An article yesterday in the Jackson Hole News and Guide quotes Bangs as now saying 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves will “never be threatened”. I guess Bangs doesn’t learn from his first mistake. In 1987, 30 pairs and 300 wolves would easily do the trick, why should anybody believe for one second that his statement today is any more honest than the ones he made 25 years ago?

It’s clear the feds set the rules, we play by their rules and when the rules don’t fit the game they are playing, they change the rules. Bangs admits that the first day on the job for wolf recovery he knew 30 pairs of wolves wouldn’t be enough and we should trust him now when he tells us 45 will never be threatened?

This kind of political manipulation has to end now.

1. When it gets hot outside, people are quicker to anger.

2. People go outside more when the weather is warmer leading to social interaction which could lead to more violence.

3. Changes in weather patterns could lead to poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition making people more violent.

4. People being forced upon one another because of extreme weather events could lead people to be violent.

5. Too much warmth, could make too many people violent which could lead to genocide and war.

You might just be reading here and thinking to yourself (hopefully not getting violent because you’re too hot), what’s the big deal. These five things are probably somewhat true and could possibly happen. I concur. The thing is, why did we have to waste money on a study to conclude what most half-intelligent people have known since, like, forever? When there’s no escape from prolonged heat and humidity, people don’t sleep well, they get irritable and we all know that this could lead to anger over silly things.

The foolishness of all this is that the entire premise is built around fear mongering that global warming, read man-made, is and will cause all of these things to happen.

I think it is unfortunate that National Geographic chose to make this a story on their website. First because it’s borderline a bizarre story but secondly, that they chose to reference the 2007 Report from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. That same report that has recently been determined to be a bunch of junk and a pack of lies. These same studies also fall back on global temperature data that has also been determined to be worthless. So why keep up the charade?

Simple really! If such a report is done, let’s say a report designed to reach a desired conclusion, in this case more violence among humans, then such a report can be used for leverage and political gain. We all know that Algore wants us all to believe the sky is falling. He wants to scare the hell out of people any way he can. What better way than to convince them that if the globe warms your neighbor is going to appear on your doorstep and blow your brains out. It’s not enough that we are all going to drown from all the melting ice.

But this is only one reason. Consider the political leverage that someone or some group might gain if they can successfully convince people that because of global warming there are more parents fighting at Little League games, or more aggressive driving, increase in domestic violence, or it makes Republicans or Tea Party members more violent.

Is it a mere coincidence that this seemingly ridiculous report surfaces at the exact same time that Obama and his robots are trying to demonize the right saying they are becoming violent in opposition to his health care bill?

Yeah, I know! Think what you will.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

By Jim Beers

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.

Yesterday, I wrote a piece titled Confessions of a Treatyphobe. In it I discussed the abuse of the Treaty Power in our Constitution and in so doing I mentioned how I would be glad to debate why the Migratory Bird Treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia were in need of modification and how they might be changed. The result is that, thus far, I have been removed from at least four Christmas card lists and have made formerly sound communications with two other readers, tenuous at best in the future.

The following is a hastily drawn explanation of why and how US federal authority over migratory birds is in need of change. I say “hastily” because I was on an Oregon radio show last night and I just completed a Missouri radio show this morning and I feel I must respond to any questions in a timely manner or be thought unable to defend what I write.

The US federal authority over named species of migratory birds is based entirely on the Treaties named above. This federal authority and jurisdiction has many flaws at this time. This is not to say that it does not still fulfill many of the original purposes for the original Treaty (i.e. managing and fairly dividing the annual harvest of game birds by hunters between states and the subsistence food source harvest by Native people). It has likewise accounted for the preservation and management of wetlands necessary for water birds of all stripes and for wide-ranging habitat and survival improvements for songbirds and other birds highly valued by birdwatchers and those living near significant insect concentrations.

But consider the following:

- Airplane/migratory bird strikes are far more extensive and frequent than generally known. This includes but is not limited to geese, gulls, blackbirds, starlings, sparrows, etc.

