October 17, 2021

Romance Biology – Now and Then

Guest blog by James Beers:

The following lurid prose is from a recent article about wolves in Yellowstone. It is foisted on the public as some sort of “scientific” factoid.

The following two paragraphs say all that need be said about the sad state of public information, public gullibility and government propaganda disguised as “science” today.

Regarding government-introduced wolves in Yellowstone National Park (totally isolated from the millions of acres surrounding the Park but who cares?) we are told:

“Photos taken in the early 1900s, when wolves roamed Yellowstone, reveal that young trees such as aspen and willow were abundant. In 30 years, after wolves were hunted out, the forest stopped regenerating. “Wolves are shaping what you see here,” Douglas W. Smith, leader of the Yellowstone Wolf Project, told Scientific American magazine. “In 30 years, when you drive through the park, it will look very different.”

Maybe more like it did a century ago. You can see the colour return to those black-and-white photos. If only Jack London had lived to read about this.”

So “young trees” “were abundant” “in the early 1900’s”. So what? Is it written somewhere that “young trees” are better or necessary or belong in particular places? Are aspen and willow prettier or better for stream fish you either can’t fish for or are being eradicated to be replaced by fish species that provide less fishing opportunity? Are the aspen and willows better for elk and moose that no longer provide hunting opportunity but only food for more wolves?

“After wolves were hunted out”? I thought job #1 for Park Rangers, since the Park was withheld by federal fiat from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, was to prohibit all use (hunting, predator control, trapping, etc.) of animals in the Park?

“The forest stopped regenerating”? When the “Cedars of Lebanon” (of Biblical fame) were cut for Phoenician ships that ruled the Mediterranean economy for centuries, rural Lebanese folk set sheep and goats to graze on all the grasses, brush and young trees that suddenly were so abundant. Between the slopes and all that hard grazing (before folks realized how important and beneficial it was to manage grazing pressure) on lands that were communally-owned, soil eroded and soon only grasses and brush were present. For many centuries that modified landscape has supported and supports pastoral communities of villages and herders. THAT forest truly stopped “regenerating”: Yellowstone merely began regenerating differently as it no doubt has done since time immemorial thanks to fires, diseases, predators, native impacts, drought, earthquakes, torrential rains, snows and snow melt, and all the other vagaries of nature. Thinking there is some absolute ideal picture that always was and always should be is as silly as saying wolves are benevolent and belong in settled landscapes such as The Lower 48 States.

Speaking of which, “Wolves are shaping what you see here,” is certainly true. So too is the lack of former elk and moose numbers and the presence of tourists and campers and tourists feeding animals and etcetera, etcetera “shaping what you see here”. That is merely an academic observation slanted to the observer’s wishes. Is the Park “better” with no wolves and abundant elk in the meadows and moose in the ponds being observed enthusiastically by the “once-in-a-lifetime” tourists and harvested outside the Park each fall by thousands of hunters supporting rural economies and state conservation programs to the tune of Millions of dollars annually? Or is it “better” with only a rare tourist glimpse of an elk or moose or a wolf and the presence of all the dangers (disease, human safety, etc.) associated with the presence of wolves even in this tightly regulated and scripted government enclave where there are no dogs or livestock or kids walking alone to rural bus stops or old ladies walking to rural mailboxes for the wolves to menace.

So the head Pooh-Ba scientist tells a “Scientific” magazine that “In 30 years, when you drive through the park, it will look very different.” Really? It looked different 50 years ago and it will look different 50 years hence despite all this twaddle about some mythical and sacred Park landscape that only government employees and environmental extremists with access to unlimited funding and political power can provide. The Park was set aside for “the People” as in “We the People”, the first three words of our Constitution. Making it into a federal reserve differing from the lands of bygone monarchs only in being unmanaged estates of unused renewable natural resources lacking herbivores and stuffed with trees and undergrowth that yield catastrophic fires in surrounding settled landscapes is not only a travesty, it is a betrayal of “the People”. It violates the Constitutional charge to a federal government to “establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, …”promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

For those unfamiliar with the spelling of color as “colour”; colour is the accepted British spelling. This anomaly may be attributable to the Yellowstone ecology author’s (Bijoy Venugopal) background as likely somewhat distant from Yellowstone? You see, Romance Biology compositions are only limited by the imagination of the author. Experience or truth are neither required nor expected.

