Evansville, IN – Today, as part of the House Armed Services Committee’s National Defense Authorization Bill debate, Brad Ellsworth introduced an NRA-supported amendment to direct the Department of Defense to resell used small arms cartridge cases to marksman, law enforcement agencies and off-duty military personnel for hunting and target practice that unanimously passed.

“This seemed like a common-sense solution to help the Defense Department and responsible Hoosier hunters and marksman. I was proud to work with the NRA on this amendment,” said Brad Ellsworth. “As a gun owner myself and a former sheriff, I know that these cases are mostly used for marksmanship training and competition and law enforcement agencies. Authorizing the military to re-sell these casing is a win-win for hunters and marksman and the Defense Department.”

“This is a significant victory for law-abiding sportsmen, especially during these trying economic times. Reloaded ammunition costs considerably less, and military-sourced spent brass cases are of the calibers most widely used for marksmanship training and competition by civilians,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Also, with widespread ammunition shortages, the passage of this amendment will be well received by NRA members, gun owners and ammunition suppliers. We are grateful for Congressman Ellsworth’s leadership on this issue”

Currently the military may not destroy small arms ammunition and may sell surplus, once-fired small arms cartridge cases collected from training ranges. Military bases now sell the cases for scrap in demilitarized condition or intact to companies that use the cases to produce ammunition. Scrapping cases in demilitarized condition deprives companies of the ability to purchase the cases for use in producing reloaded ammunition, and bases often lose out on much-needed revenue from these sales.

The Ellsworth amendment, which is endorsed by the NRA and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of committee members, compels bases to sell “small arms ammunition and ammunition components” intact, as long as the items aren’t “unserviceable or unsafe”. The Amendment also sets reporting requirements to ensure DOD promptly complies with this new rule.

It is a simple rule of life that when brawling in a barroom, there are no rules. It is with this simple rule in mind that I bring to your attention to a minor, yet potentially major, aspect of the known biology of a little recognized species of tapeworm that infects wolves and dogs.

This species of tapeworm, Echinococcus multilocularis, has just been found in wolves in Slovakia. In North America, this species of tapeworm has been found only in western and northwestern Canada and a small area of Montana. A parasitologist recently mentioned to me that it may have spread into North Dakota as I am writing this.

This species, multilocularis, is of importance to rural North Americans since it is readily spread by infected wolves to dogs and humans. Dogs (and wandering wolves) can infest yards and homes (human living spaces) with the eggs of this tapeworm. The eggs are not only persistent, they are readily picked up by humans, their clothing, and boots and brought inside where toddlers and those that do not routinely wash their hands to those that unknowingly breath in the eggs when the eggs are disturbed and airborne in the home can become infected. One other rather important point is that the cysts formed by this tapeworm in human tissues and organs are very dangerous since they can only be removed by surgery and if they are ruptured (very difficult to avoid) during surgery, they can cause death. In other words this is one of the most dangerous (to humans) tapeworms carried by and spread by wolves.

So you are probably wondering what all this has to do with “brawling in barrooms”? The answer is that the foregoing information contains a nugget of information that has great consequences if I am willing to present it like the environmental radical community presents select propaganda in a way that I find repugnant.

I have long been outraged at the environmental religious tenet that is dressed up in “science” under the rubric of “INVASIVE SPECIES”. This bit of fantasy holds that there is something “sacred” or “right” about a “Native Ecosystem” and therefore any species of life that is not “Native” is therefore “Invasive” and subject to eradication and/or total exclusion from places that they are not “Native” to. “Native” is defined as the biological communities that were in Pre-Columbian North America, that is pre-1492 when the supposedly impure Europeans contaminated this continent. This concept is a direct copy of the Nazi-era German plans and programs aimed at re-establishing “Pre-Roman” plants and animals that were the result of equally impure Romans contaminating the Teutonic paradise. Repugnant is too light a word to describe what I feel for this biological chicanery.

In the past ten years environmental and animal rights radicals have used this “Invasive Species” argument to justify expanding federal authority, federal programs, and the federal budget. While they always use bogeymen like Brown Tree Snakes (Guam) or Killer Bees and Kudzu (southern US) to justify their wishes, time shows how they are aiming more at pheasants and brown trout to diminish hunting and fishing or specious assertions to justify stopping grazing or logging or shutting down growing portions of the public estate. This is done based in large measure on “science” that is on par with the global warming/climate control/global cooling quackery of recent times.

Yet it has worked, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and this gander now invokes the “Invasive Species” bugaboo with all the enthusiasm of a Druidic priest praying to mistletoe high in a winter oak as we all dance around a campfire.