- Cormorants are seriously decimating sport fish, fish hatcheries, fish farms, and private property.

- “Resident” Canada geese (introduced and spread by federal programs just like wolves) spreading disease on golf courses, schoolyards, and parks while causing auto accidents, and chasing lunch-breaking employees and walkers near ponds.

- Hawk and owl predation creating unpublicized negative impacts on songbirds and other birds and animals.

- The federal migratory bird authority justified and was the Congressionally-stated purpose (production, migration, and wintering needs of waterfowl – i.e. geese and ducks that are hunted) for the majority, number and acres of National Wildlife Refuges acquired in the lower 48 states (Alaska’s Native Claims Settlement Act refuges distorts these numbers if included). It was likewise the basic authorization for required federal Duck Stamps that financed much of these acquisitions. Yet today, Refuge water management is slowly being changed to dry land “Native Ecosystems”, waterfowl nesting habitat is being changed into “Invasive Species” (often simply post-1492 AD game birds and sport fish) eradication projects less friendly to waterfowl needs. In other words, federal lands purchased with hunter “fees” and authorized by Congress for Waterfowl are being converted into lands less hospitable to and supportive of waterfowl and hunters.

Let us further consider what could be done about these issues remembering this is being “hastily” done and there are other issues that could appear on the list above and below:

- Authority over airplane/bird safety should be given to Airport authorities.

- Authority and jurisdiction over “resident” Canada geese in the US between 15 March and 1 September should be given to State governments.

- Cormorants, hawks, and owls should be placed under State government jurisdiction and authority.

NOTE: For all of those readers now writhing in pain on the floor moaning about this would be a prelude to Armageddon – The Endangered Species Act was designed and is being implemented as a preventive to stop all those local yokels electing all those narrow state politicians from making all those critters extinct. Local managers, responsive voters, would do far better at protecting air travelers, fish farmers, urban health (human by the way), hunters, fishermen, sport fish and desirable wildlife, songbirds and other associated values of value to those living in those areas.

- Management conversion of federally-owned wetlands and associated uplands to any habitat less supportive of waterfowl management outputs should be replaced with NEW and equally waterfowl-supportive habitat of equal waterfowl productivity and benefits.

NOTE: If the federal government is to fulfill this primary and original justification for Treaties that grant the federal government power and authority that formerly resided in state governments, they should do no less with ALL lands they control.

The foregoing is a thumbnail sketch of what could be done, but that is not why I am taking the time to write this. I am writing this because it might well be a “teachable moment” regarding Treaties.

Let’s pretend I am lauded and cheered about the foregoing proposals and “everyone” wants to implement them: how might this be done?

1. We could just write agreements with these entities to do these things. Sure, just like “delisting” wolves. The state or airport must do A, B, and C or the feds intervene: PLUS, the lawsuits about how this is illegal and not based on “science” and a plot by those wanting to kill everything, etc., etc. would be thicker than a spring blizzard. Just like “state management of wolves”, state authorities under such agreements are little more than paid “Charlie McCarthies” for federal bureaucrats in service of anti-management and use organizations.
2. We could just write “new” federal regulations doing the above. Such regulations would be found to be not possible (illegal) under The Migratory Bird Treaty Act that implements the Treaties with Canada et al. A lawsuit now or in the future would make any such regulations illegal in short order.
3. Why not change (amend) The Migratory Bird Treaty Act? Even if we had a President Sarah Palin, a Senate under Jim Inhofe, and a Secretary of the Interior Michelle Bachmann and could do this, it would likewise be found to conflict with the (interlocking on purpose) Treaties and therefore illegal. Furthermore, what my “dream team” could accomplish, the next President Barbara Boxer, Senate Leader Barney Frank, and Secretary of the Interior Charles “Charlie” Rangel could simply undo. This leaves us with the Treaties…
4. The Treaties need to be “reopened” and Amendment proposed but how is this possible? Set aside for now how environmental/animal rights organizations fight this tooth, lawyer, and nail as a threat to their federal control of an exclusively powerful federal government and as a precedent for further dispersal of the power they worked so hard to consolidate across the board. While the Canadian Treaty doesn’t mention cormorants (that’s a whole other story) and there is no provision in any of the Treaties to give authority to something like an airport authority or even a state, why would any of the 4 nations REMOVE species? Why would any of the 4 Treaty nations encumber their government-owned lands with such a requirement about maintaining waterfowl capacities? Where is the “carrot”? Thus do we hear so often that such and such is “required” by the Treaty or that it is “prohibited” by the Treaty, and then in a generally laughing tone “man you’d have to change ‘the’ or ‘all’ those Treaties, are you ‘nuts’?”

