July 16, 2019

False Historical Claims About Deer and Predators

Just the other day, I wrote a rebuttal piece attempting to correct terrible information that was published in a Maine newspaper about how, according to the author, “coyote control doesn’t work.”

In the mythical nonsense written about why coyote control doesn’t work, the author quotes work from someone she believes to be a “carnivore conservation biologist” (therefore an expert on predator prey relationships?). This “expert,” in regards to historical deer populations in Northern Maine, was quoted as saying, “They were never there historically. It’s not a place for deer to thrive because the winters are too cold and the snow is too deep for them to move easily. Deer like edge habitat, not forests. They only moved north after the forests were cut down.”

This substantiates the point that “experts” lose any credibility as an authority on predator/prey relationships because they expose their true agenda by making biased and completely false statements to promote their agendas. We see in this statement that this “expert” claims that deer never existed in Northern Maine because deer can’t survive there because “winters are too cold and the snow is too deep for them.” In addition, this same “expert” gets her hateful digs in by making a false claim that deer migrated north into Maine “after the forests were cut down.”

What absolute nonsense! Actual historic documents, not idealistic coyote worship doctrine, show that when wolves and mountain lions were part of the Maine landscape in Northern Maine (that’s where the moose and caribou were found, thus a good meal selection for the wolves and pumas) the deer all lived on the coast of Maine and even crammed onto the islands to escape predator harassment. When the caribou vacated the state, moving into the Canadian Provinces (for whatever reason) the wolves went with them. All of this had nothing to do with the forests being cut down.

To continue the historic timeline of predator/prey relationships, after the wolves left, the deer began moving back north and the population grew significantly.

Beginning the the late 1960’s and early 1970s, the coyote moved into the state and began to flourish. With it, especially in Northern Maine, the deer numbers came crashing down and have never recovered to historic highs and never will so long as predators are protected.

In information I was sent yesterday that originated with Deer Friendly website, provides us with data that makes it extremely difficult to honestly claim that deer in Northern Maine historically were never there. (Refer to the chart below.)

This data shows that in the 1950s and 1960s, before the coyote arrived and flourished, the deer harvests in Aroostook, Washington, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties, all of which comprise the majority of what we would consider to be Northern Maine, attributed to nearly 40% of the total deer harvest. This might be considered a pretty good indicator that in just 4 counties (of 16), 40% of the deer harvest meant Northern Maine historically DID have more deer than they do today.

Let’s compare. In the 2010s, at a time when the coyote population in the state as well as the bear population, are at historic highs, those same four countries struggle to comprise 20%, or about half, of what used to be the Maine deer harvest.

Claiming that deer were never in Northern Maine is a false statement intended only to justify the allowance of the wanton waste and destruction of coyotes and other large predators. The way these predator protectors present their myths, I wonder if they have ever asked why, if Northern Maine never had any deer, why our neighbors to the north, in Canada, have deer enough to offer their residents an opportunity to stock up venison for the winter?

There are very few, if any, legitimate reasons to not control large predators and manage deer numbers to levels conducive to protect and promote a useful, renewable resource. Presenting false information is intended only to place hunting in a negative light in hopes of ending it, while promoting the status of predators above that of people.

Share

Open Thread – 16th Day, 7th Month, 2019, 7th Millennium

POLITICS: Never Before Has a False Paradigm Been So Hatefully Stupid…

Share

Ample Bugs

Oh my!! We’re all gonna die!!!!

Over the past several years, I have been repeatedly told that birds, especially bats, are seriously threatened due to a lack of insects to eat because of Global Warming and other such nonsense.

After spending the Spring into mid-Summer in Maine, I can comfortably assure you there is no lack of black flies, mosquitos, deer flies, moose flies, ticks, and just about all other species of insects.

Share

Open Thread – 15th Day, 7th Month, 2019, 7th Millennium

With New Computer Graphics, a New “Trip to the Moon” Would Be Sure to Dazzle Spectators

Share

Predator Prey Relationships For the Making

To go along with the age old saying that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, the same is evident when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Simply pick the “expert” advice and opinions from those who have theories and “suggestions” that, when cherry-picked appropriately, will neatly fit into an agenda-driven narrative, and you have an instant predator/prey relationship that works for you.

Recently I was reading what is really a very ignorantly compiled bit of broad-brushed nonsense about how coyote control doesn’t work (for the purpose of providing enough deer for hunting). Void of any specific information of just how any sort of coyote control was, is, or might be implemented (it is crucial in attempting to make determinations that result in such claims as “don’t work”) to make the statement that coyote control doesn’t work is dishonest at best.

