Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Stuter
Articles:

Safe Schools?

Homeschools, Private Schools,
and Systems Education

 

More
Stuter
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN ACT OF DECEPTION
PART 2 of 2

 

By Lynn Stuter
February 16, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Are the warnings of Dr Val Geist, Will Graves and George Dovel far-fetched, grandiose, over-the-top? Do you want to bet your life, or the life of your spouse or children, on it? It is important to bear in mind that Cystic hydatid disease can be asymptomatic for years. It is also important to remember that the wolves are spreading from Idaho to all states bordering it, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Utah; Colorado and California are not that far distant. What about Wyoming and Montana which also border Idaho? Wolves were introduced to these two states in the same time frame as they were introduced to Idaho. We already know that the parasite is evident in Montana, that hydatid cysts have been found in ungulates there, as well. It is pretty obvious that the disease is spreading and that wolves are spreading it.

Further information has come to light on how the Canadian Gray Wolf, subspecies Canis lupus occidentallis or MacKenzie Valley Wolf, Canis lupus columbianus, and/or Canis lupus griseoalbus was introduced to the contiguous United States where it is not an indigenous species and cannot, therefore, be said to be an endangered species.

First we will visit the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The purpose of this act …

"to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section." (Section 2(b))

From Section 3(6):

"The term ‘endangered species’ means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range …"

On June 4, 1973, the Secretary of the Interior listed the subspecies Canis lupus irremotus as endangered. This listing was recorded in the Federal Register on that date, referenced as 38 FR 14678 which means Volume 38, Federal Register, page 14678. This volume is not to be found on the internet nor an extract of the page.

So, how is it that wolf recovery in this region (Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Montana and Wyoming) does not involve the species listed as endangered on June 4, 1973?

This quote from page 1 of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (above) lays a point of reference:

"The Northern Rocky Mountain wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) is one of 32 subspecies of the gray wolf recognized by some taxonomists (Mech 1970). Twenty-four of these subspecies once inhabited North America, with the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf occurring throughout Idaho, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, all but the northeastern third of Montana, the northern two-thirds of Wyoming, and the Black Hills of South Dakota (Hall and Kelson 1959) (Fig 1). This subspecies was listed as endangered by the Secretary of the Interior in 1973 (38 Federal Register 14678, June 4, 1973). However, based on probability of enforcement problems and because the trend among taxonomists was to recognize fewer subspecies of wolves, the entire species was listed as endangered throughout the lower 48 States, except Minnesota, in 1978 (43 Federal Register 9612, march 9, 1978). Thus, in this plan, Northern Rocky Mountain wolf refers to gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mounts of the contiguous 48 states, rather than a specific subspecies."

Bottom line, Canis lupus irremotus was reclassified simply as Canis lupus, ignoring any subspecies classification.

In 1982 the Endangered Species Act was amended to include a new section, 10(j) which states,

EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS.—(1) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘experimental population’’ means any population (including any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized by the Secretary for release under paragraph (2), but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.


Advertisement

(2)(A) The Secretary may authorize the release (and the related transportation) of any population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an endangered species or a threatened species outside the current range of such species if the Secretary determines that such release will further the conservation of such species.

(B) Before authorizing the release of any population under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall by regulation identify the population and determine, on the basis of the best available information, whether or not such population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species.

(C) For the purposes of this Act, each member of an experimental population shall be treated as a threatened species; except that—

(i) solely for purposes of section 7 (other than subsection (a)(1) thereof), an experimental population determined under subparagraph (B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species shall be treated, except when it occurs in an area within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, as a species proposed to be listed under section 4; and

(ii) critical habitat shall not be designated under this Act for any experimental population determined under subparagraph

(B) to be not essential to the continued existence of a species.

(3) The Secretary, with respect to population of endangered species or threatened species that the Secretary authorized, before the date of the enactment of this subsection, for release in geographical areas separate from the other populations of such species, shall determine by regulation which of such populations are an experimental population for the purposes of this subsection and whether or not each is essential to the continued existence of an endangered species or a threatened species.

Bottom line, the groundwork was laid to bring the Canadian Gray Wolf into the United States, introduce it as a "nonessential experimental population" and protect it under the auspices of an endangered species, even though not endangered or threatened in its natural habitat.

This federal register entry, dated November 11, 1994, clarifies,

Under section 10(j), a listed species reintroduced outside of its current range, but within its historic range, may be designated, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), as “experimental.” This designation increases the Service’s flexibility and discretion in managing reintroduced endangered species because such experimental animals may be treated as a threatened species. The Act requires that animals used to form an experimental population be separated geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species.

Additional management flexibility is possible if the experimental animals are found to be “nonessential” to the continued existence of the species in question. Nonessential experimental animals located outside national wildlife refuges or national park lands are treated for purposes of section 7 of the Act, as if they were only proposed for listing.

In the end, this is how it was done: the indigenous Gray or Timber Wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) was listed as endangered. In 1978, Canis lupus irremotus was changed to Canis lupus. In 1982, the ESA of 1973 was amended to allow the introduction of nonessential experimental populations under the protection of an endangered species (even if they were not). In 1994/95, the Canadian Gray Wolf was brought in and turned loose to drive out the truly endangered Canis lupus irremotus, multiply under protection, and wreak havoc on ungulate herds and livestock.

In the period 1987 through 2008, wolves were confirmed to have killed 6,844 cattle, sheep, dogs and other livestock in Idaho. This report does not list "probable" kills. In that same period, 234 wolves were moved and 1976 were killed.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

What is so very obvious, in all of this, is that if the environmentalists really cared about wolves, they would not want the indigenous species killed off by the invading species. They, however, have shown no sign of caring, at all. This makes it very obvious that their agenda concerning wolves has nothing to do with recovery and everything to do with money and control. In short, the wolf is being used to achieve a political agenda.

Click here for part -----> 1,

2010 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts


Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.

Web site: www.learn-usa.com

E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, there goes the claim by several that Ecninococcus granulosus has always been present in the state of Idaho! Possibly in the pastoral form, but obviously not in the sylvatic form.