Thus is big government solidified and imposition of ephemeral national values and agendas solidified. Thus are local controls and community cultural identities once lost, seldom regained. Thus are incremental steps toward tyranny and helplessness dressed in good intentions as they help attain bad agendas and create precedents. Thus is my Christmas card response list reduced incrementally.

Jim Beers

19 March 2010

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Even though Phil Jones, the professor at the center of the controversy, admits that he refused to release data requested through FOIA, he claims he wasn’t required to by law because the information being requested was already available through other public resources. But the real puzzling admission from Jones is what he said about sharing his research.

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ‘standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

What makes the scientific community tick and maintain credibility is sharing of information and the peer review process. If it is “standard practice” to withhold data, then is peer review worth the price of a grain of salt? It would seem not, thus relegating much of scientific research invalid.

One scientific research center, the Institute of Physics, says:

Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

Whether one is a believer or a doubter of man-made global warming, this admission by Jones and what the emails have exposed should be extremely troublesome. A domino effect seems to be happening as well with admissions of errors and shoddy work coming from other individuals and organizations closely related to the CRU. We now must wait until the investigation runs its course in order to assess the entire damage done.

From this point forward, with what we have now learned, it is a ridiculous notion to think much stock would be placed on the so-called, “Settled Science” of climate change.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

“The budget does reflect a switch in our priorities,” said Chris Nolin, head of the service’s budget division. “Our primary focus is reorienting the agency so we can address climate change. We need to start looking at climate change in everything we do. That was really the focus of this budget.”

What a frightfully disturbing statement! The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now going to make their primary focus climate change, even to the point of saying, and I’ll repeat, “We need to start looking at climate change in everything we do.” (my emphasis) What total disregard for wildlife management!

I would assume then that a name change should be in order here as the present one no longer reflects the mission of the department. Perhaps something like U.S. Climate Change and Land Acquisition Department or maybe we can just shorten that up to BHO Land Grabbers.

The heart of the effort is a new program, “landscape conservation cooperatives,” which is aimed at uniting federal agencies, states, nonprofits and universities to advise on the service’s regional management decisions. Theirs will be the “daunting task,” Hamilton said, of helping design strategic regional conservation plans that consider the impact of rising temperatures, water scarcity, disease and invasive species on plants and animals.

What could possibly go wrong?

Unfortunately for readers of the Times’ article, they only get a biased one-sided story because the authors talked with only the Federal Government’s own little environmental puppet regimes, the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife. The biggest complaint the Center for Biological Diversity had about the shift of monies was a threat their sugar daddy stream of income from lawsuits might dry up.

This is all quite ridiculous as there is no wildlife management science in any of this, which tells us Obama is sticking his slimy hands into USFWS resources to further promote his power grab by forcing a global warming agenda into wildlife management industry.

While intelligent people of the world are finally coming to grips with the truth behind the fraud of man-made global warming, the Obama administration plows ahead, aimed at the destruction of another federal agency.

Disguised as a “cooperative” of willing and eager players in finding and purchasing lands that will rescue wildlife and habitat, this becomes nothing more than another means of a federal land grab foisted onto the people through the half studied theories of climate change bolstered by fear mongering.

