The story below from a friend of mine that lives in Montana and
running for governor in 2012, is more of the accumulated evidence you
should evaluate to really understand the animal rights extremists
groups and their government supporters which George Soros hides behind
to push his new world order and one world socialist government agenda.
Our government elected officials in George Soros's pocket are granting
"rights" to animals and then
using these "unconstitutionally granted rights" to deprive American's
of our "UNAILIENABLE RIGHTS" which they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY to do.
Thank you, B.L.
Animals have absolutely no rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
People on the other hand have "Natural rights" and Constitutional
guarantees to defend themselves, their family, property and these same
"unalienable natural rights". The Animal Welfare Act is
unconstitutional and all laws stemming from it are also
unconstitutional. Yet these laws are being used by our government
officials to endanger human
lives and destroy our animal agriculture industries.
"Thus, to keep and bear arms in defense of self, person or property is
a RIGHT in Montana. Just what is a right? Black's Law Dictionary,
5th Edition, offers one definition of "Right" as: "Rights are defined
generally as 'powers of free action.' And the primal rights
pertaining to men are enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being
grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their
recognition by positive law." Also in this context, "A power,
privilege, or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statutes or
decisional laws, or claimed as a result of long usage."
Certainly, the right to defend oneself is thought by most legal
scholars to a "God-given", inalienable, or "natural" right. Black's
defines "Natural rights" as: "Those which grow out of nature of man
and depend upon his personality and are distinguished from those which
are created by positive laws enacted by a duly constituted government
to create an orderly civilized society." Thus, natural rights are
those rights that exist prior to the reservations of rights in
constitutions.
Natural rights are recognized in Montana law. The Montana Codes
Annotated (MCA; a collection those laws passed by the Legislature), at
1-2-104, says: "Preference for construction favoring natural right.
When a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in
favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to be
adopted."
http://mtssa.org/lethalforce.
Marbury v. Madison, 1803 “A law repugnant to the Constitution is
void.” The ESA is repugnant to the Constitution
A family in North Idaho needs our help.
The barebones facts of the case are these -
1. In May 2011, a grizzly sow with two cubs entered the property
of Jeremy Hill and family. Mr Hill, his wife, Rachel, and their six
children were at home, at the time. The children were outside playing
when the grizzlies appeared on the Hill property.
2. The grizzly sow was at the pen where the Hill's four pigs were
kept when first seen.
3. As the grizzly sow climbed the fence to get into the pig pen,
Jeremy Hill shot her the first time and she tumbled off the pen. Her
next move was to charge toward the Hill home and Jeremy Hill shot her
again. Wounded and down, Jeremy Hill then shot her a third time,
killing her.
4. Fish and Game was called and did assure Hill that his actions
were justified. The two cubs had run away when the sow was shot the
first time; they have not been found.
5. U.S. Fish and Game was notified of the shooting of the
grizzly; they did not show up until long after the incident.
6. In early August 2011 Jeremy Hill was charged with poaching by
a U.S. Attorney.
The Hill family needs our support. The actions of the U.S. Attorney
are outrageous, and, if allowed to get away with this, simply because
the Hill family does not have the money to fight the charge, anyone,
confronted by a wolf or grizzly on their property, having to defend
their family, their livestock, their home or their property, will find
themselves in this same situation.
The Hill family needs money to pay legal fees. If you can help, the
following are the banks where that can be accomplished. Sends checks
made out to the Jeremy Hill Benefit Account to -
Wells Fargo Bank
6764 Main Street
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
or go to any Wells Fargo and tell them the account is held at the
Bonners Ferry Branch.
Mountain West Bank
PO Box 59
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
or go to any Mountain West branch and tell them the account is held at
the Bonners Ferry Branch
Panhandle State Bank
P.O. Box 1479
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
or go to any Panhandle State Bank, Intermountain Community Bank or
Magic Valley Bank and tell them the account is held at the Bonners
Ferry Branch
______________________________
From http://www.newsbf.com/news/
UPDATED: Accounts have been established at all three local bank
branches by Idaho for Wildlife
To learn more, visit
http://www.idahoforwildlife.
I received word from Kevin Kimp, founder of the Bonners Ferry Chapter
of Idaho for Wildlife, who said that all three accounts are monitored
by independent, trusted people in the community who have been selected
by IFW and Jeremy Hill. "To make it clear," he wrote, "the Hill family
wants nothing to do with the administration of the accounts or the
funds in the accounts. Everything will be on the up and up and open to
the public for scrutiny and review. We want the public to know there
will be full accountability and no minuse use of funds donated to the
Jeremy Hill Benefit Fund accounts.