Finally we have the piece de resistance, “If only Jack London had lived to read about this.” When I was young I greatly enjoyed Jack London’s fiction. So I searched high and low to discover the reason for this reference but while I found that old Jack abandoned his wife and kids, was an alcoholic, ran unsuccessfully as a Socialist for Mayor of Oakland, was picked up for vagrancy in Niagara Falls and had visited Korea, Australia and England; nowhere could I find an interest in or visit to Yellowstone. Thinking it may have to do with his frequent mention of wolves in his writing, I searched those mentions and discovered that Jack London too could have been a successful Romance Biology writer today if only he “had lived to read about this”. Perhaps it was due to passages like the following that Mr. London’s name is evoked?

In “Love of Life” a prospector who has abandoned a friend and walked for hundreds of mile in N Canada to reach the Arctic Ocean endures unbelievable hardships with the thin hope of finding a ship to rescue him. As he lies almost dead on an Arctic beach a whaler appears on the horizon as he encounters a sick wolf. The account of this man and wolf interaction must surely be why Romance Biology authors everywhere admire Mr. London and why he must have a secure place in the Romance Biology Hall of Fame:

“The patience of the wolf was terrible. The man’s patience was no less terrible. For half a day he lay motionless, fighting off unconsciousness and waiting for the thing that was to feed upon him and upon which he wished to feed. Sometimes the languid sea rose over him and he dreamed long dreams; but ever through it all, waking and dreaming, he waited for the wheezing breath and harsh caress of the tongue.

He did not hear the breath, and he slipped slowly from some dream to the feel of the tongue along his hand. He waited. The fangs pressed softly: the pressure increased: the wolf was exerting its last strength in an effort to sink teeth in the food for which it had waited so long. But the man had waited long, and the lacerated hand closed on the jaw. Slowly, while the wolf struggled feebly and the hand clutched feebly, the other hand crept across to a grip. Five minutes later the whole weight of the man’s body was on top of the wolf. The hands had not sufficient strength to choke the wolf, but the face of the man was pressed close to the throat of the wolf and the mouth of the man was full of hair. At the end of half an hour the man was aware of a warm trickle in his throat. It was not pleasant. It was like molten lead being forced into his stomach, and it was forced by his will alone. Later the man rolled over on his back and slept.”

In true Romance Biology fashion, the man on the beach is first seen from the whaler by “scientists” on a “scientific expedition” whereupon he is rescued. It doesn’t get any better than that.

Yet, what would Jack London have thought if he “had lived to read about this”, i.e. Yellowstone and wolves? My guess is he would have admired how fellow authors were making money from such silliness; he would have gotten a kick (do “Socialists” have a sense of humor?) out of a public so gullible as to believe even bigger tales than he wove; and finally he would have shook his head and wished to be back in his world where people knew the truth about things like wolves and understood that even a dying man couldn’t kill a wolf with his teeth and then suck out wolf blood.

But, all Romance Biology today must have these propaganda chestnuts in them to qualify; besides the only difference is that people once merely enjoyed such fiction unlike today when they actually believe it.

Regardless of what these authors and their bureaucrat/radical friends tell you, wolves do NOT belong in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States, bombastic prose or not.

Jim Beers
19 March 2014

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


The Most Astonishing Display of Mental Drool Over Wolves

It it simply amazing that one person can be this ignorant, yes intellectually short-changed. What’s near criminal is that over a million people have viewed this utter nonsense.


The Trophic Cascade by Wolves Isn’t What It Was Cracked Up to Be

Below is a “teaser” from an article about whether of not the notion that the presence of wolves in Yellowstone actually resulted in a “trophic cascade” that caused elk to run and hide (and not be killed by wolves…snicker) and vegetation to regrow in places that would benefit other species.

It’s a good read and an interesting one. I marvel at how some of these fools whose actions on wolves caused massive damage to people, the landscape and prey species, innocently go about their work as though no foul no harm.

From the article:

“It’s well-supported in the literature that animals that are near death by starvation basically ignore predation completely,” Kauffman explained. “If you are in really poor condition it’s worth the risk to feed in a risky place because you have to feed or you will die.”

All of this, Kauffman said, points to the fact that wolves don’t influence elk behavior enough to spur aspen recruitment in risky areas. He sums it up this way “Elk certainly respond behaviorally to the predation risk posed by wolves, but those small alterations to feeding and moving across the landscape don’t seem to add up to long-term benefits for aspen, even in the riskiest areas.”<<<Read More>>>


Romance Biology About Wolves

By James Beers

*Editor’s Note* – James Beers has published a rebuttal to a Washington Post opinion piece, presented as factual by the Post, by Jane Goodall, monkey expert, about wolves. Here is the link to the Goodall piece.