A sound wildlife management plan takes into account the changing habitat for wildlife, whether that change comes naturally or conditions generated by the presence of humans. USFWS’ focus should be further drawn away from politics and private agendas and forced into real wildlife management as devoid of politics as possible. Obama’s plan will play right into the hands of environmentalists whose focus is far from conserving wildlife.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

There are two theories as to why we are here on this planet. One is Evolution and of course the other Creation. Which ever one you pick, I think it intelligent rationalization to claim that animals where here first. So, does that give them something over us? Preferential rights? First dibs? I called shotgun?

Let’s take a look. If man “evolved” from animals (take your pick which one), one would assume and some studies suggest that part of that evolution was the expansion of intelligent thinking. I know! I know! Stop thinking about Washington for just a few minutes, Okay?

Could we also rationalize that over those how many millions of years as man evolved, so did his ability to think, driven by an unexplained (evolved) desire to learn? As man’s intelligence grew, at what point did man come to realize he was brighter than a sheep or a worm? I said to forget about Washington. Come on, man! Let’s work to evolve this discussion.

Once man evolved to a point he discovered he had something all the other animals didn’t, a brain developed enough to think and reason, I wonder how many of them believed these animals could think as they did? Did this evolved man begin to believe that animals had “rights” or had rights evolved yet?

Creationism is much simpler and perhaps one of the reasons I gravitate toward that belief; aside from the fact I would rather want to be part of a plan devised by a Power much bigger than any of us can understand and to be “special”, rather than evolved from some nasty, poop flinging monkey. How many times do I have to tell you to stop thinking about Washington?

According to the teachings of the Bible, which for those who don’t know is where Creationism comes from, God created the planets and put animals on Earth. Then in his loneliness He created Adam and then Eve, called it all good and said, “Hey Adam! By the way. I give you and all your ancestors “dominion” of the animals and the land, etc. that I’m giving you.” Probably He could have appeased the environmentalists (which he didn’t create. They are a mutation.) if He would have said, “And by the way, I expect you to do the best job you can in taking care of all these goodies!” You know, clean air, clean water!

God’s plan is perfect, or so I believe but I’m not so sure about Evolution. You see, when we speak of evolution, in our smugness, our evolved intelligence, we make the assumption that this evolving is all for the better. Evolution could be defined as: “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.”

As such these processes seem to indicate an actual devolution, a genetic drift, by some of the human species. If man once had a desire to evolve to be something smarter than an orangutan, there now seems to be just as big a desire to devolve to a level equal to that of the elected species these mutants have fallen in love with. An argument could be made that as man evolved and learned how to love, some perhaps never evolved far enough to understand that those feelings of love they had were meant to be toward another human and not another animal. This is the only rational explanation I can come up with why some either less evolved or once evolved and now devolving people place the animals they love on an equal plane with themselves.

The less evolved and/or slowly devolving humans, in their erosion of intelligent and rational thought, think that those of us more evolved who understand our role as the dominate, more intelligent species, want to destroy all these creatures because we can. To them it is all or nothing; animals are either equal to humans or evil man just wants them all dead. This is undeveloped thinking. Evidently this evolution thing doesn’t happen for everyone all at the same time. I can’t help myself. They must first go through Congress before they can evolve enough to be a productive part of our society. There, I said it!

If you see or know someone who exhibits this behavior, understand that perhaps it is only those who have been caught in some kind of evolutionary time warp. I’m not sure I am evolved enough to know whether they can ever escape such a warp, as I may be in one of my own.

Stay away from Washington. It might be a black hole.

Tom Remington

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 for consulting or to speak.