______________________________
The following was posted on The Spokesman Review website, on August 24, 2011:
http://www.spokesman.com/
Not guilty plea entered in federal case of shot grizzly
Officials, many in community question prosecution of father
By Becky Kramer The Spokesman-Review
A Boundary County man pleaded not guilty Tuesday to unlawfully killing
a female grizzly bear in his yard.
So many friends and family members showed up to support Jeremy M. Hill
at his arraignment that the hearing was forced to move into a larger
room at the U.S. Courthouse in Coeur d’Alene. Hill, 33, faces one
charge of killing a grizzly – a federally protected species.
Supporters said that Hill, a father of six, acted responsibly in
shooting the female grizzly on May 8, which appeared with two cubs in
the yard of his home near Porthill, Idaho, while his children were
playing outside.
“It seems unjust to me that someone would be charged when they were
protecting their family,” state Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said
after the hearing. “I’m at a loss to understand why the U.S.
government is pursuing this in the manner they are.”
After shooting the grizzly with a bolt-action rifle, Hill contacted
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.
“Jeremy did the right thing, he called Fish and Game,” Keough said. “I
think that prosecuting this case really sets back the grizzly bear
recovery effort. … People are saying, ‘Boy, if that happened to me,
there’s no way that I’d report it.’ That’s a human reaction.”
Hill’s wife and six children – the oldest is 14 and the youngest is an
infant – attended the arraignment. The family declined to comment.
A jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4. If convicted of illegally
killing a federally protected species, Hill faces penalties of up to a
year in prison and fines of up to $50,000.
The Hills’ Porthill home lies between two federal grizzly bear
recovery zones – the Selkirk zone to the west and Cabinet-Yaak zone to
the east. Roughly 100 grizzlies are believed to inhabit the zones,
which include parts of Idaho, British Columbia and Montana.
Grizzlies are a controversial topic in Boundary County, where
protecting their habitat has led to Forest Service road closures and
some timber harvest restrictions. In recent years, a collaborative
effort called the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative has worked to
reduce conflicts between people and bears.
Ronald Smith, chairman of the Boundary County Commission, said he’s
dismayed that Hill faces prosecution. County commissioners support
grizzly bear recovery efforts, saying a recovered population will ease
land-use restrictions, but charging Hill doesn’t make sense, Smith
said.
“Jeremy Hill … has been falsely accused of a crime that did not
happen,” Smith said in a statement. “… We feel that at all costs, this
man has the obligation and responsibility to protect his children.
This is not some flagrant or malicious act.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Cook declined to comment on the case.
Community members raised $19,558 for the Hill family last week at a
4-H animal sale in Bonners Ferry. Hill’s 14-year-old daughter,
Jasmine, was selling a pig she raised named Regina. Bidders bought and
sold Regina 15 times, with the final bidder giving the pig back to
Jasmine Hill, saving it from a trip to the butcher.
“It was a statement – we’re with you, Jeremy,” said Rob Pluid, of
Bonners Ferry, who helped organize the continuous bidding.
Accounts for the family have been set up at Mountain West Bank, Wells
Fargo and Panhandle State Bank, said Donna Capurso, chairwoman of the
Boundary County Republican Central Committee.
Meanwhile, Boundary County commissioners sent letters to Idaho’s
congressional delegation and state legislators, asking for support for
Hill. They also issued a news release, saying that Idaho Fish and Game
officials had recommended against filing charges in the case, and that
local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials had concurred.
Chip Corsi, Idaho Fish and Game’s regional manager, declined to
comment on his agency’s stance on charges, but said: “He had three
grizzly bears in close proximity to his kids, family and livestock. He
had reason to believe there was a threat.”
Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
Portland, said she couldn’t comment on the case specifically. In
general, however, “we do an investigation and turn over our
information and evidence to the U.S. Attorney’s office and the U.S.
Attorney makes the decision on whether to prosecute or not.”
Bob Fanning
Montana 2012 Gubernatorial Candidate,
75 Bridger Meadow Lane
P.O. Box 7 Pray, Montana 59065
Phone 406-333-4121
E-mail: rtfanning@wispwest.net
______________________________
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:58 AM
Subject: Director Maurier,on March 5th you told the Montana EQC that
you would call in the Center for Disease Control to address the public
health hazard due to the parasite, E.granulosa .
