by Jim Beers
In combat, when a mortar shell goes off to your left and another goes off to
your right or one goes off in front of you and another behind you - it is
time to get out of there because you are being "bracketed" (the next
one is
intended to land right where you are). As we think of wolves and Vermont,
the concept of being "bracketed" comes to mind as we look at Ketchum,
Idaho
far to the west and Finland far to the East. Their current experience with
wolves tells us much about what New Englanders can anticipate as the
duplicitous drive to establish wolves is proceeding through the courts and
government offices.
A recent national news article tells of 60 cow elk staying within the town
limits of Ketchum, Idaho the home of the exclusive Sun Valley ski area.
The
elk are there because of the (newly "established") wolves that are
killing
those outside the town. The elk seek safety in the town but as the wolves
get hungry, they will surely come in after the elk. So the elk are to be
captured and transported "outside town" (where they will be killed by
wolves
although that goes unsaid). The State fish and wildlife agency says this
must be done "to prevent disease in the crowded elk" and to prevent
the elk
from "drawing predators into town".
How long do you think there will be elk to hunt when wintering cow elk (most
of which are pregnant at this time of year) are killed in such numbers? If
as the government "scientists" say that wolves are not a danger to
people:
why is it a problem for them to be "drawn into town"? If the elk
are in
danger of "disease" from behaving as wolves force them to survive: how
can
all the government veterinarians and wolf fanatics continue to deny that we
have no evidence that wolves cause disease?
What is the "environmental benefit" or "ecosystem role"
provided by these
wolves that decimate hunting, kill pets, kill stock, and endanger rural
residents while costing all of us millions in "control" and propaganda
to
prevent us from demanding their removal? The answer is there is no such
"benefit" and the harms being described should be the basis for
prosecution
of all those that have foisted this travesty on the rest of us.
Meanwhile far to the East in Finland, the same play is being performed with
a different cast. Mr. Magnus Hagelstam reports the following:
"The government of Finland decided to exterminate the wolf in 1881
after 6 children had been killed and eaten in 1877-78 and 22 in 1880-81.
Those were the latest in a long series of man-eating wolves found in church
records and contemporary newspapers by the historian Antti Lappalainen and
published in his book Suden jäljet, the Tracks of the Wolf in 2005. In
all,
he found 193 persons killed. Professor Teperi had done a similar work in
the1970's focusing also on the catastrophic predations on livestock."
"The wolf got protected under the EU (sic European Union)-directive 1992/43
when Finland joined in 1995, google Eurlex and find it. The Finnish
negotiators accepted the protection without hesitation. From the late 1800's
until recently the wolves coming in from Russia were soon shot. Now they
are proliferating in inhabited areas, kill sheep on pasture and dogs in the
front yards of rural and suburban houses and occasionally behave
threateningly. There is a collective memory of wolves being dangerous and
people are scared and furious in spite of the local wolf mafia trying to
depict it as a shy animal of the wilderness (there
are none in Finland) and a natural part of nature."
"The EU-commission has chided the Finns for their "unfounded"
fear of
wolves, pointing out that nobody in Finland has been killed by wolves in a
hundred years - for as long as none were around."
"The EU recently sued Finland at the EU court for having allowed the
felling
of 25 particularly aggressive wolves out of 180 applications for felling
bothersome ones."
"I and a number of other activists focus on the constitutional side of the
issue, that no EU-directive can nullify the right to safety, to freedom of
movement and to property. So far, the government has not reacted. Hopeful
aspects are that the population still has rural roots and feel about the
issue, that newspapers publish anti-wolf stories and that the country is
small enough for change - only 5 million. Less hopeful is that the wolf
mafia has tremendous influence and has duped a lot of young, urban people
into believing their lies."
Mr. Hagelstam has said it all. I never would have believed that I would
know of a Finlander in Finland (I knew many in North Dakota and Minnesota)
whom I have never met yet would call "brother' but Magnus Hagelstam is such
a man.
The same forces (EU/US Federal Government & "wolf mafia"/animal
rights and
environmental non-government organizations) and the same hidden agendas
(control of the rural countryside and the removal of all residents) and the
same lies ("shy animal of the wilderness"/only kill the old and weak
and don't
depress game species and are not a danger to people, etc.) are at work where
strong central governments are allowed to dictate power plays by
bureaucracies and environmental criminals. Who would have ever thought
that
Ketchum, Idaho; Helsinki, Finland; and Montpelier, Vermont are about to have
so much in common?
Jim Beers
3 January 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91
Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net