It is presented as a photo essay with captions along the right hand side. The comments and information Beers presents about Goodall, are found in those captions.

A Letter to the Editor of the Washington (DC) Post re: a 5 January 2014 article by Jane Goodall on WOLVES.

A Romance Novella about Wolves

That Jane Goodall writes lurid nature propaganda (For wolves a struggle to survive, 5 Jan.) about select species is no surprise: that The Washington Post publishes such stories as factual about wolves is surprising.

Where to begin? The “Buffer Zones” around federal lands are private property under state jurisdiction. If Ms. Goodall decries local communities, through their governments, managing wolves that harm their economies, their hunting and their “domestic Tranquility”; please remind her that the USA is not some African country without our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Wolf packs do not “disintegrate”, like all other animal species they fluctuate like the weather for almost as many disparate reasons. Silly assertions like a den site “occupied since the 1940’s” (i.e. 70 years) are akin to climate change assertions of the past 40 years meant only to line the pockets of researchers, increase bureaucratic power over the citizenry and gain re-election for career politicians.

We are to bemoan the fluctuation of “the most famous wolf pack on earth”? Who regrets the demise of the Lolo Idaho elk herd, or the N Yellowstone elk herd, or Minnesota moose: all of which have been eradicated to levels wherein millions of dollars in state license revenue and hundreds of millions in revenue to rural communities have been wiped out by and for as long as introduced wolves remain at high, unregulated densities.

Wolf counts down? Earth to Ms. Goodall; wolf counting like wolf hunting is a notoriously difficult matter and to think it can be done consistently and comparably year-to-year is simply ludicrous. This goes too for the “sky-is-falling” warning about sightings going down as a cry for even more federal intervention.

Yellowstone wolves have not declined because of hunting et al around the Park. Wolves have declined because they have eradicated the once-vast elk herds and moose that fed their population explosion for 20 years and are no longer available to feed them.

Finally, wolves were not “hunted” to extinction in the Lower 48. They were purposely and with great effort of time and expense eradicated over a period of 300 years by our wise forefathers that would not tolerate the dangers (over 30 deadly diseases and infections, human attacks and livestock losses, etc.) wolves create. When you assert that wolves “are beneficial to the ecosystem” you are merely dressing up your personal desires with a patina of meaningless gibberish: your wolf “ecosystem” is no more legitimate or desirable than my hunting/ranching/rural jobs/human safety/recreational safety “ecosystem”.

I suggest, as a Minnesotan that misses the moose that protected wolves have eradicated, that readers of the Post and Ms. Goodall interested in wolves disregard her African brand of environmental species tyranny and embrace the American system. Have the state agencies of Virginia and Maryland and the District wildlife agency steal some money (like the federal wolf introducers did from the States to introduce the wolves out West) and trap some wolves in Canada (they are bigger and fiercer there) and release them in western Virginia and Maryland. (Question: why has the East been spared this “wonder” to date?) Soon enough: dog owners, hunters, families with kids, livestock producers, campers, hikers, fishermen, the elderly and many others will join Western and Midwestern rural communities in howling to severely reduce wolves in some areas and eradicate them in others.

Those that think majoritarian rule should be used to forcibly impose wolves on their neighbors should remember Prohibition and all of its similar claims and unintended consequences.

Jim Beers
5 January 2014

FYI My Bio:

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.


Does Future of Wolves Hinge On Public Perceptions?

It is my opinion, and one that can be easily propped up with existing evidence and results, that the reintroduction or introduction of wolves, depending on your perspective, was nothing more than a typical government bureaucratic, overreach and abuse of power. But that’s commonplace, is it not?

It matters not to which side, if there really are sides, you may come down on in the “Wolf Wars”, it is all too often an emotional, irrational debate among people (and in some cases the term “people” here is used freely). Why is it emotional? If I were to define the two sides in basic terms, on one side we have those who love wolves, believe wolves have rights, believe wolves are necessary for the ecosystem, that wolves should be left alone and that man should be destroyed for interfering with wolves, among other bits of nonsense. On the other side the call is there for wolves to be controlled, that all wolves should be killed, that people need to be able to protect themselves, family and property, etc. Regardless of the definitions of each side, the reality is that it becomes an emotional issue because people are involved and in some cases that involvement is very personal. I know of nobody who will argue that this issue of wolves and wolf reintroduction is not an emotional mess.

