track of “placeholders” and mating pairs? One biologist per red-wolf breeding pair? and are red wolves actually wolves?”

This nonsense deserves the “Golden Horse Excrement Award.”

horsepoopsaving

One of the most endangered species is the red wolf, Canis rufus. Reintroduction of the red wolf began in 1987, but in 1993 hybridization between coyotes (Canis latrans) and wolves was documented. To reduce genetic introgression, coyotes and coyote–wolf hybrids were captured, sterilized, and released as “placeholders”. Placeholders held territories until either displaced or killed by a wolf, or management personnel removed them before releasing a wolf. We evaluated the placeholder concept by examining the number of animals sterilized and released, likelihood of displacement by a wolf, factors influencing displacements, territory fidelity of placeholders, and survival rates and causes of mortality of placeholders and wolves. Of the 182 placeholders, 125 were coyotes and 57 were hybrids. From 1999 to 2013, 51 placeholders were displaced or killed by wolves, and 16 were removed by management personnel. Thus, 37% of the placeholders were displaced leading to occupancy by a wolf. Most displacements occurred in winter (43%) and were always by the same sex. Males were more likely to be displaced than females. Home range characteristics influencing the probability of displacement included home-range size (i.e., more placeholders displaced from larger home ranges) and road density (i.e., more placeholders displaced from home ranges with lower road density). Annual survival of placeholders was higher than wolves in 12 of 14 years, with cause-specific mortality similar among wolves and placeholders. Placeholders provided territories for wolves to colonize, yet reduced the production of hybrid litters, thereby limiting genetic introgression to < 4% coyote ancestry in the wolf population.

Source: Using the “placeholder” concept to reduce genetic introgression of an endangered carnivore

Share

Fascist Fish and Wildlife Service Responds to Red Wolf Attack on Horses

In typical fascist form, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service responded to threats of legal action by the owners of the two horses that were attacked by illegally introduced “red wolves” in North Carolina. One horse was slaughtered and the second was seriously mauled.

According to information provided to me by friends and neighbors in North Carolina, who have been working feverishly to somehow force the United States Government of obey their own laws and remove the illegal, hybrid/cross-bred, semi-wild canines, admit their mistakes and take responsibility for their actions – the latest being this attack on two horses.

The owners have contacted the USFWS and have at least solicited compensation for their loss at the hands of “GI Wolves.” This is the response from the USFWS:

USFWSResponseHorse

But this apparently NOT what the USFWS makes available for information that should apply to this case.

Protocol1

Protocol2

As is typical of the “new” U.S. Government that we are seemingly subservient to, the Government makes up their own rules as they go along in order to continue to promote their own agendas and pet projects without interruption by U.S. government contracted slaves.

Evidently most people like being treated that way.

Share

Help Needed: Wolves Attack Horses in North Carolina

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service illegally introduced mongrel semi-wild dogs, calling them red wolves, into North Carolina. Now residents in that area are experiencing the terrible repercussions of a fascist government forcing people to “co-exist” with their pet project dogs.

The people who lost the horses need your help. Please help by clicking on this website.

Share

New Mexico says no to wolves, creating quandary for federal officials

*Editor’s Note* – The author of this article states that the Feds “can go over the state’s head” but questions whether or not the Feds will do that. The answer is simple: Of course they will. They have a history of breaking laws and doing just as they damned please anyway. So, why act as though you don’t know?

When one considers all the corruption that has existed from the very beginning, from dishonestly crafting environmental impact statements to conform with the desired narrative of forcing wolf introduction, to illegally releasing cross-bred, mongrel, semi-wild dogs on private land in North Carolina, why would anyone suspect they don’t know what the Feds will do?

In North Carolina, state authorities demanded the Feds remove fake red wolves they planted on private land and still they refuse, even though the Fed’s actions are clearly illegal.

Not unlike North Carolina, the fake “Mexican” wolves of the Desert Southwest are almost as mongrel. And these clowns say it is necessary for genetic diversity. BS

The Feds have always hidden behind the claim that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires them to “recover” wolves. Odd, as well as corrupt, that the Feds wish to adhere closely to the ESA laws – actually, their own interpretation of them, and yet thumb their fascist noses at those calling them out when they have deliberately broken the other laws from the same ESA.

No, there shouldn’t be any questions about what the Feds are going to do in New Mexico or anywhere else they decide to force people to live with wolves. If it destroys the American Heritage, including the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, these fascists have and will continue to carry on with business as usual.

We have created it, now we must live with it.

WHILE WE SNORE!

State officials have said they are unwilling to approve new releases until FWS updates its recovery plan for the wolf, which was written in 1982. Concerned about impacts to ranchers and elk hunters, they’ve pressed FWS for the total number of wolves it aims to restore to the landscape in the long-term. But the agency doesn’t have that number yet, and though it is updating the recovery plan, the process is likely to take at least 2 years.