Forget that Echinococcus multilocularis is deadly to humans. Forget that other tapeworms both dangerous and potentially deadly to humans AND carried by and spread by wolves are ubiquitous (all over the place) in North America. So far as I can determine from the literature (oooh that sounds so… scientific) and from talking to acquaintances that are familiar with the topic — Echinococcus multilocularis has NEVER been found in North America outside western Canada and a small area of Montana. Therefore, (drum roll please) Echinococcus multilocularis is an INVASIVE SPECIES in all lower 48 states with the exception of Montana (who could probably adopt a County approach to Invasive Species eradication and get in on this action.)

Now since the wolf was stocked by the federal government and is protected by the federal government AND IS THE VECTOR OR CARRIER OF THIS DEADLY INVASIVE SPECIES, AND SINCE THE WOLF HAS SPREAD INTO THE NORTHERN GREAT LAKES STATES, MONTANA, WYOMING, UTAH, IDAHO, AND NOW WASHINGTON, OREGON, COLORADO, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, AND IS STRAGGLING INTO THE DAKOTAS, ILLINOIS, NEBRASKA AS WELL AS OTHER STATES; what can be done? Can the states kill all of these carriers of this truly deadly Invasive Species? Can state legislatures resist or overcome federal wolf sanctimony by declaring total war on these vectors of a deadly Invasive Species? How can the federal government justify spreading this infectious agent when they are charged Constitutionally with promoting “the General Welfare” in the very Preamble of the Constitution of the United States? Where are all the acolytes of a “pure Native Ecosystem”?

Like they say, when in a barroom brawl be prepared to do whatever it takes to win or get the heck out of there pronto. I (and you too, I hope) have no intention of running away from this fight so let’s either see this “Invasive Species” nonsense put to bed or lets haul all of these government wolf-enablers in the hoosegow for endangering rural Americans with a program that places a vector of a deadly-to-human Invasive Species infections under total protection while it invades the native state ecosystems while further endangering rural Americans’ families, livelihoods, communities, and ways-of-life.

This is no joke!

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 for consulting or to speak. Contact:

jimbeers7@comcast.net

Senator Walker has introduced Senate Bill 0200
Senator Holdman has introduced Senate Bill 0276
and
Senator Waterman has introduced Senate Bill 0416

This now makes 19 other states with introduced bills, including: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Another 12 states are expected to introduce FFA clones within the next few weeks. More info at:
http://FirearmsFreedomAct.com

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

According to the article, the USFWS was forced into doing this because of three court rulings. Those rulings, along with returning the wolf to federal protection, also force the USFWS to eliminate any Distinct Population Segments they created within the states listed, in order to delist the wolves. It was the ruling of Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. federal court that said the USFWS did not have the authority to create these DPSs.

Where does that leave us in dealing with endangered species then? Certainly if the courts ruled that the USFWS can’t create smaller DPSs, then it would only seem logical that they don’t have the authority to create any DPSs, expand or modify existing DPSs. Friedman’s ruling also would have to bring into question as to whether any existing Distinct Population Segments are legal.

I’m am having difficulty accessing the Final Rule on this at the registry. All I have for information on this right now is what I found at my friends over at WISE. I’ll report more on this and provide a copy of the Final Rule once I’m able to get my hands on it.

Tom Remington

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) 1 of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) 1 of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) 1 of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

And when you’re done with that story, check out the one of the guy who found two “locked” bucks that drowned in a lake. Combined dressed weight of the deer, 400 pounds.

Tom Remington

To confirm the presence of the disease, blood and certain tissue has to be analyzed.

According to both the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and the Alabama Department of Conservation, dealing with EHD is quite routine. Charles Ruth, Deer/Turkey Project supervisor for the South Carolina DNR says flair-ups in that state seem to run in cycles of 3-5 years and there’s a reasonable explanation.

“This is probably related to the fact that once deer are exposed to the disease they are more resistant to it. Therefore, if you have disease one year the deer become exposed or inoculated to the disease and you do not see much disease activity until there is turnover in the deer population. After several years you are dealing with another cohort of deer and their systems are ‘naïve’ to the disease. The last time there was significant hemorrhagic disease activity in South Carolina was in 2002, therefore, disease activity could be relatively high this year.”

This theory is confirmed by a spokesman for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

“We have some cases every year,” said Keith Guyse, a whitetail specialist with the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division in the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. “In the Coastal Plain, the virus is there frequently enough that deer have been exposed to it and have some resistance to it.

Both representatives indicate that EHD in their respective states is pretty much routine only because of the build up of a certain degree of immunity. Therefore, these southern states don’t see wide outbreaks of the disease that often. When EHD hits the more northern climes, EHD seems to grab harder. Ruth explains.

Deer likely die in South Carolina each year from hemorrhagic disease, however, there is no indication that a major outbreak has occurred in the state since the mid 1970s. The disease is part of life for deer in the Southeast and fortunately it appears that Southern deer have acquired some immunity to the disease, said Ruth. Northern deer, on the other hand, are not exposed to the disease as frequently since the insect vector is not as common in cooler climates. For this reason, significant outbreaks and mortality from hemorrhagic disease are more likely in northern deer populations.

