February 2004     

Propostions for Wolves

By Jim Beers

Just before I recently left on a fishing trip for striped bass off the Outer Banks of North Carolina, an acquaintance asked what I would do if I were asked to serve on a Task Force concerned with wolves, in a place like Arizona. The question, while purely hypothetical, for sure, set me to thinking. Between the drive to the Outer Banks and watching the gannets while trolling several miles offshore, and cleaning a nice mess of big fish yesterday, some things occurred to me, that I would like to share with you.

First, there are some suppositions that underlie all of my thinking about wolves in the lower 48 today:

• Forced reintroduction of wolves in the western U.S. by the U.S. Congress and the President has greatly exacerbated the steady seizure of a whole host of Constitutional authorities and jurisdiction from Governors and State Legislatures of the 50 states.

• Wolf reintroduction has greatly expanded the raw and illegal exercise of federal power over private property owners and rural citizens, by setting precedents of taking without compensation, and elimination of citizen's rights to protect livestock, pets, children, and others from a deadly threat from animals that the federal government is responsible for introducing in our midst, and yet, successfully rejects any responsibility for the harm they cause.

• Wolf reintroduction has given great impetus to the recent phenomenon of urban people, and people from densely populated areas like NJ, MA, NY, IL, and CA forcing their nature fantasies on rural Americans, despite state government objections from the affected states, or common sense.

• Wolf reintroduction is a capital success of the recent trend for well-educated citizens, who should know better, to defer to "experts," such as government (both state and federal) bureaucrats and university academics, whose claims of mystical benefits from wolves (like "Wilderness," "Roadless," and other such citizen restrictions) trump the common sense and citizen authority over politicians and bureaucrats, that is less-and-less-exercised to defend our freedoms.

• Wolves have always (like eagles, whales, and elephants) been successfully pictured as "charismatic megaspecies." That is to say, they are popular with film makers, school teachers, and environmental/animal rights radicals, to spread lies that are swallowed, without question, by children, retirees, soccer moms, and a host of lonesome urban residents anxious to "help Mother Nature."

In summary, wolves are one of the best current examples of undemocratic, tyrannical-wannabe government animal rights policies run amok.

Secondly, with the foregoing assumptions in mind, I considered the issue of the harm wolves do to ranchers, pet owners, big game populations, rural children, rural elderly folks, ranchers, campers, horseback riders, etc., etc. I considered the way in which state natural resource agencies are more and more, beholden to federal bureaucrats and environmental/animal rights radical organizations.

I considered the lies about how wolves don't reduce game populations, or kill more than a few livestock, or how pets are of no value when a wolf kills or maims them, since their owner cannot prevent such attacks. I considered how there is no talk about how fast wolves can expand or how soon they spread throughout the country. I considered how most effective wolf control methods are now prohibited, and how impossible putting this genie back in the bottle will be, when people's attitudes turn to realistic management of these predators.

I considered how the "experts" have spread the lies about some sort of predictable "wolf behavior" that ignores the dog-like ability of wolves to adapt, and insert themselves into every sort of human settlement and activity. I considered how urban folks still smirk unbelievingly about disappearing elk herds, and ranchers whose grandchildren no longer visit, because of wolves around homes. Or how wolves cause abandonment of some school bus stops, or how hunting dogs, watch dogs, and lap dogs are killed and maimed routinely by wolves.

I considered how millions have been brainwashed to disregard concerns about how un-hunted and un-harassed wildlife becomes bolder and bolder, eventually behaving in increasingly unpredictable ways - from attacks by breeding Canada geese around suburban industrial ponds, to wild turkeys that chase mailmen in suburbs (the thought of wolves and this phenomenon should send chills up your spine).

Finally, I considered all of the rural evacuation, human activity curtailment, government land acquisition, and other such socialist goals of bureaucrats, and their environmental/animal rights sleep-partners that are being implemented by the cynical use of wolf "needs," presented before dangerous judges in activist courts by ruthless lawyers.

Putting all these things together, I came up with some questions, observations, and recommendations that I would make, given the chance, were I to serve on some sort of wolf advisory committee or task force in Arizona:

• How long does the Federal government expect to maintain federal hegemony over wolf numbers and distribution in the lower 48?

• When wolves spread (and they will), will states still be required to maintain X # of wolves here and there? If so, "delisting" and "agreements" are little more than federal fiats. "Delisting" would be just like the Soviet Union conquering Hungary and having Hungarian collaborators sign a "Constitution," and then having Moscow dictate everything, from then on. Socialists and Communists hail and believe that stuff - free men are repulsed by it.