Learn more about Will Graves below.

~~~~~

The following interview took place on 24 January 2010.

Q: Will, didn’t you work and travel extensively in Asia, Europe, and Africa during your career with the US government?
A: Yes. I was very fortunate to visit and work with a variety of people in places such as Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Poland, Siberia, the Karellian Peninsula, Iran, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Italy to name a few.

Q: What did you learn about wolves based on your travels and work in these foreign lands?
A: First and foremost, that the management of wolves depends entirely on people and not on any so-called “balance of nature”. When management and control of wolf numbers and their distribution is absent, the damage to human life, livestock, domestic animals like dogs, and wildlife increases as wolf numbers and densities increase. Unlike other large predators, wolves are very adaptable, wide-ranging, pack animals that keep expanding their range both as individuals and as packs that expand as food and opportunities present themselves.

I was amazed at how little attention was being paid to both the visible danger of wolves and the hidden potential for the spread of diseases affecting people and other animals when wolves were being Re-introduced into Yellowstone Park in the 1990’s. The lack of discussion and preparation for controlling wolves and the absence of any candid description of historical and current wolf experiences and research worldwide struck me as a potential problem of great magnitude.

In addition to the substantiated deaths of many rural people especially in Russia, particularly children and women year around, outbreaks of wolf attacks on humans occur periodically in severe winters or when wolves become habituated to humans when they are not hunted as during World War II in Russia or when their numbers and densities increase with resulting losses of certain prey animals. They are particularly dangerous when they become increasingly bold around humans and human habitations. When wolves come into Russian villages or begin appearing at rural American school bus stops or when, as I was recently told by a Montana rancher, one came into his yard and actually looked in a window of his home, this is a very dangerous situation and almost certainly a prelude to an attack. While trying to chase off such animals is futile, removing such animals should be done immediately. However, this is merely a stopgap because other nearby wolves are likely to soon adopt similar behavior; when wolves exist routinely in such proximity to humans, history and research in Russia show this to be a dangerous situation requiring constant caution and constant control of the wolves.

Also in addition to the observable losses of cattle, sheep, domestic geese and turkeys, pet dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, watchdogs, and wildlife like deer, elk, and moose, there is the hidden damage from the stress of constant harassment of chasing and stalking all the surviving animals resulting in reduced physical capacities to survive and reproduce. This resulting stress leads to reduced resistance to disease and reduced weight and stamina that constitutes a significant loss to ranchers, farmers, hunters, rural residents and wildlife populations in my opinion.

Q: Didn’t you begin your career as a US technician working in Mexico to detect and eradicate livestock diseases?
A: That’s correct. My first job for the government was in the USDA Bureau of Animal Industry program as Chief of a “horseback-only” Inspecting, Vaccinating, and Slaughtering Brigade in a tropical rainforest in Mexico. Our goal was to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease. My Brigade was based in Cozalapa, Oaxaca, Mexico.

Q: Will, today there is growing concern about wolves in North America and especially about wolves as carriers and vectors of diseases and infections such as tapeworms. What diseases, if any, are wolves susceptible to?
A: I am not a disease expert but I have had a lifelong interest in animal diseases and their pathology, especially the more infectious diseases. In 1978 a Russian Biology Degree candidate noted that wolves carried Brucellosis, Deer Fly Fever, Listerosis, Anthrax, and other diseases. Another Russian scientist noted that the wolf can be infected with more than 50 types of parasites including various tapeworms as you just mentioned. Other Russian specialists have reported that wolves are potential vectors of foot-and-mouth disease. Wolves, just like other Canid animals such as dogs and coyotes are susceptible to and can carry rabies, distemper, and other dangerous infections like Neosporum caninum that causes abortions in grazing animals like livestock and big game animals such as elk, deer, and moose.

Q: Can you describe how some of these diseases are spread and how this affects rural communities where wolves are present?
