By Jim Beers
A retired Minnesota law enforcement officer just "lost his face and ear" to a bulldog. The latest report is that he is slipping in and out of a coma. His girlfriend reported that the attack came quietly and without warning as she was upstairs. The dog was purchased from a "rescue" source in Houston, Texas and according to reports the rescue outfit actually traveled to Minnesota to inspect the retired officer and his living arrangements before permitting him to adopt the dog.
In Nova Scotia, Canada a 19-year-old girl hiking in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park (located on a large island compromising the NE one-fourth of the Province of Nova Scotia) was recently killed by a "pair of coyotes". While Provincial and animal rights "biologists" warble about how "rare" such incidents are, and about how the coyotes probably came "across the (several decades-old) causeway connecting the island to the mainland" another explanation is emerging. Several lifelong Nova Scotia residents report how the Provincial Wildlife Authorities "introduced" the coyotes in the 1980's "to control rabbits that were destroying large tree plantations and plantings." One resident that has lived for decades near one such tree farm reports how the coyote population exploded upon introduction in the 1980's and how "packs of coyotes" up to as many as seven were common and increasingly aggressive, dangerous and hostile to humans in the areas. He was "not surprised" by the fatal attack. As with the historic (from colonial times) coyotes in the Eastern US and the recently returning (since the 1970's) coyotes in the NE US, these coyotes are reportedly very large as well as aggressive (like one on cape Cod that tried to kill and drag a toddler out of his backyard in broad daylight.)
Minnesota urbanites are all atwitter as I write this about recent reports of "a" (or several?) mountain lion in the river bottoms that skirt the southern Twin Cities area. The State DNR is pretty sure (as opposed their decades of denials about numerous reports from N Minnesota) that there is a cougar in the bottoms. Their advice is to keep your pets on a leash and to "remember" that cougars are protected in Minnesota and may not be harassed or harmed. Gun carrying of concealed weapons, open holstered guns, or gun bans in parks and certain urban areas have not been modified as party-goers speculate about how exciting it would be to glimpse a cougar.
Minnesota has many wolves. A recent multi-page article in the Minnesota paper about the steady decrease in moose numbers cited "experts" prattling on endlessly about how "global warming" is the culprit. Curiously, there was no mention of wolf predation as the decrease in moose numbers follows the increase in wolf numbers and distribution in Minnesota since their protection by federal authorities. Like the expanding cougar population in California following their protection by an animal rights ballot initiative, Minnesota wolves kill adult male moose in the winter but a steady wolf harvest of cows and calves (just like the California cougars learned how to do with California Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep or Nevada coyotes learned how to do with Pronghorn Antelope) will steadily decrease the prey numbers while eventually making them "Endangered" and even "extinct in ." unless the predators are regularly killed and their numbers and distribution are kept lower.
Iowa has had several mountain lions reported in recent years. Iowa state biologists likewise deny their presence while warning everyone that they are protected and a "valuable" part of "the ecosystem". When South Dakota state biologists parroted that animal rights/environmental line several years ago while increasing mountain lion populations were killing South Dakota livestock and pets and threatening people, it took a massive effort by ranchers and rural residents to have the legislature finally force the state "nature worshippers" to allow for a healthy harvest of cougars every year to keep their numbers and effects tolerable.
When wolves killed a young man hiking in Saskatchewan, the Provincial Wildlife Authorities at first denied it was wolves and then fought any stories about the danger of living near wolves or about the difficulty of being able to defend yourself against wolves (or coyotes, or mountain lions, or grizzly bears, or black bears, or wild dogs). No Provincial or National Wildlife Authorities, just as in the USA State or Federal Wildlife Authorities, took any responsibility for failing to protect citizens, commerce, and human activities from numerous, protected and uncontrolled predators. Handguns in Canada are still prohibited from Cape Breton National Park to Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The point being that while Canadians, just like Americans are free to run their nation as they will, the young lady in the Park or the young man in Saskatchewan would have had at least a chance to live if they could have and did avail themselves of carrying a pistol as they hiked in a Park or in winter brushlands near a mining town where deadly abound - of this there can be no doubt.
Deaths and attacks by grizzly bears on humans in British Columbia, Canada are reported similarly to deadly and damaging attacks by California and Colorado cougars are reported as "unusual" and "rare" and often "the fault of the (hiker, biker, camper, hunter, etc.)" that "failed to 'puff up'" or that "ran instead of (what??)". The numbers and distributions of wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, and wild dogs are invariably and almost always under-reported by government authorities concerned about being tagged as "inefficient" or as "uncaring". When such incidents or complaints occur they are never reported with any accuracy just as when wild claims are more and more cooperatively confirmed by "experts" when made by animal rights/environmental groups as they are either on a rampage or threatening to sue.
The situation is disgraceful. Rescue organizations and state wildlife authorities have evolved from admirable enterprises into threats to society, American freedoms, human lives and families.
Persons concerned about mistreated animals are to be admired for their concern. That they take in animals that others abandon or willingly surrender is a credit to their activity. It does not give them any traction in our free Republic to use their concerns as a reason to pass laws, seize private property, gain law enforcement authority and discourage animal breeding, animal use, and animal control by private owners and government. Not only have many "rescue" outfits done all these things, they have discouraged people from buying puppies from reputable breeders by untrue myths about mistreated adult dogs like the above bulldog being suitable for families and even a retired law enforcement officer. IF you want to "adopt" such a dog, good for you but to tell families that such dogs (as opposed a pup from a reputable dealer that is taken into a family at a young age to become accustomed to the family) are suitable is akin to selling pythons to said families. Dog Breeders are disappearing as new laws, draconian law enforcement, propaganda in the media and schools, and myths about "adopting" are spread by animal rights and rescue advocates.