Why then, was this aspect of wolf reintroduction not even considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the reintroduction of wolves?

Go look at the EIS. Or better yet, go read it if you would like to gain an understanding about what a useless government document is and how hours and millions of dollars later the entire aspect of wolf reintroduction is a flaming disaster, as far as public perceptions go. The design of the EIS and the reality of what has transpired since, is a clear indication that somebody intended to reintroduce wolves regardless of any concerns or what might happen in the future.

On page viii of the EIS, in part it states:

Fifteen issues and impacts were not evaluated further in the FEIS because they were not
to the decision being made
* Wolves not native to Yellowstone
National Park
* Wolf rights
* Federal “subsidies”
* Human safety and health
* Other predators and scavengers
* Endangered species
* Plants, invertebrates, fish, reptiles,
amphibians, birds, and mammals
* Diseases and parasites
* Private property rights
* Wolf recovery in other areas
* Existing wolves in central Idaho
and Yellowstone
* Existing wolves in northwestern
* Wolf subspecies
* Wolf and dog and coyote
* Need for research (I took the liberty to embolden those “not significant” issues that I know directly impact the people.)

Isn’t this a clear example of how the government, i.e. the environmentalists because they run the government, doesn’t give two rat’s behinds about what the hell happens to the people or their property rights. They are going to do just as they please regardless of how you or I feel. How can many of those 15 items not be considered as significant. One would have to be either brain dead or a crook to think otherwise.

Two of the more prolific wolf “experts” are L. David Mech and Ed Bangs. Mech has studied wolves since before Columbus and Bangs was the wolf reintroduction coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Both men readily acknowledge that public perception played an integral role in wolf introduction and recovery and will play a significant role in the future of the gray wolf and yet both express that their interests are with the wolf far and above any concerns about the people. Mech even indicates that lying about everything wolf, justifies the end when it comes to selling wolves.

The above labels have been very useful in many circumstance and have contributed significantly to wolf recovery. They may still be useful in the future, but we should be aware that they are shortcuts to “sell a product” rather than good scientific grounds on which to build conservation.

The labels Mech is referring to above are those given to wolves in order to better give the public a positive perception of wolves, while deliberately misleading. Lying to the public about a vicious and disease-ridden predator that few have much use for: “flagship species”, “umbrella species”, “indicator species”, “keystone species”, for the sole purpose of “sell a product”, i.e. wolves, to the public. How crooked can anyone get?

Mech has also said that the only thing allowing hunting of wolves provides is a greater tolerance for the animal. He states that hunting wolves will have no direct affect but indirectly it changes public perceptions.

Ed Bangs, wolf coordinator for the USFWS, shows little concern for the people either. Isn’t it just about his wolf?

Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with wolves,” says Ed Bangs, Northern Rockies Wolf Recovery Coordinator for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. “I think the folks who didn’t like them still don’t like them, and the folks who did like them still do. Wolves are mainly a symbolic issue that relates to core human values.

Or perhaps Bangs shows his love of the wolf and disdain for the human species more precisely when in a comment he made to a person who had just lost their dog to a wolf killing. His comment was, “What’s the big deal? It’s only a damn dog.” Many feel the same way about his damned dogs too.

When nearly every aspect of wolf reintroduction and the continued promotion of wolves directly involves many, if not all, humans, then why did the USFWS opt to not even include public safety and property rights in the Final Environmental Impact Statement?

Historically wolves were nearly extirpated from the lower 48 states because people were intolerant of the nasty dog. Rightly so, the future of gray wolves in this country is going to depend upon how much patience the people are going to have when it comes to public safety, private property, disease and effects on other wildlife, including game animals.

For those in positions of authority, then, to knowingly piss off the citizens and/or trample on their rights when it comes to dealing with the wild dogs, leaves one to conclude that one of two things exist….or perhaps both at the same time.

First, is that the citizenry is dealing with a government agency and as a government agency they believe they have the power to do just as they damned well please and to hell with the serf taxpayers. And secondly, those individuals and organizations are too stupid to know or care. They are driven by personal agendas and feel threatened or eagerly and willingly kowtow to the environmentalists who are always demanding and taking and never giving.

In a recent display of either government abuse or ignorance, the Washington State fish and game people set out traps in an area near Twisp, Washington. The traps were located on Forestry Service lands adjacent to private property. The purpose of the traps was to capture wolves, radio collar them and release them for study. Two pet dogs ended up in the traps.