A: Yes. You mentioned Hydatid diseases or tapeworms earlier. There are quite a few species of tapeworms and several are fairly common in wolves. When infected wolves defecate, minute tapeworm eggs are present and may become airborne when the feces dries so kicking or handling wolf feces is not advisable. The eggs may be deposited on nearby grasses, berries, mushrooms or other plants with water runoff after rains or even heavy dew. These eggs are readily passed onto dogs that commonly have a habit of smelling other canid’s feces and often rolling in it. When the dog returns home it may lick the owner or drool in places leaving eggs on objects but most significant is the fact the dog introduces the eggs into the human living space where toddlers and others are exposed to airborne eggs or eggs on surfaces that may enter the lungs or mouth or a cut. Dogs with tapeworms often drag their anus on the floor to relieve the itching that results from the tapeworms that are spreading inside them, thereby further infecting the human living space. In Kazakhstan, where wolves are common, research indicates that rural dogs have tapeworm infection rates several times higher than that of their urban cousins. In many areas of Asia and Eastern Europe it is a long-standing tradition that dogs are unclean and thus are never allowed into buildings of any kind. Like the tradition of not eating pork in some cultures, traditions like no-dogs in homes and ritual washing of hands when entering another’s house are speculatively attributed to avoiding diseases historically associated with dogs.

Wolves, like dogs, can carry these parasites without noticeable effect while they range far and wide.
Livestock such as cattle and sheep are susceptible to infection of the tapeworms carried by wolves. One case of a horse infected with tapeworms in Washington State was recently noted. To the best of my knowledge, infected domestic livestock are mildly debilitated, although the chances of the worms entering organs would make the animal more vulnerable to disease and potentially less healthy in an overall sense. Domestic livestock can be vaccinated for tapeworms.

Wild big game animals like deer, elk, moose and mountain sheep are also susceptible to infection with tapeworms. Infected animals, like infected livestock, show little outward signs of the infection but they are similarly debilitated by various problems like shortness of breath from infected lungs. More problematic however is the likelihood of other kinds of infections in their less healthy state, and in my opinion their becoming more vulnerable to environmental factors like predation, winter stress periods, weather extremes, and periodic food scarcities.

Humans that live in or near wolf areas need to be especially knowledgeable and alert. Humans infected by certain tapeworm species carried by wolves risk having cysts and tapeworms incubating in their body for as many as 20 years. The tapeworms may infect the lungs, liver, kidneys, heart, or brain. These last two can be fatal. Diagnosis of emerging symptoms can easily appear to be many other things so that examinations may miss the cause of the problem.

This is a thumbnail sketch of wolves and their relationship to Hydatid Diseases. Other diseases and infections such as Neosporum caninum, a disease probably spread by wolves and causing abortions in livestock and big game animals like deer, elk, and moose need more research, rural awareness and public education about the risks and costs of such infections. Brucellosis, Rabies, Distemper, and Anthrax are other diseases known to be carried and spread by wolves.

There is also speculation that wolves may carry some diseases or infections on their fur or in their paw pads that may be picked up near dead animals or as they pass through infected areas like pastures and big-game wintering areas. Remember that wolves don’t spend their lives in a restricted local area like other wildlife such as most cougars or bears or coyotes or foxes. Individual wolves often roam far and wide and packs have been observed to travel over large and changing areas in the course of a year. Wolves, like dogs, are fairly omnivorous so that when a food source becomes scarce such as disappearing big game or more tightly guarded livestock; wolves are fully capable of moving into new areas and then beginning to feed for example near the edge of a rural community on domestic birds like geese or turkeys or even into towns where wintering big game animals may be seeking safety. Wolves that begin feeding on cattle in pastures just like wolves feeding on big game animals in wintering “yards” will be frequenting pastures or certain wintering yards repeatedly thus compounding the chance of both picking up certain infections and subsequently spreading it to like animals from which the infection originated.

One last thing; there often seems to be many hidden agendas at work whenever we talk about wolves. For instance, when Russians are asked about wolves as vectors for foot-and-mouth disease or anthrax, they are often reluctant to say anything. This might be because of rumors about wolves spreading anthrax from a weaponized anthrax burial site where wolves were able to recently gain access. Anthrax and foot-and-mouth are candidates for biological weaponry research and thus things that can cause trouble for the indiscreet. Similarly in the US discussing claims about wolves “balancing” nature or about their danger to and disruption of rural American life are similarly clothed in fictions and political correctness about everything from lethal controls to federal government liability for damages and harm caused by their wolf protection program.