Now, the federal agency must decide whether to release the wolves against the state’s wishes. Federal policy requires FWS to consult state agencies and comply with their permitting processes when releasing endangered animals from captivity, even when releases are made on federal land. But there’s one exception: If a state agency prevents the service from fulfilling its statutory responsibilities, the feds can go over the state’s head.

Source: New Mexico says no to wolves, creating quandary for federal officials | Science/AAAS | News

Share

USFWS Red Wolf Corruption or Incompetence?

*Editor’s Note* – I was sent the following email. It is an update to the ongoing farce in North Carolina, disguised as some sort of mongrel dog experiment but labeled a red wolf introduction and management program. The author of the email, Mr. Ferebee, had sent an FOIA to USFWS director Ashe, seeking a map or maps of the current location and tracking information for the government’s radio-collared dogs. The answer came back that no maps exist…and the comedy takes off from there.

For anyone who has experience with FOIA requests, we know them to be a farce. Non thinking people believe that because the governments “created” the Freedom of Information Act, that we, as citizens can obtain information about any subject simply by making a request. Such is not the case. Everyday we observe the Federal Government and or their representatives refusing to give up information, even to the Courts, and we accept that folly. And surely, Americans are blessed with the same corruption at ALL levels of government.

If a government agency does not want you to have information they simply will NOT give it to you. Even if you have millions of dollars to spend, the chances of getting the information you want are extremely low.

What is being displayed in the below email can be only one of two things – or perhaps a combination of them. Either the USFWS, i.e. Director Ashe, is corrupt or incompetent. You decide.

Recently a bioloGEST with the U.S. Forest Service, did a “reply all” to an email that was sent out concerning the recent rash of out-of-control forest fires in the West. The bioloGEST whined that he was a bit tired of people bitching and complaining that the U.S. Government was refusing to make corrections to their poor and unscientific forestry practices.

He received no sympathy from me. I simply told him MacDonald’s was hiring. I doubt that anyone put a gun to this person’s head and forced them to take a government, high-paying no doubt, job as a bioloGEST.

The point being, without the efforts of people like Mr. Ferebee, who works tirelessly to expose the incompetence and corruption of Government, where, exactly, would we really be?

From an email sent by Ferebee:

Dear Director Ashe,

With the USFWS mandated by Federal law to collar, track and monitor all “Red Wolves” in the State of North Carolina and an annual budget of over $1,200,000 to do so; I was shocked to receive your below response to my request for recent Red Wolf location maps.

ResponseLetter

Well Director Ashe, guess what I found about the time Hillary’s private email server surfaced.  Yep, that’s right, your USFWS Red Wolf maps that don’t exist…  This reminds me of the 10 USFWS wolves I trapped on my farm that USFWS assured me “had NO wolves”.

The thing I like most about the below USFWS Red Wolf maps, is that your biologists not only tracked and mapped your wolves on my land, but they also spelled my name correctly.

My Bee Tree farm boundary lines are correct, but the exact acreage is off slightly. 
I find the big hand written X on my farm in the first picture somewhat problematic.

I believe our NC Wildlife Resources Commission has asked for years for such maps from your Red Wolf program, with no success.

These are just a few of the USFWS Red Wolf maps in my possession. 

 

Wolf10987Map

 

Wolf11517Map

 

Wolf11519Map

 

Wolf1133Map

 

Director Ashe, I am glad I was able to locate some of your Red Wolf maps for you, sort of like I located your USFWS Red Wolf Coordinator for you when he up and moved to Charlotte, and also sort of like I located the Red Wolf Coalition Director behind a desk in your USFWS offices as she sued our NC Wildlife Resources Commissioners.

Now, if I can just locate those 40 expensive GPS satellite collars that the tax payers of North Carolina paid for and gave USFWS to track your man made, non native invasive coywolves.  More on this duping of the NC Department of Transportation to come…

Tracking and mapping whose land your wolves are actually inhabiting is obviously no problem for USFWS.

Exhibiting the folly of your USFWS Red Wolf program is obviously no problem for me and I will continue.

Who exactly in your organization is trying so desperately to not release the wolf location information to the citizens of North Carolina?  After all, the private landowners are just trying to help you maintain your so called “wolves” on your Federal land as mandated by Federal law.

Director Ashe, I kindly ask that you please look in your files one more time and see if you can’t possibly find the location maps of your wolves (all 50 of them) from this past July.  Look for the pretty red, yellow and green maps with the wolf ID number, sex, core range, total range and landowner names with property lines.  They should be easy to spot.

I do not want to think that I was intentionally lied to by USFWS regarding these location maps, when you just had that big news release about USFWS wanting to regain the trust of the private landowners in eastern North Carolina.

I thank you for your time and I would still like to meet with you.

Jett Ferebee

Share