Not to belabor the issue of whether or not coyote control works or doesn’t work, perhaps missing from the writer’s obvious hatred for those who choose to hunt and eat natural food, is the simple fact that no example of whether coyote control works, or is even needed, is ever considered before, during, or after ranting on about a call for protection of large predators as though it is something that should never be done and by not doing it everything lives in perfect harmony. What nonsense. And it’s so tiring to be subjected to the same nonsense repeatedly.

This morning I was reading a Ph.D. college thesis where a person chose to study the predator/prey relationship between coyotes and whitetail deer in the Chicago area. The Abstract tells us a few very important things. First, that coyotes were the cause of 77.8% of whitetail deer fawn mortality. Second, that there are so many coyotes and deer in this study area that habitats unavoidably overlap, and three, coyote seem to prefer to prey mostly on fawn deer and not adult deer.

It would be ridiculous to make any kind of suggestion about whether coyote control would work or not work in this situation or for the reason anyone might suggest coyote control. As far as hunting goes, if there are this many deer, what coyotes do to only the deer herd is probably immaterial. There may be other collateral damage that is not being considered.

Another example of why broad-brushed accusations and conclusions are ignorant is the fact that an agenda-driven person might use this thesis to prove that coyotes only prey on fawn deer. In this case, because of an overblown deer population and the fact that coyotes, like all large predators, are opportunistic hunters, i.e. that they simply kill and eat the most easily attained prey. In this case, it is generally easier to take down a fawn deer than an adult deer.

In a different scenario, one that could very easily be found on the Maine landscape, where in much of the state there is a definite scarcity of deer and an abundance of coyotes, a hungry coyote or pack of coyotes can and do take down the biggest and healthiest of adult deer.

To claim predator control doesn’t work, based on some hyped up theory about reproductive behavior response, reveals a person’s desire to promote their own ideology at the expense of denying others the opportunity to promote surplus game management for consumptive use, a use that has been around since the beginning of time and this uncalled for totalitarian action coming at a time when people are in quest of natural, more healthy, food.

The writer who claims that predator control doesn’t work, was pointing a finger at how Maine manages its deer herd which includes a degree of coyote control. Again, void of specificity and an understanding of how, when, and where predator control would be effective, the author chooses to wrongfully claim that control doesn’t work.

In Maine’s case, much of the coyote control takes place during winter, in deer wintering areas, where coyotes often make those areas blood baths. Whether there’s any so-called reproductive behavioral response in coyotes to run out and have more pups to replace those taken during control actions, matters little. It is known and understood that any effective control must be ongoing and targeted, thus the reason the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) implements the coyote control.

The foundation of the call for coyote control in Maine is based upon the fact that, unlike the Chicago region, much of Maine has a very scarce deer population. Common sense, often lacking these days, should tell us that deer venison on the table is of a higher value to the consumer than a nasty, disease carrying wild dog. I, like many others, would like to improve our odds of filling our freezers for the winter, and thus we call for targeted coyote control in deer wintering areas in order to assist in the management of a few more deer. I would like to take the opportunity to say that for many in Maine, deer meat is an essential to providing sustenance. In addition, I would like to be able to choose to hunt deer, bear, and moose as a healthy alternative to store-bought meat.

If Maine had, statewide, the same deer density as is found in portions of Central Maine, coyote mortality on deer would mostly go unnoticed. Such is not the case.

Because we live in a post normal existence, where science is about predetermined outcomes that fit agendas and drive narratives, anyone can pick and choose theories, perspectives, and suggestions to support any claim they wish. In this case: Coyote control doesn’t work.

In the same vein, I can claim that coyote control does work when it is applied scientifically in those regions where it becomes necessary to sustain a deer population.

Share

Shock!!! It’s A Shock I Tell Ya!!

Well, it’s been nearly 3 weeks since I was “shut down” for no apparent reason…at least any legitimate one. But I’m back.

One of the issues was that the server that I am on, needed to update certain software in order that WordPress (the software I use for my blogging) could also update properly. After 3 weeks, and no explanation, the web host finally updated the php software but I was still unable to update WordPress until today, when the hosts, so graciously, “allowed” me access to my site.

I apologize to all readers who have come to enjoy reading the truthfulness of this site, along with a variety of information and daring expose.