Out of shear ignorance and stupidity, wildlife officials set these traps within short distances of the residents without notifying anyone living nearby. Officials did place signs along the road(s) leading into the area.

Residents became incensed that wildlife officials would set out traps next to private residents and not personally contact them about their plans and intentions.

If the future of the survival of gray wolves in this country is hinging on public perceptions, what good is becoming of this kind of treatment by government officials of citizens? Is it ignorance? Is it just plain stupidity? Perhaps it’s terrible leadership that non thinking employees can’t make good decisions? Or maybe it’s the usual governmental arrogance that nobody can or will touch them and ruffle their bimonthly paychecks or disrupt their retirement pensions. This is government out of control.

This sort of behavior is not relegated to only the state of Washington. This kind of attitude exists nationwide, I dare say within every fish and game department in this country.

Read what Ed Bangs says in his explanation as to why wolves were finally reintroduced into the Northern Rockies:

I think the only reason wolf reintroduction finally happened was that people with different values moved to Montana and diluted the strong agricultural influence. Plus, the economy changed from straight agriculture and natural resource consumption to areas such as tourism. …I think in time the debate will get less shrill because living with ‘real’ wolves does moderate the strong and highly polarized, all-bad or all-good opinions.

What a crock and a belly full of arrogance! This is absolute BS design to “sell a product”, i.e wolves, to the American public. The reason wolf reintroduction happened was because Bangs and Neimeyer just took it upon themselves to do it. They used their governmental power and force field to say to hell with the people. They wanted wolves and so they went and got them.

It was my perception from reading Carter Neimeyer’s book, “Wolfer”, that one day Neimeyer just up and decided he was going to Canada to trap and import wolves and Ed Bangs could join him if he wanted. Perhaps this is one reason no permits to import wolves was ever obtained.

The “strong and highly polarized” opinions or perceptions of people will not change, so long as everything is said and done to ensure the people aren’t cared for and the wolves are. With actions like those in Washington State and elsewhere, who can have a good opinion of government wildlife biologists and employees when consideration for the people, ironically who pay their wages, is far at the bottom of the totem pole.

Over the coming years, expect little to improve and mostly get worse.


Trophic Cascades from Wolves to Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone?

Commentary by George Dovel

*Editor’s Note* The following is republished on this website with permission from the author. Please consider subscribing to The Outdoorsman. Information can be found in the right sidebar on the home page of this website. Thank you.

In Outdoorsman No. 51, the article on pages 8-9 Titled, “Top Wolf Scientist Charges Wolf Researchers Have Become Advocates Rather Than Scientists,” tells how Dr. L. David Mech charged that when wolf advocates began to claim the wolves’ presence was vital to restore healthy native ecosystems, a large number of university researchers invaded Yellowstone Park with the intention of proving trophic cascades caused by wolves.

Then Mech rebutted their claims with facts. He pointed out that the addition of 27 days of growing season in Yellowstone in recent years undoubtedly created healthier and taller willows and aspens and said there was no scientific evidence that wolves were responsible for creating more food for other predators.
He cited a study of 19 chapters of reviews concerning the ecological role of large carnivores, and said a research team concluded that scientists likely will never be able to predict cascading impacts on biodiversity other than prey. After a review by other wolf scientists, it was then accepted for publication in Biological Conservation on March 12, 2012.

But despite Mech’s pointed claims being published a year ago, a new study by William J. Ripple et al claims that wolves reducing the number of elk browsing on serviceberry provided more food for grizzly bears.

Why not give gift subscriptions to those who need to read facts to offset the slanted news they read, and see on TV. It costs $25 to print & mail The Outdoorsman to each person for one year – for more gifts, please print names and addresses on a separate sheet:
Please Clip Donation Coupon Below
Mail to:The Outdoorsman
P.O. Box 155
Horseshoe Bend, ID 83629
Mailing Address________________________________________
Amount Enclosed_______ Phone___________________
New______Renewal_____Extension______ Gift_______

The Ripple study said it measured 778 bear scats in 2007-2009 and determined from those measurements that the bear stools contained more fruit than were found in older studies before wolves were introduced.
The study also determined that the serviceberry bushes grow taller and have less browsing than were found in previous years. That, of course, correlated with the 27-day annual increase in the Yellowstone Park growing season provided by Mech.

The study published by the British Journal of Animal Ecology on July 29, 2013, included a series of unproven hypotheses that: elk and grizzly bears competed for berry-producing shrubs; after wolves were introduced there would be a decrease in elk and an increase in berry-producing shrubs; and the percent of fruit in the grizzly bear diet would be greater after wolves were introduced.

