Wolf Propaganda
by JIM BEERS
The following bit of WOLF PROPAGANDA is part of the faux hysteria about
wolves being benign creatures about to be eradicated worldwide if they are
managed anywhere in the US. As you read it, ask yourself the following
questions:1.. Are there too few pronghorn antelope? Why does anyone that does not
hunt pronghorns care if there are a few more or a few less? In truth the
pronghorn antelope population in the West is doing and has done just fine
with controlled hunting since their management for hunting utilizing hunting
license funds and the excise taxes from guns and ammunition were made
available 75 years ago.2.. While it is true that coyotes kill pronghorn fawns and does, why does
the fact that wolves kill coyotes mean good news for pronghorns? Just
because wolves in habitats full of bigger animals ignore pronghorn fawns?
It is patently absurd to assume they will continue to do so as wolf
densities and numbers increase and concomitantly food such as deer and elk
and beaver decrease. This is just a purposeful misconception intended to
keep opposition to total wolf protection off balance and disunited as time
ticks by.
3.. What is a "healthy" wolf pack? The more there are in a pack, the more
destructive, the more dangerous and the more susceptible to disease they
become. The more there are in a pack the more food needed, the more "fun
killing" and the more dangerous they are to anyone they encounter from a kid
at a bus stop to an old guy in his garden or some equestrian riding to and
fro.
4.. A wolf was just "vaccinated" with a bullet by a farmer in
Massachusetts. The tinker belle biologist quoted in the report in the
paper, just marveled at all "those roads" the wolf must have crossed in its
imagined journey from Canada. Why are "Corridors" needed for wolves or
pronghorns or any wildlife? Consider all the "science" about grizzlies and
lynx and wolverines and how "Roads" are the culprits and must be eliminated
to "save" critter X. Could there possibly be a hidden agenda here?
5.. If our efforts to "manipulate" "ecosystems" (i.e. manage the plants
and animals for human benefit) might have "unintended consequences" just
what the "#@*%" would you call this wolf business, "INTENDED"? If so, why
aren't those responsible for introducing and protecting the wolves
RESPONSIBLE for the harms and destruction they cause to ranchers, hunters,
dog owners, and rural America in so many ways? What about the loss of big
game herds - the danger to hunters and campers and gardeners and rural
residents and children - the loss of pets and hunting dogs and working
dogs - the loss of livestock and ranching economic viability - the "excuse"
for more Roadless and Wilderness Proclamations with attendant loss of
management on, access to and use of public lands - the growth of Federal
power and the absorption of State Authority and the attendant subordination
of State agencies and legislation to Federal demands (i.e. "strings" on
growing Federal funds)- the growing "taking" of private property without
compensation for non-public use by Federal "LIST-MAKERS"- and many other
etceteras but space is limited?
Not since Prohibition has a government program been as disgraceful, corrupt,
and harmful to society as the Endangered Species Act. Like Prohibition and
all its "consequences" repeal and return to local controls are the only
answer available to Americans.
THE ARTICLE -
"Science Daily (Mar. 4, 2008) - As western states debate removing the gray
wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, a new study by the
Wildlife Conservation Society cautions that doing so may result in an
unintended decline in another species: the pronghorn, a uniquely North
American animal that resembles an African antelope.'
'The study, appearing in the latest issue of the journal Ecology, says that
fewer wolves mean more coyotes, which can prey heavily on pronghorn fawns
if the delicate balance between predators and their prey is altered.
According to the study, healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers in check,
while rarely feeding on pronghorn fawns themselves. As a result, fawns have
higher survival rates when wolves are present in an ecosystem.'
'"People tend to think that more wolves always mean fewer prey," said WCS
researcher Dr. Kim Berger, lead author of the study. "But in this case,
wolves are so much bigger than coyotes that it doesn't make sense for them
to waste time searching for pronghorn fawns. It would be like trying to
feed an entire family on a single Big Mac."'