With over 14,000 posts and numerous other pages of valuable information, it has been a shame that none of it has been available for this 2 weeks.

The lesson? Be vewy, vewy careful when choosing a web host and be prepared that when you are daring enough to write truth that, for obvious reasons, is outside the realm of what today’s automatons would consider normal, I suppose the punishment is to be shut down for no apparent reason.

Share

Dog and Pony Show at the NRA

Regular readers know my position on what should be a person’s unquestioned right to self-protection. They should also know that that right does NOT include giving the government more control over, not only what I see is never questioned rights (not something meted out by a corrupt government), but how and where I can protect myself and my property.

There’s a Dog and Pony Show going on at the NRA – no surprise to me knowing the make-up and character of the NRA. The executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, has been accused of recklessly spending money for self pleasures, Oliver North was fired as president of the NRA (I guess because he tried to stop LaPierre), and now the NRA’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox, has been fired, perhaps because he was in on North’s attempted coup.

In an earlier writing I posted, I wrote: “…why would anyone think that the NRA is not a part of the so-called, and laughable, SWAMP the uninformed complain about in Washington? It tickles me that ignorant people think a “Swamp” is something new, when in reality “Swamps” have existed since Adam and Eve.”

The “Swamp” at the NRA is bubbling, however, the NRA “Swamp” leadership might be making a huge mistake. They think their do-do don’t stink when it smells so bad it could gag a maggot. The membership is roiling to a point they are ready to abandon ship, but not necessarily because of how LaPierre spends their money, although it is a catalyst.

In all of this smoke and mirrors, this morning I was reading an opinion piece published at Ammoland. The content of the opinion piece was one thing but the comments left after the piece are the canary in the coal mine perhaps.

I certainly have been around the block a time or two and understand that 26 comments left on one website about the NRA is not a scientific barometer of the supposed 5-million members of the NRA. Consider this anyway.

In reading through everyone of the comments left, there is not one comment that thinks the NRA is any longer THE top Second Amendment advocacy group. As a matter of fact, most of those leaving comments stated they are seriously considering ending their memberships and most also are refusing to give the NRA any more money or support in any way.

Consider, if you will, nearly all of the comments left voiced opposition to the direction the NRA has gone; that they are compromising, through negotiations with gun control groups, our Second Amendment rights. They also state that both LaPierre and Chris Cox are together on those compromises, which include supporting “Red Flag” laws and destruction of “Due Process,” pointing out that president Trump supported the ban on “bump stocks” and was one of the first to call out “take their guns away and worry about due process later.”

If these comments are any indication as to how the majority of Second Amendment supporters really feel, the NRA might be in more serious trouble than some think. Also consider that such actions are bound to have trickle-down effects to state and local gun rights groups, sportsman’s groups, and politicians in how they stand on Second Amendment issues.

If we consider the State of Maine for an example, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), along with Gun Owners of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the NRA, supported and helped write a bill that was passed by the Maine Legislature in recent days, that clearly robs a person of any due process of the law and protection of their rights and personal property.

I was shocked that the leadership at SAM would actually write and support such legislation, to the point I called for the executive director of SAM to be asked to step down by the membership. And, it appears that the SAM board must also go along with this “compromise” Red Flag bill, as there are nothing but crickets coming from Maine’s leading sportsman’s advocacy group.

Is SAM out of touch, just like the NRA? Are all of these quasi or fake Second Amendment groups in serious trouble because the clear majority of Second Amendment supporters are sick and tired of their right to keep and bear arms (shall never be questioned) being systematically taken away one compromise at a time.

I would expect nothing more from big, false, controlled opposition, Second Amendment groups like the NRA. It appears that the NRA’s influence has trickled down to state groups like SAM who have some righting of their own ship to take care of if they wish to survive.

While the ponies circle the ring, I will watch and see what kind of tricks the dogs will do. If one dog does a back flip, the pony might not be where it’s supposed to be and the dog will fall and maybe be hurt.

Share

Are Tick Bite Reactions Associated With Our Chemical Ingestion?

A reader shared with me the other day an article that, evidently, was published in Peterson’s Hunting. What I received was a scan of the magazine article, so I can’t really share that with you. No matter, you can get information on the Lone Star tick from the CDC. Just scroll down a bit from the landing page until you find information about the Lone Star tick.