• Why can't wolves be killed when killing pets, work animals, or stock? Why, why, why? Such protection for these animals (wolves) says more about unconstitutional government values concerning private property and citizen rights, than it does about an animal with no redeeming social value, and a whole host of negatives that justified its extirpation, years ago, throughout the lower 48 (minus northern Minnesota).

• Can state goals be adjusted after neighboring states fill up with wolves? Where does this end? Is there any place where wolves won't be "forced?" What about Cook County, IL, what about Los Angeles, what about Columbus, Boston, or Atlanta? Why are some areas to be exempt? Are they all expected to revere wolves, and will they be forced to adjust everything, absolutely, to whatever wolves wreak? When, say 10 years from now, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and California have wolves, and all the increasing harm they cause; will Arizona still have to maintain X numbers of packs in Y areas? Does the state ever again assume the true jurisdiction that allows them to decide where and even "if" any wolves are to be allowed to exist in the state?

• Will aerial gunning ever again be permitted for control? Between the unreasonable federal restrictions on poisons and the federal policies restricting lethal controls, will future control methods, that are swift and efficient, ever be reauthorized when wolf problems multiply in the future?

• Can wolf numbers be reduced when big game populations are significantly reduced?

• Will states be allowed to trap, snare, shoot, den (kill pups), or poison as means of exercising state controls over problem wolves? On what basis are any of these methods to be denied to state "managers?"

• Will wolf hides be saleable and allowed in interstate commerce for hunters, fur, souvenirs, decorations, etc.?

• Why was Arizona singled out for wolves? Why not Missouri, New Jersey, or Indiana?

• On what basis can the federal government - unilaterally and without challenge - introduce these animals on public, and private property, then claim they are not responsible for the damage they cause?

• Do NOT mention to me the "damage payments" by the so-called Defenders of Wildlife. The federal government, alone, should pay for damage it causes. It is obscene for some radical private organization to pay for portions of the harm caused by the federal agencies, politicians, and courts. It only points up the pernicious hidden agenda of this whole scheme. Furthermore, the payments have always been selective, for only a small portion of the damage, and the payments could be stopped at any time, and will have to end, as wolf damage spreads in area and magnitude. This part of the whole business, like the "delisting," that makes "dogs on a leash of state agencies," is disgusting.

• How can any bureaucrat, politician, or court say that when introduced wolves kill your dog or your stock, that the government, who put the wolves there, is not responsible for taking your "private property for public use, without just compensation" as specifically prohibited in the last sentence of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? There is not the slightest doubt that if the federal government (and all the environmental/animal rights radicals pushing these laws) had to pay for all this taking of our private property, the magnitude and scope of these efforts would be greatly reduced, reality-based, and Constitution-compatible. When allowed to flourish without limit, as they are, the end result for all of us is tyranny, and ultimately, slavery.

The Governor of Arizona (in a directive), and the State Legislature (in an Appropriation Bill), should direct the Arizona Game and Fish to do the following:

1. Establish a phone hot line for Arizonians to report all incidents, issues, harm, and problems involving wolves in the state. Name, location, and nature of the report should be recorded.
2. Every month or two, in the state F&G magazine, or some other publication, and online, ALL such reports should be made available to the public. No editing or screening by state, federal, or radical groups should be allowed. These are citizen reports, and citizens in a free society can decide for themselves what to make of it. Dog killings, terrified rural residents, stock losses, and other such things can be reported, and evaluated, by citizens.
3. Once a year, a summary report of wolf reports should be published by the agency AFTER review by the task force, with opportunity for members to file (for publishing) a minority report. Between this report and monthly data summaries, the Farm Bureau, dog owners, ranchers, hunters, campers, and others, should be able to publish notices and articles in their own medias, thereby, fostering citizen involvement, and ultimately, sound decision-making.

For too long, we all have deferred to "experts." For instance, when the District of Columbia government denies even the possession of rifles and shotguns, it is "infringing" on our Constitutional right to bear arms, no matter what any court or the federal government says. When the federal government forces wolves into our area, and then forces us to let them kill our stock and pets, they are "taking without compensation," no matter what we are told by "experts." When wolves decimate big game herds, they are harming the environment - no matter what some University professor and some Defenders of Wildlife employee say about the "need" for wolves in the environment. When wolves depopulate rural areas, they are merely surrogates for programs we should all fear and oppose.

The answer to these growing threats to our freedoms is more citizen awareness, and more citizen involvement. Somehow, we have to do this while terrorism grips the nation, and growing federal hegemony in all fields of life seems acceptable.

The alternative is awful to contemplate, and doing what I mentioned here, in one state on this one issue (wolves), is as good a place as any, to get started in taking back our nation.

Jim Beers is a retired Refuge Manager, Special Agent, & Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.