Counterparts to these "rescue" extremists (not all rescuers are extremists) are more and more majorities in state and federal Wildlife Agencies and Universities. - Spreading and protecting deadly predators that we are told to "live with".
- Spreading myths about how to avoid attacks and denying attacks whenever possible.
- Dismissing the economic and human behavior losses caused by redators.
- Denying disease dangers and game animal losses to predators.
- Covering up necessary animal control by the all-but unknown APHIS in USDA.
- Manufacturing population data on a dime as over-abundant predators are denied and "disappearing" predators are claimed as environmental/animal rights lobbyist desire.
- Calling predator losses things like dog attacks or global warming as environmental/animal rights groups want and government growth advocates encourage.
- Working actively to undermine the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution they used to be sworn to uphold.
- Holding up an evil and imaginary goal (Native Ecosystems) to divert public attention from their legitimate primary purpose for existing. - Protecting the lives, livelihoods, families, and welfare of the CITIZENS THAT EMPLOY THEM.
Here is all you need to know about "rescue":
- Puppies are always your best bet for a family pet or a dog to be trained to perform some function.
- Adopting is admirable but must be carefully considered.
- Rescue groups can require all they want but you can refuse to encourage neutering or not having more than one dog, etc. by refusing to adopt.
- Accept that some unwanted or abused animals must be euthanized and disregard all the hoopla about "so many" animals in various shelters or rescue homes. Once people understand that unwanted animals are euthanized, fewer will be purchased frivolously.
- Fight attempts to expand "animal warden" or "animal welfare" "officers". Seizing private property or searching without warrants is wrong for merely suspected citizens and is grotesque for thin horses or breeding dogs that are privately owned. As respect for the rights of animal owners are eroded on the whims of others, so too can and will all rights be eroded and eventually disappear.
- Except for health or noise nuisances or where elderly persons become overrun with animals, animal owners and animal users should be respected as any other citizen. Such nuisances "need" "special officers" about as much as littering needs specialists to detect and deter littering.
Predator numbers and distribution are LOCAL, NOT FEDERAL, matters. Since Constitutional powers "not delegated to the United States" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" per the 10th Amendment, State government and (here's a novel assertion) their employees are responsible to LOCAL communities where "the people" live. State government employees that disregard "the people" are targets for "the people" of that state to expand, contract, and set goals for them to accomplish. Uncooperative politicians should be ripe targets for replacement. So here is what you need to know about Predators:
- Predators are not necessary for anything. Doubt that? Travel to New Zealand where contented people, healthy economic ventures, and animal diversity including (Gasp!) introduced Non-Native plants and animals thrive together in an "ecosystem" LACKING ANY large predators.
- Any group or government employee that is responsible for protecting or introducing a deadly predator that kills or maims a citizen should be held as responsible as the owner of a dog that gets loose and kills someone in the neighborhood.
- Local rural communities should be supreme within a state concerning whether they will be expected to tolerate any or some or no predators IN THEIR COMMUNITY. Far off urban areas in the state, no more than far off cities and government offices IN OTHER STATES should have little or no role in saddling rural communities with unwanted predators.
- Only Federal land under EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION (land NEVER placed under State authority - the District of Columbia and Yellowstone are about the only examples) should be subject to federal overriding of state predator determinations.
- Gun rights, especially handgun availability and carry rights, ought to be particularly easy where large predators exist or are to be tolerated.
- Citizen rights to protect life and property ought to be no less concerning an encounter with a deadly predator than when encountering a dangerous and threatening human assailant.
- Deadly predators no more "belong" on Cape Cod or in Iowa than they belong in Central Park or San Francisco's Chinatown.
- Killing predators should primarily be the responsibility of landowners and hunters licensed under agreed-to state management plans for maintaining, increasing, or eliminating predator numbers and distributions. Government control should only be an expensive last resort for all but federal properties or in cases like geese or other federal Treaty-protected birds around airports or in populated areas where Local governments cannot do it for various reasons.
- States like Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana should reduce their black bear populations and distributions not only because of the cost and damage being caused by excessive bear numbers but because ---
As bears and cougars and coyotes and wolves search for food, learn to kill other animals for fun (like cats with birds or mice whenever available) and as they live near people without any fear (from shooting, trapping, poisoning, harassment, etc.) they get more familiar with people and therefore more dangerous. Kids, old people, and hikers, and anyone else become merely something to eat or "bluff" or simply attack JUST LIKE THAT "RESCUED" BULLDOG.
Whether it is an "isolated" incident or whether or not you are the one being "damaged" by livestock or pet attacks or your kid is threatened at bus stops; whether it is one death a year or whether you never hope to hunt for moose in Minnesota: you can no more rely on government "biologists" than that retired officer could rely on those "concerned" (primarily with him evidently) rescuers.
Watching this bizarre drama for years and listening to all the propaganda reminds me of a silly movie based on a fantasy theme. Remember that tune? "Who Ya Gonna Call? Ghostbusters". We have been playing bit parts in these animal rights/government comedies for long enough. Getting rescue and wildlife management back under American Constitutional control needs to start with repositioning the animal rescue efforts and the wildlife management and control "professionals" that have strayed far from public purposes to harmful agendas that I leave to you to judge as to whether they spring from ignorance, self-interest, or evil intent.
Jim Beers 2 November 2009
IGNORANCE, INTOLERANCE, VIOLENCE - *Using junk science marches, ignorant professors, * *resistance and violence to drive public policy* *By Paul Driessen* Recent science and climate marches de...
3 weeks ago