Guyse from Alabama makes reference to the same theory.

“Typically in North Alabama and above the fall line, they’re not exposed to it as often. So over a period of time you have a population that doesn’t have much resistance. When you have (outbreaks) up there, it tends to be more noticeable.”

This helps us understand why some states may have more severe outbreaks, killing larger numbers of deer, than others but why this year are outbreaks so widespread across the landscape of the country? Some have related it to the summer heat and drought. That may be true, I don’t know. It would be logical to assume that being that the virus is carried and spread by tiny midges or gnats, a larger than normal population of that insect would be directly proportional to the spread of the disease. Of course science isn’t that simplistic and we know that there are probably many more factors to consider or it could be just merely a coincidence.

However, Guyse from Alabama eludes to the theory of increased numbers of midges, somewhat.

“Auburn (researchers) had traps out to catch the flies and they might catch a few every once in a while, and then all of a sudden they catch hundreds,” Guyse said. “Much of that still is a mystery.”

Obviously, they don’t have a good handle on it either.

Hunters and others should be aware of the symptoms they may find on deer suffering from the disease.

Symptoms of hemorrhagic disease include poor physical condition, sloughing hooves, abrasions or sores on the brisket and legs, and ulcerations on the mouth, tongue, and rumen (stomach).

As I said earlier, verification of the disease has to be done in the lab.

If you see sick or dead deer in your travels, please report it to the appropriate authorities. It is highly recommended that nobody eats any of the meat from deer sickened by EHD.

Tom Remington

J.R. Absher, the Newshound, and I sent a couple emails back and forth this morning about what’s happening with EHD. In one of my emails, I asked J.R. if this was what he would consider a large outbreak from his years of experience in the field. What he told me was that in a previous article he mentioned that he had talked with a friend of his, Doug Markham, information officer for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, about this year’s outbreak.

My good friend Doug Markham, information officer for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, dropped me an email over the weekend saying it’s as bad as he’s ever seen it in his 20 years with the agency.

Some especially hard-hit areas of the Volunteer State could lose half their deer to EHD this year, Markham speculated.

One other thing that J.R. mentioned was that it seemed that the EHD outbreak was following a similar path as this summer’s drought. I’ll have to do some investigating to see if I can find out if that is a common occurrence.

In the meantime, we all need to be praying for some frost and freezes to kill this thing off.

Tom Remington

Montana officials have confirmed the presence of EHD in the southeastern part of the state.

So far “hundreds” of antelope and deer carcasses have been reported.

The heaviest concentration of the disease appears to be in the Melstone area east to Ingomar and Sumatra.

There really is not much that can be done about the disease. We just wait until the first good frost or freeze that will kill the midges that carry the virus.

In the meantime, troubles from dying deer in Pennsylvania are raising concerns about the possible contamination of drinking water supplies. In Beaver, Greene and Washington counties estimates are that over 1,000 deer carcasses are lying about rotting and stinking up the air. For some, there is concern that the decaying carcasses, many of which are lying in water, are contaminating the water supplies.

Russell Morgan is a Greene Township Supervisor and a farmer. He’s concerned about the water problems but is getting no help from the Pennsylvania Game Commission to get the carcasses cleaned up.

Already, Morgan said, he has confirmed 17 dead deer on and around his property. Township secretary Sandy Wright said one resident found 50 dead deer within a short distance of each other. Another resident reported finding 35 dead deer, Wright said.

Morgan said the game commission should at least help remove the remains from water sources. Instead, he was told removal of the deer is the responsibility of the homeowner,

“No one wants to take responsibility for what’s going on,” he said.

One of the side effects of the disease in deer causes the body temperature to rise, thus sending the deer to water to cool off. This is often where they expire.

Game Commission Supervisor Barry Zaffuto says it isn’t the responsibility of the PGC to take care of the dead animals and that the rotting deer are not contaminating the water.

“A deer is 100 percent natural,” he said. “This virus is not transferable, so it would be just like a deer that dies in the water naturally, because it does happen.”

The commission, he said, does not have the resources to search across a three-county area for deer and then remove them, especially when nature is taking care of that for them.

“That would just be totally impossible. What would we do with them?’ he said. “Deer decompose naturally and rapidly.”

Morgan isn’t buying Zaffuto’s explanation about deer being all natural and wouldn’t ruin the water. As a farmer, he is required by law to remove any of his livestock if it should dye in or near water. Under the watchful eye of the Department of Environmental Protection, he is made to clean up the carcass immediately because it will contaminate the water. Morgan wants to know what the difference is between a cow and a deer?

Morgan isn’t the only one concerned about the dying deer and how to clean up the mess. According to the PGC, it’s the landowners’ responsibility but this is angering citizens because of the double standards being exemplified in this video.

Tom Remington