Where are they?
Thus far all we have heard from your Mt. FWP veterinarian is; "I don't
know", "That's not my department " and assorted other bureaucratic
double talk and polysyllabic gibberish that perpetuates the Mt. FWP
cover up of hydatid disease.
The right to self defense is a natural & Inalienable right which means
defense from a fascist government and their bio-weapons, wolves. See
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, J.D. video at the end.
Robert T Fanning Jr.
P.O. Box 7 Pray, Montana 59065
Phone 406-333-4121
Cell 312 909 9643
E-mail: rtfanning@worldnet.att.net
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 9:30 AM
______________________________
Subject: Montana Congressional Challenger, Mark French, Calls for
Immediate Reduction of Wolf Population in Montana
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:24 AM
Subject: Press Release: Introduced wolf is not endangered species
March 27, 2010
For Immediate Release.
Contact: info@markformontana.com
www.markformontana.com
Montana Congressional Challenger, Mark French, Calls for Immediate
Reduction of Wolf Population in Montana
Paradise, Montana (Mar. 27, 2010) – Montana Congressional challenger,
Mark French, is calling for an immediate reduction of the wolf
populations in Montana, citing four main points. First is the Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) policy of eradicating a species that
represents an “emerging threat” to a native endangered species, as has
become apparent with the current non-native wolf species introduced in
the state. Secondly, the presence of a harmful parasite enhanced in
Montana through introduction of this non-native wolf subspecies. Third
is the direct threat of domestic predation as seen last week with the
miniature horses near St.Regis and the recent killing of a healthy
female jogger in Alaska. Lastly is the obvious and severe decline in
the wild game populations linked directly to wolf predation.
French noted the MFWP’s policy for eradicating “emerging threats”
practiced during the purposeful poisoning of the Blossom Lakes and
Creek Fisheries in August 2009 near Thompson Falls, Montana as well as
other locations in the state. To be consistent with the MFWP’s
philosophy where the “emerging threat” of the brook trout was
potentially harming the viability of the native endangered bull trout,
French says the state must take a studied look at the current wolf
issue here in Montana. The introduced wolf is roughly twice the size
of the resident endangered wolf, and comes from a Northern wolf
population that is far from endangered. “Montanans suspect they have
been sold a lie. They are taking action into their own hands because
their government has failed them while their game herds are
disappearing before their eyes,” French exclaimed.
There are many subspecies of wolves in America. Wolf advocates have
classified the many wolf subspecies into 5 groups: two of which are
Canis lupus nubilus (CLN), considered the category for the small
“native” Montana wolf - and Canis lupus occidentalis(CLO), a far
northern subspecies category for the much larger wolf that was
introduced into Montana over a decade ago. It is important to note
that the CLN subspecies is considered threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), whereas the CLO subspecies is not.
“Introduction of the CLO subspecies is not justified under the ESA,”
states French, when recognizing that these wolves have a much harsher
impact on the Montana environment and other native big game species
than the CLN subspecies would have had. Of the greatest immediate
concern is the impact of this larger more aggressive subspecies on
game herds. “How can we protect this subspecies under the ESA, when it
is the smaller native CLN subspecies that has qualified for threatened
species protection in our state?” French asks.
In addition to the Endangered Species Act concerns, there has emerged
a potentially significant public health hazard due to the parasite,
E.granulosa, enhanced in our environment through introduction of the
non-native wolf subspecies. This foreign parasite can potentially have
incalculable negative economic impact in addition to a direct threat
to domestic herd animals, pets and human health. This parasite has the
potential to infect all persons involved in the handling and
consumption of domestic and game animals. “Is Montana’s ranching
industry prepared to weather this potentially huge economic threat? In
addition, are we willing to have our people and pets threatened by
attack when going out alone? asks French, a rancher, outdoorsman and
medical scientist.
As the invasive brook trout was an “emerging threat” to the threatened
bull trout and decisive action was taken by MFWP to remove the
“emerging threat”, decisive action must be taken by MFWP against the
invasive CLO wolf subspecies in order to protect the ESA threatened
CLN wolf subspecies. The declining herds, domestic threats and the
parasite problem seal the urgency of this decisive action.
A public meeting on this subject called by Senator Hinkle, will be
held at the Thompson Falls gymnasium on 3/29/10 from 6-8 PM. Regional
wolf experts will take questions.
French asks any concerned citizen to contact Joe Maurier, Director of
MFWP, through Phone: 406-444-9089 ext. 2535; Email: jmaurie@mt.gov; or
Fax: 406-444-4952.
Express your thoughts and request the following actions be taken immediately:
1. Immediate public hearing on this issue called within 2 weeks.
2. Open season for all legal hunters.
3. State sponsored aggressive helicopter hunting.
4. State sponsored trapping.
Once the immediate threat of this non-native wolf species is
significantly reduced, Montana must retain complete wolf management
responsibility as authorized under the Tenth Amendment of the US
Constitution.
______________________________
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/
______________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: Maury Jones
To: Recipient list suppressed:
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:53 AM
Subject: Excellent on wolves and the basis behind predator/prey impact
This is a letter I got forwarded to me from one of my hunters.
Excellent treatise regarding wolves, predators, and wildlife
management in general.
Jonesy
Pete,
You have been brain-washed by the misconception promoted by the bulk
of the scientific community for decades that mistakenly believes there
is some sort of K, carrying capacity, that is not influenced by
predators. Too much of the scientific community wants to believe that
nature is vibrating closely around equilibrium. It's not. The fact of
the matter is that the latest research and looks at geologic big game
populations convincingly discount the whole idea of this predator-prey
happy medium. Natural unmanaged game populations generally fluctuate
wildly.
The whole happy-medium deal began with the great wolf-moose study on
Isle Royal National Park by David Mech. It all worked fairly well as
long as there was a single wolf pack and the dominant male killed off
the male challengers, assuring there would only be a single wolf pack.
Wolves and moose (without human hunting or any other predation) formed
this happy steady-state relationship. Then something amazing happened.
A second wolf pack crossed the ice one winter and took up residence.
Not only were there battles between the packs, but the moose
population took a royal beating until it was so low it couldn't
support the two wolf packs. Mech, after years of promoting the whole
steady-state predator-prey relationship crock, had to grudgingly admit
that wolves could wipe out a moose population on a local scale (like
Isle Royal), and it started a lot of real scientists thinking that
perhaps the whole theory was flawed.
Most of the other science done on this whole happy-happy concept was
conducted during the 1940s through 1960s, when we had an all-out war
on predators in this country. The last of the wolves and grizzly bears
were pretty much wiped during this period, and coyote and mountain
lion populations where trapped, poisoned, and shot into submission. So
without any predators and constant efforts to wipe them out when the
studies were being done, of course, the results showed that predators
didn't have an impact on prey species.
Many of the best scientists today think predator-prey relationships
(especially with wolves) were continental in scope -- in other words
it took a whole continent for prey to survive as wolf populations
fluctuated and migrated, practically wiping out game in whole regions
before moving on or as their own populations declined -- usually both.
This would give game in the region or adjoining regions a chance to
repopulate the hammered areas. (Some are even theorizing that is why
caribou herds migrate vast distances -- to get away from predators.)
But even in local areas, prey can have a devastating affect on game
populations. California's deer declines coincide perfectly with our
ban on lion hunting, end of fur trapping (with the ban on leghold
traps), end of poisoning with 1080, fire suppression efforts, and end
of cattle grazing. A one-two-three-four punch: First, we've destroyed
the deer habitat by favoring mature habitat (and believe it or not,
cattle helped keep habitat open for deer and other species that rely
on successional habitats -- like our favorite quail). And then second,
we allowed predator populations to build up excessively. And we have
moronic biologists here who still tell us were are at K with our local
deer herds and that our political inability to hunt does is why we
don't have more bucks. That's simply insanity. There's no reason on
God's green earth why, as an example, North Fork Meadows in the San
Bernardino mountains doesn't still have 35 to 50 bucks visible at dawn
in early October, with the whole drainage holding 500 deer. The
habitat is still there.
Lastly, as the top-line predator, I think we have the right, if not
the obligation, to keep other predators in check. Why shouldn't we
have optimal deer and elk herds for us to utilize? The first thing the
wolves did in Yellowstone was practically wipe out the coyotes,
eliminating the competition. They've harassed bears and mountain lions
and killed their offspring. Predators keeping other predators in check
is a natural process. Why should humans be any different? We're the
only predator smart enough to at least try to keep game numbers at
optimum, high levels. Predators will wipe them out under many, most
circumstances, because they are driven by hunger pangs.