Q: One last question: what would you recommend that the US and Canada do to avoid the potentially catastrophic effects of a growing and habituating wolf population that threatens rural residents, rural economies, and rural communities today?
A: First, we have to educate the rural and urban publics about the real and hidden effects of wolves. This is a primary function of government in my view. Such education would address candid facts about:
- Lethal wolf damage to livestock and wildlife, and how to avoid it.
- The increased stress on livestock and wildlife and how to minimize it.
- Areas away from people where wolves are to be allowed and areas where they are not allowed.
- The need for constant monitoring and for lethal controls by government where wolves threaten humans.
- Diseases and infections carried and spread by wolves and how to avoid them.
- The dangers of wolf habituation and what it portends.
- The toll on rural watchdogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, work dogs, and pet dogs that results from wolves and how to minimize it.
- The serious total consequences of these things on rural residents and rural lifestyles if not prevented.

Second, wolves need to be kept as completely as possible out of any areas where they have a probability of interacting with humans routinely. A combination of government hunters, public hunters, and legalizing the killing of problem wolves by threatened citizens without the threat of government prosecution are really permanent necessities as long as maintaining wolf populations in acceptable numbers and areas is to be achieved. This will require expensive but continuous monitoring and research to constantly adjust to wolves and their proven capacity to adapt to human changes throughout thousands of years of recorded history.

Will, thank you for sharing these insights based on your travel and experiences. More Americans than you might imagine owe you a debt of gratitude for taking the time to share this valuable information and your suggestions with us. Jim Beers.

* Details about Will’s book, “WOLVES IN RUSSIA: Anxiety Through The Ages”, may be found at his website: WolvesinRussia.com

Note: If you found this interview worthwhile please share it with every rancher, farmer, dog owner, hunter, politician, friend, and relative that you know. If you know of any publication that would use it, please ask them to publish it. This is a serious matter of national importance and all of us need to understand it before we can come together to resolve it. JB

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7atcomcastdotnet

Photo from fOTOGLIF

In the wake of admissions the IPCC knew all along it was putting bogus science in its 2007 Assessment Report, that the false prediction was included specifically for its “impact on policymakers and politicians,” and that this allegedly was covered up as long as it was because the IPCC chairman was raising money for his personal pursuits based on the prediction, the IPCC must immediately take three steps to restore its credibility. If it does not, the Obama Administration should use its influence to have it shut down.

To restore its credibility, the IPCC should:

1) Return its half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and replace its current leadership;

2) Adopt and enforce a strict conflict-of-interest policy;

3) Adopt an uncompromising transparency policy, which includes the release of all data, all emails, all meeting minutes, all drafts and all other documentation related to the development of assessment reports and all other policy pronouncements, in the past and from this date forward.

Step one would signal to the world that the IPCC is serious about reform.

Step two would reduce, though not eliminate, the temptation faced by IPCC personnel to tailor conclusions to moneymaking, career or fundraising opportunities for themselves or affiliated businesses or institutions.

Step three would be a constant reminder to IPCC personnel that their work genuinely will be peer-reviewed, in a universal sense, which is as it should be given the gravity of the IPCC’s work.

Politicians relying upon IPCC recommendations are considering policies that would limit the access of billions of people to low-cost energy in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is a grave step that should be undertaken only if the alternative is worse. As many have considered the IPCC to be the institution that can answer that question, given the gravity of these circumstances, no level of transparency and ethics can be too high.

Global warming believers and “skeptics” do not often agree, but this is a subject upon which we should be able to reach a true consensus. No one benefits when the IPCC knowingly publishes bogus science.

After seeing something like this, it makes we wonder if we might need to make room for such things as “RoXXXy” the sex robot.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Whistle blowers are protected by laws and it would also allow for this information to be admissible in a court of law.

Ball indicates there is a list of likely suspects, insiders, who may well have been the whistle blower and points a finger at Keith Briffa, one of the climate scientists who appeared to be a war with those running the show at the Climate Research Unit.

Read more here.