In reality, the killing or alleged relocation of elk by wolves resulted in far fewer elk available as prey for the grizzly bears when they emerged from hibernation and desperately needed the protein provided by elk prey until green-up occurred.

Such thinly veiled attempts to try to promote the trophic cascade myth illustrate how far science has been prostituted by the current crop of students and professors who lack the wisdom and integrity to be scientists.
I urge Outdoorsman readers to donate any amount, no matter how small, to reimburse us for the cost of providing mailed copies to the elected officials and others who are directly involved in managing your wildlife.

Thank you,
George Dovel


Discounted Bear Spray for the Holiday Season

Going to Yellowstone? You might be able to get $10 off that can of ridiculous bear spray that normally retails for $45.00, so says Keystone Conservation as found in an article on Predator Xtreme.

I think it’s time to dust off this jewel for your viewing pleasure.



Cody, Wyoming’s Bloody Wolf Billboard Taken Down

You can read the complete story on Powell Tribune.



Yellowstone Wolves Hit by Disease: Upsetting Myth of Self Regulating Nirvana

This is a great report that was sent to me by a valuable resource because it reveals, what clear thinking people have known for a long time.

Researchers from Penn State University have discovered that gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park have dropped from a peak of 170, after wolf introduction, to around 100, and they blame it on disease. It’s not clear from this article in Live Science, if the mission of the researchers was to discover why the population of wolves in Yellowstone had dropped to 100 or whether they were there just to study the wolf diseases. I’m led to believe they were there to help find out what was shrinking the wolf population.

If that is the case, then have they ruled out all other causes of population reduction? Like, having not enough food to eat. Of course we’ll never know that will we. That’s one of those things that doesn’t get studied too hard nor reported on.

But, as a firm believer that Mother Nature doesn’t “balance” itself, in the human perception of “balance”, this comment by one of the researchers is a real gem.

“We’re down to extremely low levels of wolves right now,” researcher Emily S. Almberg, a graduate student in ecology, said in a statement. “We’re down to [similar numbers as] the early years of reintroduction. So it doesn’t look like it’s going to be as large and as a stable a population as was maybe initially thought.”

I suggest many of you might want to jot that one down or copy and paste it some place to save for future reference. This statement may be as close as we are ever going to get to anybody admitting that nature doesn’t balance.

She and others may have thought that but those scientists with experience said any populations driven by predators would never be stable, nor would ecosystems leave to their own devices. People’s perverted notions of what and how nature takes care of itself is far from reality and this is an example of that.

Yellowstone is perhaps as close as you can come to a self-regulated ecosystem, although it isn’t because of all the manipulating that is done with species of flora and fauna. About all that is absent is hunting and trapping to stabilize populations.

Other issues that are brought out in the article should make anyone with a brain giggle; as if this information is something newly discovered. Here’s another example. The article states, “The Penn State researchers found that distance made a difference in the spread of the disease.” I’m mean, seriously! Who didn’t know that? I was taught that I think in third grade. Isn’t it for this reason animal rights and agriculture officials frown on packing too many animals into a small space? Or, without sounding like a broken record, back during the process of developing an Environmental Impact Statement prior to the introduction of wolves, they were warned that too many wolves would bring and breed disease, many of which are harmful and deadly to humans. I think the words here are, it fell on purposely deaf ears.

And a continuation of that thought process and epiphany of the Penn State researchers, the article further states, “Thus the high wolf densities afforded by protection within Yellowstone may come at the cost of some population stability.” Well, by golly. I wonder if these same researchers are able to also conclude that if high wolf densities because of predator protection might cost the wolf population some stability, that it also causes lack of stability of other species?

This is extremely important as the fully brainwashed and educational institution indoctrination of wildlife biologists and other scientists, have taught most everyone that if man would just go kill themselves and leave Mother Nature to herself, there would be balance. And to support this myth, they lie and say that the wolf and coyote are the only species that can bring “balance” to our ecosystems.


But fear not all you wolf lovers. It wasn’t the wolves’ fault:

“Many invasive species flourish because they lack their native predators and pathogens, but in Yellowstone we restored a native predator to an ecosystem that had other canids (animals in the dog family) present that were capable of sustaining a lot of infections in their absence,” said Almberg.

I thought “mighty dog”, once introduced, would clean up any existing disease, kill off all the sick and weekly of the prey species and urinate on any plants in order to rid the forests of invasive species.


Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Video by Scott McKinley