The issue that appears to be associated with a bite from a Lone Star tick is that some people (emphasis so far might be on “some”), after being bitten develop an allergic reaction to eating red meat. Hmmm. Maybe it’s a conspiracy formulated by vegetarians. But, why would they put their own food supply in jeopardy by forcing more people to have to give up eating red meat? (Just kidding)

It seems that as time goes along, more and more people are “contracting” diseases from ticks. We can make up all kinds of excuses and develop many theories about why but has anyone actually considered the fact that perhaps little has changed as far as the ticks go and a whole lot has changed as far as the chemical make-up of the human being is concerned?

Humans willingly and unawarely ingest gobs of chemicals into their bodies every day. Whether the consumption of these chemicals is temporary (until it passes through your system) or accumulative, logic might dictate that perhaps the same venom from the same ticks is the same as it always has been, plus whatever chemicals the ticks have been forced to take into their systems. With the human body fully loaded up with cocktails of various and sundry drugs/chemicals, and of course, the ticks may be injecting chemicals into our bodies as well, and the outcome is a chemical reaction that results in the next name for a human disease contracted from a tick/insect bite.

Are we to believe that all these newly discovered diseases and reactions from tick/insect bites have always been around and that due to better diagnostic techniques and technology, they are now being discovered? I don’t happen to buy into the explanation as the sole reason, no more than I blame everything on Climate Change.

It may be years and years before any of this can be explained. When a human – and I suppose an insect – ingest a chemical, the chances are pretty good that that chemical may undergo some kind of change. The chemical may or may not remain in its original state or chemical make-up. With several changes and/or concoctions of drugs/chemicals being interchanged and interacted between human and insect bodies, it only makes sense to me that chemical reactions occur. We like to call them “allergic reactions.”

Whatever we call them, the fact remains that some people, according to their own biological and chemical composition, may or may not react to certain insect bites.

While we can control some of what we ingest for chemicals, i.e. 37 flavors of drugs our doctors, while “practicing” medicine (giving us chemicals to see what happens), prescribe, and eating better foods, it’s impossible to rid our systems of all of them because these “pollutants” saturate our air and the government regularly practices filling our atmosphere with chemicals in the name of “seeding” clouds to “control” the weather.

The bottom line is that we should expect to hear of more ticks/insects supposedly carrying more and other and undiscovered “diseases” all due to uncontrolled and excessive ingestion of chemicals…all for our health, mind you.

Just thinking logically! Scary isn’t it?

Share

Is There an Upside to “As in the Days of Noah?”

I’ve written before about the warning signs that Christ Jesus (Immortality to the flesh) told his disciples when they asked him when he would return again. Matthew 24: 37-39 says, “37 – But as the days of Noah were, so likewise shall the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days before the flood, they did eat and drink, marry, and give in marriage, unto the day that Noah entered into the Ark,

39 And knew nothing, till the flood came, and took them all away, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

In my previous writing, due, in part, to my own ignorance and partly due to my negative character, my focus was and has mostly been on all the negative aspects of what things are going to be like that would prompt the return of Jesus Christ (flesh to Immortality).

(Note: Take notice that verse 39 says that the people living in that day prior to the Great Flood, “knew nothing , till the flood came and took them all away.” Christ Jesus likens his second coming to that event, i.e. that He will return and the people will know nothing until it happens.)

With much prayer and supplication, the Spirit of Truth has guided me along at a pace at which only He knows I can handle. I think I have discovered that there is also an upside or a good side, if you will, that applies to “in the days of Noah.” Let’s look.

In order to understand Noah and the Great Flood, we must understand the Creator of All Things and the Word of God, for Jesus Christ is the Word.

We can find in several places throughout the canonical Scriptures where God said he was the Alpha and the Omega – the Beginning and the End. We read in Revelation 22:13“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

See also Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6,7; Revelation 1:17,18; Isaiah 44:6; and this verse found in Isaiah 48:12“Hear me, O Jacob and Israel, my called, I am, I am the first, and I am the last.” How can God Almighty be both the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, unless He never changes?

In James 1:7, we get but one example that tells us that not only is God the beginning and the end but that He never changes: “Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

If God never changes and if He is the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, then what is in the Beginning will also be in the End. The disciple Thomas writes (Apocrypha Scriptures) that when they asked Christ Jesus “…how will our end come,” Jesus replied, “Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is.

“Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death.”

We know that Yahweh (God Almighty) chose to destroy what he had created with the Great Flood. He decided to send a flood and destroy it all, except Genesis 6:8 tells us that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” and ordered Noah to build an Ark where he and seven others were spared.

If the Second Coming will be “as in the days of Noah,” then we must consider all aspects of what it was like in the days of Noah in addition to all the terrible bad things that had happened and were happening.

Among all of the terrible sin, God looked upon Noah and “found grace.” In other words, he saw something in Noah nobody else had, otherwise wouldn’t they also have been saved?

If the beginning is like the end, then to understand the end that is coming we must understand the beginning.

God will destroy this fleshly existence. Some will gain everlasting life, others will not. Those who will not will be those that “knew nothing” until it had happened. In today’s existence, can God find another Noah? Are all of us “as in the days of Noah” that we know nothing about His Second Coming? Will He “find Grace” in some of us?

In the beginning was the Word and nothing was hidden. I have learned that throughout history, some, for sinister reasons, decided to hide many of the Scriptures, the inspired Word of God, that man would be incapable of unlocking the mysteries that would gain us the eternal life, and to allow evildoers and the “churches” to carry on their own agendas of Satan’s work while attempting to hide behind the false security of presenting themselves as God’s Church. In Luke 11 we can read of Christ Jesus chastising the Scribes, Pharisees, and Lawyers, during a feast by the Pharisees, for keeping the Truth from the people. They began a process to hide the Word of God. The Churches have carried on that tradition over the centuries, leaving churches to misguide, mislead, and bear poor fruit.

However, the Word of God promised that nothing can be hidden and that there would be a restoration of those lost Scriptures during the “Latter Rain.” Luke 8:17 reads: “For nothing is secret, that shall not be evident: neither anything hid, that shall not be known, and come to light.”

Also in Luke 8, Christ Jesus tells the Parable of the Sower. This is clearly a parable within a parable to those who might hear. In brief, the parable of the sower is about a sower, sowing his seeds and how some fall by the wayside, others upon the rocks, while yet others within the thorns, and finally the seeds that fall on good soil and produce well.

As a bit of a rarity, Christ Jesus explains the parable, but within His explanation, we can find another parable. Understand that in His explanation He tells us in part, in verse 12, that the seeds that fell by the way, “are they” (meaning in reference to the kinds of people) who hear God’s Word (seeds). The verse further explains that after they “hear” the Word, Satan comes along and “taketh away the Word out of their hearts.”

When the Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, and church leaders decided certain Scriptures did not belong in their bibles, they removed them; they “taketh away the Word,” and hid it in order that they not believe or believe the wrong and incomplete Truth.

What was once hidden is now being revealed.

If we give honest examination to the way things are in the world today, they really are not unlike “as in the days of Noah.” But can God find another Noah? Or can God find many “Noahs” that have sought and found the keys that will unlock the “hidden” Word of God? Will we find “grace” in the eyes of our Creator? Will we be truly saved?

I believe that we are in that process of restoration now, that many have commenced to find the beginning as they are looking for the end. The end must be as the beginning. Once we are there, we can rest. Once they find the beginning and there are enough “Noahs” to fulfill Yahweh’s quota of “The Elect,” then we will commence the promised 7th Millennium…that Day of Rest.

So be it!

Share

Maine: New Law One Step Closer to All-Out Ban on Wildlife Feeding

LD 1818, a bill that is supported (and written by) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), gives authority to the commissioner of MDIFW to limit and/or stop the feeding of deer, bear, moose, and wild turkey, if the commissioner “has reason to believe that the type or location of feed may create a public safety hazard or may have a detrimental effect on deer, bear, moose and wild turkey…”

Hiding behind the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, LD 1818, goes too far, in my opinion, in granting authority to the commissioner to exercise personal judgement based on their own perspective (a weighted measure) to limit or stop wildlife feeding. LD 1818 was presented as an emergency measure. Unfortunately, the idea of giving the commissioner authority to stop feeding wildlife outside of the presence of Chronic Wasting Disease, does not meet any standards of necessary emergency ruling. This one got away from the legislators…or did it?

It is no secret that the MDIFW has fought against the feeding of wildlife, particularly deer. This newly enacted bill now gives authority to the commissioner to do just that based on the commissioner’s perspective of what constitutes a “public safety hazard.”

Playing around with laws and authority in hopes of preventing or limiting the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease is one thing, but giving a commissioner pretty much Carte Blanche authority to make such determinations exceeds the boundaries of democratic checks and balances as well as a call for “emergency” establishment of law.

Commissioners come and commissioners go and with each successive commissioner, they bring with them political agendas and ideology that may be out of step with the wishes of the majority.

Share