'Over a three-year period, researchers radio-collared more than 100 fawns in
wolf-free and wolf-abundant areas of Grand Teton National Park and
monitored their survival throughout the summer. The results showed that
only 10 percent of fawns survived in areas lacking wolves, but where coyote
densities were higher. In areas where wolves were abundant, 34 percent of
pronghorn fawns survived. Wolves reduce coyote numbers by killing them
outright or by causing them to shift to safer areas of the Park not
utilized by wolves.'
'While pronghorn are not endangered, the population that summers in Grand
Teton National Park, part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, had been
reduced to fewer than 200 animals in recent years. Since wolves were
reintroduced in 1995, the pronghorn population in Grand Teton has increased
by approximately 50 percent. These pronghorn have the longest migration --
more than 200 miles roundtrip -- of any land mammal in the lower 48 states.
The Wildlife Conservation Society has called for permanent protection of
their migration corridor, known as "Path of the Pronghorn," to prevent the
animals from going extinct in the Park. Representatives from the National
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service
recently pledged support for protecting the corridor.'
'If delisting occurs, Wyoming and Idaho have announced their intention to
reduce wolf number by 50percent and 80 percent, respectively. At present,
there are an estimated 300 wolves in Wyoming and 700 in Idaho.'
'"This study shows just how complex relationships between predators and
their prey can be," said Berger. "It's an important reminder that we often
don't understand ecosystems nearly as well as we think we do, and that our
efforts to manipulate them can have unexpected consequences.""
Adapted from materials provided by Wildlife Conservation Society, via
EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.Wildlife Conservation Society (2008, March 4). Are Wolves The Pronghorn's
Best Friend?. Science Daily. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from
http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/03/080303145300.htm "
Jim Beers
5 March 2004
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7@verizon.net
- 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 Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.
Response To Jim Beers Article:
Note: As our readers know, Good Neighbor believes in education. The following correspondance regards, "Cheyenne & Wolves" by Jim Beers, is a terrific example of how a good discussion enlarges education, and moves every concern towards real resolutions. Editor GNL
Roni,
When I get emails written by folks like this guy (Jim Beers) I see red. They are so over the top that I can't stand to even read them. They don't come across as rational at all.
Do wolves cause some havoc to farmers and ranchers. I assume that they do. Are they needed so that places like Estes Park...and elsewhere can cull herds of elk and deer that have over populated areas...absolutely.
Would I want my dog or cat eaten by a wolf...of course not. If I lived on a farm or ranch would I know that that's a possibilty; one of the risks I've taken (just as fast cars down my street are a risk of living in the city)
As you can tell, the tone of the email I got turned me more against folks impacted by wolves than helped your cause.
Jill M (CO)
Roni,
I apologize for being overly exuberant. Funny thing is, I agree with everything this lady says except the "need" for wolves to cull elk in Rocky Mtn. National Park. The elk should have been "culled" many decades ago and then "culled" annually to assure an elk herd in consonance with the carrying capacity of the habitat in that area frequented by the herd. Those concerned about this before and those who are concerned about it now should be informed that not only is the use of licensed hunters and a managed hunt the only reasonable solution to that problem: only a regualted harvest by hunters generates money for management of wildlife as well as being the ONLY method that has a reasonable likelihood of attaining the numbers and distribution of elk desired. For more reasons than I have the time to mark, saying that wolves are the answer to the "elk problem" is like saying that communism is the answer to poverty.
Jim Beers
WHAT! You mean Communism didn't stop poverty????
My feelings about wolves and elk is really about a bigger picture. We eliminate one part of the food chain (in this case the wolves) and there's often a negative impact on the other parts of the food chain (too many elk, deer, caribou, etc.) Bringing in hunters doesn't bring back the balance.
The latest "ah, ha" is that there's going to be an impact from the destruction of sharks.
We (people) look at our individual problems, (or as in the case of sharks, tastebuds and health claims...or wolves and chickens and calves or sheep) and fail to look at the bigger picture (impact on the balance of/in nature). The reverse of that is when we city folks water our lawns to keep them green and don't care about the impact of water useage on farmers and ranchers.
Those are really apple and oranges comparisons, but I think you get the gist of my thoughts.
Jill M (CO)
Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO 80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com
| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |