February 5, 2023

Once Upon a Time, Long Before Dunkin’ Donuts

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

*Editor’s Note* – It sure is a blessing for me to have someone who cares enough about our future that has become my volunteer researcher. He provides me with tons of relevant information that I use in various ways and I sure do appreciate it. The information provided in this article of history was sent to me by my “volunteer researcher.”

A reader on this website this morning left a comment. Part of what the reader said was: “No, there is no proof of that _____, it is an assumption that it worked.

And as usual, trying to find the minority of examples doesn’t change the truth.”(emphasis added)

I got thinking about this, along with some information that I was sent in which I had already formulated some basic structure for an article today, and surmised what the reader might have meant by “minority of examples.” That’s when it came to me that what I intended to compose today about predator attacks and human encounters, particularly black bears, describes to a “T” what “minority of examples” might mean.

To set the stage, let me say that often in reading, researching and writing about wildlife, the outdoors, environment, etc., I find many are guilty of attempting to prove their position or perspective on an issue by invoking an anomaly or simply repeating an unproven hypothesis. A good writer/journalist will work hard to avoid such embarrassing displays of ignorance and laziness and yet, we have to deal with the ignorance and effort of those wishing to bolster their idealism and/or animal worship, in some cases.

In dealing with predators, it becomes a difficult task for a couple of major reasons. Probably the first and foremost is the level of power that exists from abusing the existence of animals for political gain. It makes sense really, once you gain a good sense of the constitutional makeup of people, especially in the United States today. Americans love animals to a fault. I far too often find that their infatuation with animals is perverse and have often written about it. And this leads me to the other major reason it’s hard to deal with issues involving predators; people have at or near cult worship with certain species.

Today’s topic deals with black bears. For a myriad of perverse and ignorant reasons, too many people seem to want to protect large predators. I think that over time, brainwashing fascists have convinced people things about wild animals that aren’t true because of the political power gains. Convinced of these false beliefs, they perpetuate the nonsense, all of which is mostly based on the programmed affinity with animals in our culture.

The “True Believers” (if you haven’t read the book you can get it here.) then become the useful idiots who are extremely easy to convince of anything.

Those who want to end hunting, trapping and fishing, are often times not the same group of “True Believers.” No, “True Believers” become convinced that only evil people hunt, fish and trap and that because of that, wildlife if being destroyed. The anti-human fascists who are looking, for political reasons, to end hunting, fishing and trapping also believe and teach that humans are evil destroyers of Mother Earth and need to be stopped.

In this impious, anti-human attack on sanity, reason and truth, lies are commonplace within a society that has been programmed to believe that the end is justified by any means.

An example of such can be found in debates in Maine or any place where the useful idiots rhythmically chant the mantra of the anti-human fascists. It becomes an all out effort to protect the black bear (or pick your favorite predator).

One aspect of the debate involves the issue of bear behavior when subjected to humans and their surroundings. Common sense, grounded in fact, science and history, says that when large predators, like the black bear, become too numerous, it can cause conflicts with humans. In addition to the number of bears in a state’s population, the issues of natural food availability, health and length of hibernation play a role in how often bears and humans meet up.

In addition, people are warned not to feed bears and education efforts are underway in many states to teach people how to make their homes less attractive to intruding bears.

Aside from the hibernation and availability of natural food, man can control feeding wildlife and populations. Population control has historically, and with amazing success, been accomplished over several decades with regulated human hunting harvest.

Unfortunately, the anti-human fascists want to put a stop to hunting, trapping and fishing, not necessarily to offer any protection to the wildlife but to build on their wanton desire for political power and control over people.

In Maine, the Humane Society of the United States (anti-human fascists) intends a citizens’ initiative to end bear hunting and trapping. Victory in this effort will destroy a nationally recognized black bear management plan and destroy a valuable American heritage, resulting in loss of rights and the ability to express those liberties.

Those fighting against this anti-human move argue, in part, that ending bear hunting will create a seriously increased number of human and bear encounters; a real public safety issue. The anti-humans state that hunting, or actually any form of wildlife management is unnecessary; that Mother Nature can make it all nirvana. This, of course, is not true.

One tool that in Maine has become a necessity to keep the annual harvest rate of black bears high enough to stabilize a rapidly growing population of black bears, is the use of bait to lure a bear into a shooting area for hunters. The geographic make consisting of the mountains and dense forests has forced the fish and game department to come up with these tactics in order to keep bear populations at socially acceptable levels, i.e. to reduce the prospects of a public safety issue.

The anti-humans argue that baiting bears is inhumane and that baiting the bears in areas where the creatures live, is acclimating them to humans and this action will increase human/bear encounters in populated areas. This also is not true. Feeding bears in your back yard is acclimating bears to humans but baiting them deep in the forest does not. Repeating such nonsense is akin to the use of “minority examples” to substantiate a false claim.

Some of the lies are intended to make us believe that any problems people might have with bears is caused by the mere existence of human beings. After all, in their eyes, us humans are evil. Some have gone so far as to state that if it were not for the baiting of bears there would be no human/bear encounters.

Historically, not only can that not be proven, but it can reveal quite the opposite. Bear baiting in Maine was not implemented until recent years, certainly long before 1945.

Sent to me were a couple of pages from a book, “Nine Mile Bridge: Three Years in the Maine Woods”, written by Helen Hamlin, the first edition in 1945. The pages included below for readers to enjoy, account for the many encounters humans were having with black bears in Maine prior to 1945 and long before bear baiting and Dunkin’ Donuts.


copyright2 - Copy.ngm