Non Native Wolves Illegally Introduced, Says Whistleblower

[pianoman9701]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

I don't really care about the misuse of funds that Beers talks about.  I am more concerned about a nonnative species being introduced.

I'm pissed about both. Those funds are funds that you and I paid which are supposed to be earmarked ONLY for wildlife enhancement/habitat creation and enhancement/hunter education. The fact that they were used on an illegal program and went to pay the bonuses of the crooks in charge of that program really sucks eggs.

[pianoman9701]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him.  And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.

[JLS]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example.

For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.

[Special T]

To me its unfortunate that neither of the 2 issues have gained traction. 1 McKenzie valley wolves from Canada are NOT the same kind that were once here and the proper paperwork was not filed. 2 Self inflicted tax (Pitman Roberts fund) was misused.

Unfortunately these issues require some study to cry fowl and MOST people are not willing to read all the articles. Jim Beers and Scott Rockholm  have likely put as many of the pieces of the puzzle together as we are going to get.  Unfortunately because Scott is loud and confrontational, and people think Jim Beers has an Axe to Grind they dismiss what they say or the evidence they produce.  Its unfortunate that they didn't find the right way to package and spread the message 6 years or so ago before the economy tanked. For the general population that MAY have been interested in this have now put it on the back burner due to more pressing matters.

[JLS]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him.  And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.

How often have you EVER seen a lawsuit for slander/libel from a former government employee?  The plaintiff has to show injury from the slander/libel in a civil suit.  The USFWS was likely not injured in any way by Beers' comments because it is not a business.

[huntnphool]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example.

For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.

So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point?

[pianoman9701]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him.  And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.

How often have you EVER seen a lawsuit for slander/libel from a former government employee?  The plaintiff has to show injury from the slander/libel in a civil suit.  The USFWS was likely not injured in any way by Beers' comments because it is not a business.

So JLS, do you actually have anything that would show that Jim isn't telling the whole truth or are you just going to cast doubt on him for whatever reason? Because of his history, I find his story quite compelling. I see that he's got little to gain and lots to lose. Tell us what you know that could change our minds about him. 

[JLS]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example.

For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.

So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point?

My point is that if congress thinks it's a pressing issue to get Roger Clemens on the stand to investigate use of hGH in professional baseball, I think they would find it a pressing issue to find out if millions of dollars of PR money were misused.

[wolfbait]

I'm also wondering if this was so illegal and we have the documentation to prove that. What's stopping the movement and legal means to reverse course and attempt to get the problem under something resembling management and control?

Two separate issues, unfortunately. If you sought to tie the lying and deceit to the present wolf population, that would mean completely wiping them out and starting over. I'd love that if it meant starting over with smaller wolves and an existing environment of de-listing so that management could begin any time we decide it needs to. However, the greenies control the wildlife commission and the DFW, and that's never going to happen. Beers has been talking about these lies for 4 years now and no one is listening. No one cares except for the small part of the population who have to live with these eating machines or those who see the results of their residence, like cattlemen and hunters. The other 90+% of the population is brainwashed by the pro-wolfers and their cute and cuddly dogs that they take around to the schools.

Good post!

The bottom line is we will never get back to where we were, and there will never be any true wolf control until there is nothing left. which is the desired goal.

People who do not have to deal with wolves do not have the same motivation as those who do. Unfortunately there seemed to be too many in WA that have not had the true wolf experience, that will change in the future. And like IDFG, and the RMEF< WDFW will leap to their feet in shock at a new study, that says wolves are to blame.

Conservation NW and Defenders of Wildlife and several other "middle man" environmentalist for the USFWS will have made millions and contributed to politicians who support or believe they will profit.

 Outdoor people, hunters, ranchers, farmers and rural communities will suffer greatly and in the end be mostly gone, if not gone their communities will be recreational areas.  All roads into the national forest will be traveled by fee only. We are seeing this already with first the WDFW pass and now the discover pass, in the end an environmental group will be in charge of all federal and state lands.

If you like your health plan you can keep it, Period…
If you like your doctor, you can keep him, Period.
If you like your hunting, ranching, farming, and rural life you had better start fighting for it!!!!!!!Period!

[huntnphool]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example.

For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.

So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point?

My point is that if congress thinks it's a pressing issue to get Roger Clemens on the stand to investigate use of hGH in professional baseball, I think they would find it a pressing issue to find out if millions of dollars of PR money were misused.

I got ya, thanks.

My point being that even when we do have congressional hearings we still have no conclusion as to the truth of its entirety, neither validating nor invalidating the claims.

[link]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Very good points JLS, but the fact that there have been no hearings to validate his claims does not necessarily invalidate his claims either, need I remind you about "fast and furious" or "Benghazi" for example.

For Heaven's sakes, Roger Clemens ended up in a congressional hearing.

So did Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton, what's your point?

My point is that if congress thinks it's a pressing issue to get Roger Clemens on the stand to investigate use of hGH in professional baseball, I think they would find it a pressing issue to find out if millions of dollars of PR money were misused.

So you really think that congress would find it pressing to find out why millions of dollars of PR money ( tax dollars) were misused?!?! HA!! You cannot seriously believe that.

[JLS]

Actually, I do.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/01/01/fws-slush-fund-exposed-congressional-hearings

There have been plenty of rabid conservatives in office over the duration of the wolf recovery, including Helen Chenoweth (the salmon hater  ), that I find it hard to believe that none of them latched on to all of the alleged illegalities and improprieties associated with the wolf recovery.

[buckfvr]

I just cant believe they can move forward ever faster under their veil of deceit and dishonesty.  That includes all players...yes, even USFW and WDFW.

You just cant believe a word any of them say regarding wolves, so fo me, that carries over to everything.  I have no faith in any government agency, period.   

[Northway]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

Why hasn't he been dragged into court on charges of slander or libel? If he's not telling the truth, it shouldn't be hard for his former employer to get a gag order on him.  And, there aren't enough congressmen and women willing to take on the greeny radicals, especially the ones who have a slim lead over libs in their state, like some of our conservative congressmen and women. They have to pick their fights.

How often have you EVER seen a lawsuit for slander/libel from a former government employee?  The plaintiff has to show injury from the slander/libel in a civil suit.  The USFWS was likely not injured in any way by Beers' comments because it is not a business.

So JLS, do you actually have anything that would show that Jim isn't telling the whole truth or are you just going to cast doubt on him for whatever reason? Because of his history, I find his story quite compelling. I see that he's got little to gain and lots to lose. Tell us what you know that could change our minds about him. 

Who likes which biologist is predictable when it comes to the wolf debate. Wolf advocates are going to like one of several recognizable individuals, and anti-wolf folks are going to like Valerius Geist, Jim Beers, or Charles Kay.

Then there's the back and forth of talking points about who is more credible. Although I'm not particularly fond of Jim Beers, I'd be lying if said I've never read anything from him that has influenced how I think about the wolf issue. 

[Bean Counter]

Did you ever think that Jim Beers is not exactly the bastion of truth that some protray him to be?

I'm sure there are plenty of congressmen from very conservative states that would love to have the ammo to hold a congressional hearing to validate Beers' allegations.  The fact that they haven't in almost 20 years since the wolf reintroduction speaks volumes to me about the merit of his compaints.

I don't really care about the misuse of funds that Beers talks about.  I am more concerned about a nonnative species being introduced.

I agree, but I think Congress cares more about the money and that's what might get traction  on the issue. Think Al Capone + bad taxes.