It took 50 years of concerted efforts, full-time government staff, use
of poison, trapping and more trapping, and bounties to finally wipe
out wolves and grizzly bears. Now, they're both back and rapidly
expanding their ranges. I have a friend from eastern Montana who
believes Minnesota wolves and Montana wolves are meeting on the
prairie and forming packs along the Missouri river again. My point
here is that we'll never be able to rid the West of wolves or grizzly
bears again (so long as there are big tracts of habitat) with today's
political climate. And I think most hunters want them here. I've been
lucky enough to hear wolves in both Montana and on Isle Royal in
Michigan, see their tracks, and know those yellow eyes were watched me
hike along a ridge. That really says you are someplace wild. So we
don't want them gone again, but without better and more aggressive
management of wolves in the Rockies, we are going to see massive
declines in our big game populations. Unless we adopt a Wyoming-like
approach, we'll have wolves in all the Western states, including
California (where they likely never existed for some reason).
Even with its hunting program, and all its wolf hunt quotas nearly
filled, Idaho hasn't put a dent in the exploding wolf population
there. And now they've documented a massive decline in elk numbers in
the Lolo (the only real study done so far), and it will get worse
before it gets better. Elk guides all over the state where there are
wolves will tell you not only are elk numbers down, but the elk are
also staying in defensible habitat (thick timber) where heavy snow
doesn't accumulate and where they can hold off a pack because the
wolves can't maneuver in the trees as well as the open. This makes
them harder to find and hunt for humans, too. Like with mountain
lions, when their primary prey gets low, they focus on other species.
So when the elk decline, they will eat deer and moose and bighorn,
crashing their numbers, too. Lions wiped out the great deer herd in
the Mt. Baldy-Lytle Creek region and then started hammering the sheep.
Fire and improved habitat conditions have led to a resurgence of both
species the last couple of years, but if we'd kill just half the lions
in the range (3/4 would be better for the lions, frankly), it would be
like it was during the last deer peak in the late 1970s and perhaps as
good as the heyday of the early 1960s. We can be the deer's predators.
We don't need unchecked populations of predators to do the job of
keeping big game herds in check, but that's what most of today's
biologists are advocating.
It's just wrong. People go to Yellowstone to see elk and moose. Have
you been there lately? You're about as likely to see a wolf. The moose
are just gone. Gone. Elk don't do much grazing in the huge meadows any
more. Even if I wasn't a hunter, I'd be pissed about the wolf deal.
Especially when you consider that we likely released the wrong
subspecies of wolf into the region in the first place (pack wolves
from Canada, rather than individual prairie-mountain wolves that were
more like the Mexican wolf -- lone hunters, or a least that's what
most of the historic accounts suggest).
And then there's the whole disease issue that is being quietly swept
under the rug by the wolf biologists. A couple of guys in Idaho are
raising hell about this, and even the great Val Geist and Will Graves
have sounded the alarm. (I can forward you some stuff on this, if
you'd like). [Jonesy note: Read the Panel Discussion; EXCELLENT)
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/
That's my dollar and change, and if science and facts are bias against
wolves -- well, so be it. I prefer to think it's rational. Between
fires and logging, habitat conditions in much of the West are better
than they've been in years for big game. But in places with wolves,
their numbers are crashing. There's a correlation. Or is that some
sort of wildlife "profiling"?
Pete, I also believe it will be our obligation to kill as many of the
those non-native chukar as humanly possible this year (within the
limits of course). It's looking like there will be way, way too many
of them this year. I'm not even sure we need another rain, but one is
forecast for this coming week. I'm already giddy just thinking about
it. Can you say, better than 2005?
Bestest,
Jim Matthews
______________________________
Is imported hydatid disease a violation of Montana's Constitution and
the inalienable rights of our citizens?
Constitution of Montana -- Article II -- DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have
certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and
healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic
necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties,
acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their
safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these
rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.
87-1-217, MCA, requiring the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
to manage large predators, including wolves, with the primary goals to
preserve citizens' opportunities to hunt large game species, to
protect humans, livestock, and pets, and to preserve and enhance the
safety of the public during outdoor recreational and livelihood
activities
______________________________
American is in danger of becoming "a fascist country," which he
defines as "private ownership, but government control." He adds, "The
government doesn't have the money to own anything. But it has the
force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it
wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama
Andrew P. Napolitano, J.D (born June 6, 1950 in Newark, New Jersey) is
a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a political and legal
analyst for Fox News Channel. Napolitano started on the channel in
1998, and currently serves as the network's senior judicial analyst,
commenting on legal news and trials. He is a graduate of Princeton
University (where he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of
Princeton) and Notre Dame Law School.
http://www.newsmax.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment